Criticism of President Obama should be fair

Barrack Hussein Obama

It is important to criticize the president based on critical observations and facts, but accusing him of doing something that other leaders had done in the past, is absolutely wrong and misleading.
First of all, president Obama's foreign policy should be criticized based on the events and the relevancy of the president's decisions to the events in relation to US national interesting. All his opponents should criticize him for doing things that are completely different. For instance, Obama criticized president Bush's administration of torture, but he ordered the extermination of American citizens and suspected terrorists using drones. Somehow, pouring water on someone's blindfolded face to simulate drowning, is evil, but firing missiles into moving cars and into a house where suspected terrorists and family are having dinner is somehow fine. Voters have the right to go after him for saying one thing while doing something else which is the guiding principle of the Obama administration since 2008.
Secondly, the notion that Obama is arming US enemy and sponsoring terrorists because he himself is Muslim is completely wrong because simply inaccurate. No all president approach public and private issues the same way, nor domestic and international issues. For president Obama, his views on Al Qaeda and the "War Against Terrorism" fell flat when terrorists attacked Ambassador Stevens and murdered three other employees. Thus, his opponents have all the rights in the world to attack him based for his failure to protect these US diplomats, and why he allowed them to enter one of the most dangerous places on earth without military backup.
But the US has a long history of supporting oppositions to its worst enemies in the world, and when world brutal regimes stood against US enemies, US was there to support them. For instance, president Reagan and Bush (two Republicans) armed some of the worst repressive regimes in the world during the cold-war era, many of them against Communism. US also armed people that are being called today as "terrorists" to fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and when Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the US ally in Iran - the Sha, US funded Iraq to attack Iran; a war with which the Iraqi regime used chemical weapons to kill Iranian suicide soldiers. US didn't only provide raw materials that Saddam Hussein used to build his weapons, it also supplies maps, and other logistic support to the Iraqi army.
Thus, it is rather foolish to assume that Obama is funding terrorist because he is a Muslim. His arming of the opposition in Syria should be condemned for what it is - a total failure of a foreign policy that is rooted in passivity and weak diplomacy. This foreign policy should be criticized based on merits; based on the fact that arming rebels may be dangerous, and that a short attack on Assad may not achieve the objective that is to "downgrade" Assad's power, because the US military has the capability but cannot control the unintended consequences of war. This military plan may drag the US into an all-out war against Syria if the plan  failed. 
These are legitimate criticism of the president, but to accuse him of Arming Al Qaeda because he is a member of the Muslim Brother (a rumor) is absolutely wrong because past presidents armed some of the worst military and factions in the world, including rebel group in Columbia and some in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. It is a tradition of "do what best America first" and apologize later. It is wise to go after the policies and decisions than leveling president Obama based on something that is not true to simply tarnish his reputation.