THIS is supposed to be an attack on Pres. Obama's foreign policy...

[Drunken Irishman]

YOU CAN’T fault President Obama for inconsistency. After winning election in 2008, he reduced the U.S. military presence in Iraq to zero. After helping to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011, he made sure no U.S. forces would remain. He has steadfastly stayed aloof, except rhetorically, from the conflict in Syria. And on Tuesday he promised to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-continues-his-retreat-from-afghanistan/2014/05/27/ae01686e-e5c2-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

Aloof because he doesn't want to send troops into foreign lands. Okay.

But beyond that, how is what the Washington Post editorial staff said supposed to be an attack? Are they suggesting the U.S. should have sent ground forces into Syria? Kept U.S. forces in Libya? Not left Iraq?

[freshwest]

1. 'If it bleeds, it leads.' A disgusting era of peace may finally dawn. Yes, they will hate it. n/t

[kelliekat44]

2. F the WaPo. I cancelled my subscription tgwo months ago. nt