I see that kind of objection all the time, in both US and Canadian politics, as if making a decision that has an actual Down Side is a Bad Thing. I think that it's very likely that ANY decision that ANY politician makes (or anyone else for that matter) has pros and cons. The decisions that involve only pros, or that are so one-sided that they're not even worth debating are called "Easy Questions", and they've been decided decades if not centuries ago. Now we're left with what are called "Hard Questions".
Just pointing out the con and sitting back is a sign of a lazy mind. The important thing to ask is: does this decision have positive karma? Does it do more good for more people while doing less harm to less people (because guaranteed someone is going to get the short end of any decision). A decision that saves 1000 lives but costs 10 people a buck is a good one. A decision that saves 1000 people 10 bucks but kills 10 people is a bad one. And so on.
So, on balance, is this decision a good one or a bad one? And why? (Note that I know nothing about this one so I have no opinion on it).
I completely agree who you! I was just disappointed to see that the site shows all of Obama's "good doing" rather than showing the cause and effect of each decsion in an unbiased way.
Altho I know that's a lot to ask for.