The New York Times: Obama in Retrospect "Naïve"

In a New York Times editorial entitled "President Assad's Crackdown" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/opinion/29fri1.html), the Gray Lady finally acknowledged that Obama had blundered in Syria and that his policy in retrospect "looks naïve", but not without peevishly alleging that Bush had done no better:

"President Obama came into office determined to engage Syria and nudge it away from Iran and toward political reform. Even after the violence began, Mr. Obama and his aides kept quietly nudging in hopes that Mr. Assad would make the right choice.

In retrospect, that looks naïve. Still, we have sympathy for Mr. Obama’s attempts. Years of threats from the George W. Bush administration only pushed Syria further into the arms of Iran — and did nothing to halt the repression or Syria’s support for Hezbollah."

Nothwithstanding his faux pas, The New York Times editorial board attempted to present Obama in a positive light and to observe what measures could still be taken by the president:

"The president’s patience has apparently run out. Last Friday — the bloodiest day of the uprising — he issued a statement condemning the violence and accusing Mr. Assad of seeking Iranian assistance in brutalizing his people. That is a start, but it is not nearly enough.

. . . .

What the United States and its allies can do (British, French and Italian leaders have also been critical) is rally international condemnation and tough sanctions. They can start with their own unilateral punishments — asset freezes and travel bans for Mr. Assad and his top supporters and a complete arms embargo."

There was no call by the editorial board for Assad's ouster, but why should this come as a surprise? Obama is also not calling for Assad's ouster. Nor is Hillary, who referred to this monster as a "reformer". Nor is Senator John Kerry, whose special relationship with Assad was recently scrutinized by The Boston Globe (http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-28/news/29483723_1_assad-senator-john-kerry-damascus):

"Kerry, a leading proponent of the Obama administration’s controversial attempt to improve relations with Syria, has publicly warned Assad not to kill his own people. But Kerry has not called for him to step down, as he did with embattled leaders in Egypt and Libya."

How charming of the man who wishes to be the next secretary of state.

But what about the sanctions sought by the editorial board of The New York Times? We are told by the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=218494):

"US President Barack Obama signed an executive order earlier on Friday imposing new sanctions against Syria's intelligence agency and two relatives of Assad in response to a crackdown on protests, senior US officials said.

Assad was not among those targeted for the sanctions, which will include asset freezes and bans on US business dealings, but he could be named later if violence by government forces against pro-democracy protesters continues, the officials said."

In short, Obama is still seeking to mollify Assad. Meanwhile, at least 62 more civilians were shot dead by Assad's security forces yesterday (see: http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=218480).

This is no longer "naiveté" on Obama's part. This is "immorality".