I say no.
Even if Assad did use chemical weapons, how is that any different to killing people with a gun a bomb or a flamethrower?
Thus far it has not been convincingly proven that Assad used chemical weapons and I certainly do not think his interests would have been served had he used chemical weapons. The Al Qaeda aligned militants have a lot more to gain from Assad using chemical weapons than Assad has to gain. While I am not an advocate of Assad by any means - I think he is evil, I don't think his opponents are any better. I think his militant Islamic opposition are evil enough to kill thousands of innocent people in order to stir up international opposition against Assad. Al Qaeda will murder innocents for the sake of their cause.
Does it serve American interests to bomb Syria? No. I can't see how you send a message to a regime that murdering citizens is wrong by sending across bombs to kill citizens. It certainly does not serve American interests to remove Assad. What will replace him? Probably the same evil lunatics that replaced Mubarak in Eygpt and Gadaffi in Lybia - insane barbaric murderous Muslim terrorists!
The USA should stop interfering in the middle east, just as it should withdraw from Japan, Afghanisatan, South Korea and Germany.