New York Times Editorial, "President Assad’s Bloody Hands": A New Level of Hypocrisy

In an editorial entitled "President Assad’s Bloody Hands" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/opinion/04sat2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), The New York Times decries the failure of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the murder of civilians in Syria:

"Most appalling, the United Nations Security Council is unable to muster the votes to condemn the bloodshed much less impose sanctions. Russia, cynically protecting longstanding ties with Damascus, is blocking meaningful action and China has fallen in lockstep. India is also reluctant to act — a shameful stance for a democracy that has been bidding for a permanent seat on the Council."

Remarkably, this editorial never once mentions Obama's appointment of Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria or Obama's failure to recall him.

In 2005, Assad explicitly approved the murder by Hezbollah of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, and the U.S. ambassador to Syria was recalled by President Bush. Obama, however, made it the cornerstone of his foreign policy to reach out in friendship to heretofore "misunderstood" tyrannies, e.g., Iran and Syria. In furtherance of this revolutionary foreign policy, Obama repeatedly sent Senator John Kerry, who aspires to be the next U.S. secretary of state, to court Assad in Damascus.

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). This move has now backfired on Obama, leaving him in a quandary how to clean up the mess.

The New York Times Editorial additionally states:

"After the killing began, the United States and Europe imposed sanctions — mostly travel bans and asset freezes — on certain key regime officials while exempting Mr. Assad. Only later did they add his name to the list. The rhetoric is stiffening. On Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that Mr. Assad’s legitimacy is 'if not gone, nearly run out.' But some American and European officials still buy the fantasy that Mr. Assad could yet implement reforms."

Assad's legitimacy has "nearly run out"? Hillary's rhetoric is "stiffening"? Hillary's declarations are as stiffening and useless to the protesters in Hama as a bottle of Viagra. Recall Hillary's declaration in late March in which she sought to shield Assad from disapproval (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml):

"There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer."

Once again, the U.S. ambassador to Syria should have been recalled months ago without consideration for what the United Nations Security Council does or does not do. Shame on Obama, shame on Hillary, and shame on The New York Times!