Assume you are the President and are a brilliant tactician faced with:
1) A strained economy that would divert resources and political capital from the coming spending fight if there was an act of aggression in Syria that did not produce a quick, positive result;
2) Sequestered government funding means that your favored domestic programs are straining for sustenance;
3) The inability to identify any reliable, future allies in the components of the group that is generally called the Syrian rebels;
4) Lacking a replacement for Assad's regime that would not be worse in a real politic sense for the US;
5) Regardless of the outcome, Al Qaeda or other terrorists will still be a force to in Syria, and Assad is the best option to combat or at least control them;
6) Russia, and others claim that chemical weapons were not used by Assad, and they present evidence that makes it illogical for Assad to have used them (i.e. the delivery system used rockets powered by the RDX explosive that is not commonly used by governments and non-military grade sarin made it look like the rebels launched the attacks; the sarin attack in March of 2013 on Khan al Asal, a northern Syrian suburb of Aleppo, or the chemical weapons attack on a Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013, were not strategically designed to help Assad since those communities were not giving Assad any particular problem; nothing was gained by Assad, and the use was sure to create a threat of US intervention);
7) The lack of public support for a war or any aggression in Syria by the US, coupled with the lack of a clear military objective or outcome.
8) Despite all of this, Obama carelessly uttered the "red line" taunt without realizing what mischief it would produce,
What are your options?
The best option is to be like the guy in the joke who challenges someone to a fight in a bar, and then falls back into the arms of his friends, and says "Hold me back before I kill him with my bare hands." Or in other words, Obama could adopt a dog ate my homework stance and say that he wanted to attack Syria, but Congress impeded him. The action of Parliament in England gave Obama the perfect escape.
It is common knowledge that the Republican contrarians in the House would not support anything Obama advocated, but that he knows he could get some positive results in the Democratic Senate.
According to the plan, Obama would ask Congress to approve military intervention in Syria, and would quickly get the Senate, at the committee level, to approve his plan. This would make him look like he was deadly serious about punishing Assad and not weak.
Next, and critically, Obama would go through with the charade of trying to convince the Tea Party folks in the House to approve his plan, but hoping they will reject it. Meanwhile, he has his military experts testify that there is no rush or set timetable, and Obama repeats this in his speeches. This shows that he is not sacrificing any advantage by trying to rally Congress.
In back-channels, the US meanwhile tries to broker a deal with Assad to get assurance coupled with a monitoring system (run by perhaps Russia or the UN) that no chemical weapons would be used in the future-which is the best outcome the proposed military strike could achieve.
If the House rejects Obama's plan, the Democrats could use the votes to show the Republicans are not the hawks on defense they have held themselves out to be; but more importantly, Obama would have an acceptable excuse for further delay. This would give him room to find a better solution.
While there is a chance the Republican's in the House might approve Obama's plan, but this does not mean Obama would have miscalculated, because his insurance is Nancy Pelosi who has said she is not sure House Democrats will support the Syria Resolution.