An article regarding the President Obama’s stance on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has some issues when it comes to criticizing his word choice. The first major criticism the author Steven Mufson claims is that President Obama has trouble with “three short words”: “Assad must go.” Implying that President Obama is being too cautious around the situation regarding Syria’s civil war and Bashar al Assad’s ultimate power in Syria. Many people, including Mufson agree that President Obama must be more clear about that he wants to do about the conflicts in Syria. What this article is doing is portraying President Obama as potentially indecisive. It is clear that President Obama wants to oust Dictator Assad from Syria, but the public wants him to be more straight-forward about it. This article is discrediting President Obama in a way by showing examples on where he would change his opinion on certain issues.
While President Obama, according to this article regarding Syria, is inconsistent, Obama may just be trying to agree with the public’s opinion. The friction between the United States and Russia also comes to the table when discussing this topic; President Obama has to watch his word-choice in order to be able to compromise with other nations. While some people think Obama should be more consistent and transparent about his intentions regarding Syria, he should not act without thinking. I believe, while President Obama does want to oust Dictator Assad, he is still debating on how and when we (the United States) should interfere.