Which of these criticisms of Obama’s handling of Syria has not been made at some point?
[ul]
[li]Not speaking out soon enough about the atrocities[/li][li]Speaking out to soon about the atrocities[/li][li]Not taking military action soon enough[/li][li]threatening to take military action too quickly[/li][li]appearing to being willing to act without Congressional approval[/li][li]seeking Congressional approval?[/li][/ul]
If you have evidence that all of those points have been made by people of consequence, why don’t you lay out your case and tell us what the debate is. This is GD, not Twenty Questions.
If your point is that the president gets flack no matter what he does, well, I think we’re all shocked, SHOCKED at such a revelation!
I wouldn’t doubt that he’s had all those criticisms leveled at him, and more. But so what?
It may come as a shock, but different people view the events in Syria differently, and these people come to different conclusions about how we should (or shouldn’t) react. That, in no way, diminishes the validity of the criticisms, nor does it mean that Obama, by steering a course in the middle of all those criticisms, is making the best decisions. (Of course, the opposites of those statements are also true.)
I don’t have evidence, just vague memories that all these criticisms have been made at some point. They might also be false memories. And I put it in GD because I know people here will pedantically argue if one of these criticisms was made.
to the list add: drew a line in the sand that made him look foolish. And a red one at that. That’s like a regular line in the sand with new and improved 50% more meaning.
If it was a puce line no one would take it serious.
Well, there was this one kid named Harold…
A tactical problem IMO is that the President has done little to combine his desired domestic and foreign policies into one coherent strategy to achieve them such as using his triumphs in foreign policy to push his domestic agenda (for example during the debt ceiling debate three months after Bin Laden’s death) and by using opportunities such as Syria and Libya to drive the neocons (who generally are friendly to some forms of domestic government spending if they aren’t being paid off the Norquistas) into Obama’s arms while berating antiwar progressives for not practicing what they preach regarding human rights.
Well Syriaappears to be calling the President a puccy. Doesn’t make any sense for them to poke the bear but there you go.
What is a “puccy” and why should Americans be angry at their President being called that?
It’s a play on words spelled like the color puce but pronounced like the word pussy. The article I linked to made fun of the President as if he was a coward. Americans wouldn’t care what anybody from Syria says but it seems kinda stupid to antagonize someone who is sending an aircraft carrier their way.
“First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”
That explains the UN resolutions authorizing action and why/how Obama assembled such a large coalition to take such action.
Or sometimes that same person will view it differently just so long is they can criticize the president
Which I think is the main point of the OP. Obama’s critics don’t actually have a fixed opinion of what should be done they just reflexively oppose whatever it is he is doing.
The same was true of Bush’s critics (Democrats) a few years ago
Oh I don’t think – I mean sure, no one appears to have a “magic solution” to the conflict, but what unites the opposition (and note well, plenty of Democrats included) is that this is not the time or place to go to war – regardless of whatever semantic tricks Kerry wants to play with the word “war.”
So in that sense, they are very clear.
I don’t think any one person with any sense (i.e., ruling out Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh) would level all of them at him. At least, not at the same time. 
I admit I’m reminded of coverage of GHWB around the Gulf War, on NPR. Leading up to it, the majority of the coverage was criticism for going to war. After, most coverage was criticism for quitting without getting Saddam. In general, I like NPR coverage, but this example showed that no matter what the Pres does, he’ll be criticized for it from both directions.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The array of different criticisms correctly reflects the current administration’s bizarre and confused attempts at foreign policy. You can’t levy a single, focused criticism against a strategy that seems to change daily.
-First we were mostly silent on Syria, opting not to get involved. Ok, sounds good!
-Then we decided we would provide the rebels with supplementary equipment but not arms. For no specific reason.
-Then we decided we would provide the rebels with both arms and training (this only coming after the equipment failed to tip the balance in the war).
-Then there was a chemical weapons attack. Silence from the administration for a week until…
-Attack! We must attack Syria! But we won’t be going to war with them. This will just be a harmless warning attack (“shot across the bow”) to discourage their behavior.
-Well, first we’ll ask Congress. Obama says he doesn’t need to ask Congress, but he’ll ask anyway for no reason.
Face it, Obama is in over his head and might as well be acting at random now. There is no larger strategy here, no master scheme that sees US interests being protected or proliferated.
The concept that a chemical weapons attack in a foreign country is somehow an “imminent threat” to the US is ridiculous. The fact that we would address an “imminent threat” to our country with a handful of useless missile attacks is bizarre. The idea that firing missiles at a country doesn’t constitute a war is mind boggling.
Our country looks confused, disorganized and embarrassed right now and Obama’s hamfisted foreign policy is to blame.
It’s not really a function of what he does as much as what he did that put him in a difficult spot.
IMO, President Obama drew a rather large line in the sand unnecessarily. He could have created a nice gray area where he says he supports the directions of the United Nations should Assad break international law. He’s off the hook. Now he’s drawn Congress in on his mistake and they don’t have public support. He’s making it worse. The best Congress can do at this point is kick the can past the President and let the UN deal with it.
As I have seen it President Obama is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn’t that applies to every thing he does or has done. There are some who started even before he was sworn in that they would obstruct anything he did.
I am no seer, but I don’t care what he does I already know the opposition will complain, ‘The Know it all’s’ and the one’s with all the answers never run for office. Nor do they know what the whole situation is.