The Obama administration has faced criticism from both the left and right for its non-interventionist approach regarding the civil war in Syria. The Washington Post, which in the past editorialized that President Obama was "weak" on the issue, upped the ante Friday.
From the Post:
IT HAS been a month since the White House informed journalists that President Obama had decided to supply Syrian rebels with light arms. Since then, the regime has launched a bloody new offensive in the city of Homs, using heavy artillery and rockets to attack residential areas held by the rebels. ...The delay can be attributed in part to congressional resistance: ... [T]he administration’s plan has drawn objections from members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, which are responsible for reviewing covert operations. But the larger problem is an extraordinary failure of leadership by Mr. Obama. While deciding on intervention in a fateful Middle East war, the president has chosen a minimalist option likely to fail while declining to publicly explain or justify his actions.
The Post has also been critical of the administration's response to the military uprising in Egypt.
