Wash. Post calls Obama's dealing with Syria shameful

In a rare show of responsibility, The Washington Post (via The Weekly Standard) says that Obama's approach to the Syrian revolt has been simply shameful:

Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence—a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous”—but otherwise remained passive.... The administration has sat on its hands despite the fact that the Assad regime is one of the most implacable U.S. adversaries in the Middle East. It is Iran’s closest ally; it supplies Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip for use against Israel. Since 2003 it has helped thousands of jihadists from across the Arab world travel to Iraq to attack American soldiers. It sought to build a secret nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea and destabilized the pro-Western government of neighboring Lebanon by sponsoring a series of assassinations.

[...] As a practical matter, these considerations are misguided. Even if his massacres allow him to survive in power, Mr. Assad will hardly be a credible partner for Israel. And no matter what happens, Syria will not return to the police-state stability it has known during the past several decades.

As a moral matter, the stance of the United States is shameful. To stand by passively while hundreds of people seeking freedom are gunned down by their government makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights. In recent months President Obama has pledged repeatedly that he would support the aspiration of Arabs for greater freedom. In Syria, he has not kept his word.

Of course, there's a drawback to the Post's editorial - would they say the same for the PLO's own assault on Israelis at Joseph's Tomb? Why do I get the feeling they would take the polar opposite track on that issue?

And running a police state is a very negative way of handling things. The Post did not conduct a very good argument for the sake of democracies there.