Is Barack Obama threatening Syria in an attempt to reverse the sequester cuts?

 I am of the belief that there is always an ulterior motive behind everything that Barack Obama says and does: I believe this is the case with his announcement today that he would seek Congressional approval before attacking Syria, and I believe there is an ulterior motive behind his decision to attack Syria in the first place.

  So what could possibly Barack Obama’s real motive behind attacking Syria? (If we put aside the possibility that he secretly supports al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.)

  Two days ago it was reported that the Pentagon could not afford to fight Syria and would need to have additional funds raised, and then today this story appeared on ‘The Hill’ which states that some see Barack Obama gaining an advantage by this action in the upcoming budget debate:

U.S. military action in Syria could give the White House an advantage in the looming fiscal showdown with congressional Republicans, according to defense and budget experts.

They said the Syria crisis could boost calls by President Obama and defense hawks to reverse the automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon known as sequestration.

Steve Bell, a budget expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said if the U.S. moves forward with military action, it will underline the arguments of those who say keeping the sequester in place impairs U.S. military readiness.

  Wouldn’t that be all too convenient for the Dear Leader? Could it actually be the case that Barack Obama is using the threat of war against Syria in order to gain an advantage in the upcoming sequester debate? Is he using the threat of war to push his political spending agenda because he feels it will force the hand of the Republicans into reversing the sequester cuts?

  I certainly do not put this passed him, do you?