Whose Side Do We Take Anyway?

In My Opinion
When President Obama drew a red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria, he committed us to honoring that red line. Now it seems one of the factions in the civil war there has crossed that line. One of the main problems with this scenario is that the two sides fighting both include radical Islamists.  President Assad and his supporters include Hamas and Hezbollah. The other side includes Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. Who are we supposed to side with? Neither side deserves our 'help'. Had the U.S. intervened two years ago, the outcome may have been different since the oppositional fighters were largely secular and pro-democracy. Not that I'm suggesting we should have intervened then either. But now, after 2 years of fighting, that faction has been diminished. In that time, at least 100,000 Syrians have been killed, and now our President decides he must take a stand because a few hundred people died from chemical weapons? The video footage is wrenching, and maybe that was intentional.  After all, having us intervene stresses our resources.  It forces us to take sides, but again, neither side is friendly to us. Intervening now offers our country no benefit economically nor does it offer any national security benefit. In fact, it puts Israel at risk for attack because that's the word coming from Assad.  Hit us, he said, and we hit Israel. So why, then?

This whole issue raises more questions than we have answers for.
Why does Obama want to intervene?
What's the benefit to the United States to do so?
Why was the President not concerned after so many people were killed prior to the use of chemicals?
Where is the national security concern for America?
What is the economic benefit?
Who does benefit if we intervene?
Who stands to take control of Syria if we help the oppositional side 'win' this civil war?
Why would he want us to engage in another war front when our military is already spread thin and our economy is in such bad shape?
Who actually is using the chemical weapons?
Why is the president so sure that Assad is behind the chemical warfare when Intelligence says it's not definite?
Why are John Kerry and Joe Biden pushing the idea that Assad must be punished?
Why is the administration so eager to do something when they were so adamantly against Bush taking action in Iraq for similar reasons?
Why were they warning and (in Biden's case) calling for impeachment if Bush acted without Congress, but it's okay for them now to act without Congress?
Is this all about the red line that Obama drew?
Why would Obama reveal to the world what kind of attack he would launch, the duration, and the location?
Why is Obama in such a rush to make a move?
What is the objective he's trying to achieve?
Does he have an objective?
Does it even matter if Britain and France drop out of the picture?
Is he willing to strike unilaterally?
What will be the impact on Israel?
Why is Obama willing to put Israel in peril over this?
If the reason is humanitarian, then why not get involved in other genocides?
Was the use of chemicals intentional to bait us into intervening in this war?
If so, who is baiting us?

Too many unanswered questions, too many costs. Obama needs to take this to the Congress and the people.