Whether you agree with a President or not, any administration should at least be consistent and predictable.
Here's how Obama answered criticism of his decision to join in the NATO mission in Libya:
"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and -- more profoundly -- our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."
If that made sense, then what of Syria? Other than Iran, has any regime been more supportive of terror? Been a bigger threat to Israel? Been more brutal to their own people? And, about all Obama does is wring his hands.
True to form, he did support a U.N. resolution “requesting” Syrian tyrant Bashir Assad voluntarily relinquish power. And, Susan Rice, Obama’s ambassador to the U.N., was “disgusted” when Russia and China vetoed that resolution (surprise!).
Back on February 4 the White House "released a statement" that said Assad should "step aside" and offering to the Syria opposition that "we are with you"...whatever that means.
Let me repeat Obama’s reasoning for going into Libya. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action." That was his principled reasoning less than a year ago. Thousands have been slaughtered, and countless of his own people have been tortured in the most brutal fashion imaginable including crucifixion.
From the White House yesterday, Obama was asked yet again what he planned to do to end Assad’s assault on his own people. The President suggested more talking – “the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking,” as if Assad has any interest in being diplomatic.