It looks obvious

I’m pretty much on the bandwagon of non-interventionism foreign policy. But it seems to me that it be intellectually dishonest to be non-interventionist selectively, with suspicious set of standards. If one decline to condemn china for its Human Rights abuses, or decline to condemn Syria for promoting terrorism based on complete non-intervantion and neutrality than one should not applause an ex-president for advancing his own foreign policy agenda.

It is also somewhat appalling when one impose himself on someone and than expect to be served as a wanted guest. It is not much different than imposing American democracy - both are implying that because One is superior and stronger one can impose its will, and both are wrong.