While discussing President Obama's interview with Charlie Rose, Mark Halperin found the president's remarks on Syria to have an "indecisive quality" about them:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So Mark, the president it seems to me the president's position on Syria is like the president's position on the NSA is the president's position on just about everything right now, he's the law professor. Some of this, however there's some of that. It’s terribly frustrating for both sides.
MARK HALPERIN: Yeah, I mean if you look at the long interview he did with Charlie Rose, he characterized it just right. He’s great at explaining why we shouldn't go in. He’s great at explaining why we might go in. But there's an indecisive quality to it that's really getting a lot of critics up in arms on both sides. On all these issues, you've got people on the left and right who are unhappy. You’ve got people who want to be involved in Syria on the left who say we've got to stop atrocities. You got a lot of critics on the rights that say he's not tough enough on that. I understand intellectually where he is on that. This is a time when it appears Gene's concern notwithstanding; the U.S. is going to step up his role. The president is going to have to explain it better than he has. Why is it different now? Why should we go in in spite of the reservations he's laid out?