Last week President Barack Obama insisted he had the authority to unilaterally order an attack in response to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria – which, as Commander in Chief,

he does.

As the world waited for the president to give the green light, Obama performed a reverse move that would have been better suited if it were accompanied with blinking lights and a cautionary horn. The Commander in Chief of our armed forces informed the world he would ask Congress to authorize a military response.

But wait, isn’t this the same body that our president has blamed for all of our ails and problems? It’s confusing that the president continued to reiterate that he had the power to order such an attack, considering what the then-candidate told The Boston Globe in late 2007. “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” At this point in his presidency, should we be surprised that Obama has contradicted himself?

The president must have the most fatigued pointer finger in the world. He does nothing but wag his finger. The Egyptian military ousts a democratically-elected leader? “No, no, no … don’t do that.” The Syrian Air Force drops bombs on random rebel-held neighborhoods? “No, no, no … don’t do that.” And now, he can’t even follow his own ultimatum. On Aug. 20, 2012 the president gave the Syrian government a red line, a line that would carry “enormous consequences” if crossed. The president said the red line would be crossed if, “we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.” But according to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry, we have irrefutable evidence that that has occurred.

Yet again, President Obama is “leading from behind.” He refuses to take action, an action that he clearly felt during last week he had authorization to carry out. Is this a leader that exudes confidence? But that’s the man that so many re-elected into the office for a second term.

In last year’s presidential election our “Campaigner in Chief” told us what he wanted out of the Syrian conflict. “An effective transition so that we get Assad out. That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown. That’s the kind of leadership we’ll continue to show.” Effective transition? Leadership? Mr. President, those couldn’t be further from the truth.

The world needs a strong America right now. We need to gather the proper intelligence to inform us which targets will effectively cripple the Assad regime, and we need to ascertain which rebels are the kind that we want to back. The Free Syrian Army is the kind of secular, moderate movement we want. They hold town-hall meetings and yield to the local government in areas secured by them. Al-Nusra Front, while a small portion of the rebel forces, is a very dangerous, Al Qaeda-linked group. We need to have a strong leader, who can make tough decisions. What’s our leader doing? Yielding to Congress.

Obama issued his red line ultimatum in August 2012, and on Oct. 22, 2012, he said, “I am confident Assad’s days are numbered,” and on April 25 of this year, Hagel informed the world that the administration had evidence to believe the Syrian military had used chemical weapons against its own people.

The president waffles so often, he should open up an IHOP at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.