About The President's Speech

The president was obviously let off the hook, at least temporarily, with the Syrians agreeing to a Russian deal to turn over the chemical weapons to an as yet undetermined neutral international agency.  Before this turn of events, his speech was to justify his blunder of drawing a red line the Syrians must not cross or he would act if they used chemical weapons.  At the time he drew that red line he was "apparently" unaware of the well known fact that chemical weapons had already been used on two earlier occasions.  Anyway, the speech was typical Obama.  He maintained that if the turn over of the weapons did not happen within a reasonable time he reserved the right to bomb anyway.  His over-riding reasons:  It violates international law and we must do it for the children.  It is fair to call out the first reason but the second, I don't know about.  He has authorized the launch of missiles with conventional weapons on numerous Middle Eastern sites since taking office that have killed countless children.  Why the sudden interest in protecting the children?  I know the weapons are horrendous but are deaths by chemical weapons different from deaths by conventional weapons?     
http://www.redstate.com/2013/09/10/that-speech/  

George Burns