There have been hints, even from the NYT of displeasure with the Obama adm.
Now the Washington Post, a traditionally liberal paper is taking him to task.
Today's lead editorial in the Washington Post doesn't mince words in its assessment of President Obama's handling of the crisis in Syria.
Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence—a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous”—but otherwise remained passive.... The administration has sat on its hands despite the fact that the Assad regime is one of the most implacable U.S. adversaries in the Middle East. It is Iran’s closest ally; it supplies Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip for use against Israel. Since 2003 it has helped thousands of jihadists from across the Arab world travel to Iraq to attack American soldiers. It sought to build a secret nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea and destabilized the pro-Western government of neighboring Lebanon by sponsoring a series of assassinations.
In its response, "the Obama administration has effectively sided with the regime against the protesters. Rather than repudiate Mr. Assad and take tangible steps to weaken his regime, it has proposed, with increasing implausibility, that his government 'implement meaningful reforms,' as the president’s latest statement put it."
Answer by annabarred at 9:47 PM on Apr. 23, 2011
Answer by LoriKeet at 7:09 PM on Apr. 23, 2011
Answer by gemgem at 7:14 PM on Apr. 23, 2011
Answer by cbk_mom3 at 1:49 PM on Apr. 24, 2011
Answer by agentwanda at 1:27 AM on Apr. 25, 2011
Answer by janet116 at 7:25 PM on Apr. 23, 2011