This isn't about children in Syria, its about Obama. His approval numbers
have been sliding in nearly every poll so he needs a distraction! He will fire a
few Tomahawk missiles into Syria and the fawning news media will whistle and
cheer and declare it a "brilliant success". What you will not see or
hear in the news media will be the actual accomplishment nor the collateral
damage of dead women and children (just like his drone attacks)The war in Syria
will go on but Obama can thump his chest and tell the world he is the great
"moral" Obama. Meanwhile, "HE didn't draw a red line and HIS
credibility isn't at stake, the world community and congress did that. Thus
Obama will tell us HE is saving the world's and congress' credibility,
Mr. Will accurately described Obama's character. He accurately described
Obama's conduct as a State Senator. He accurately described Obama's
duplicity.Let's hope that Obama reads George Will's
column.Let's hope that Obama is teachable (doubtful) and that
he has applied to himself the "change" that he expects from everyone
else (even more doubtful).After all the insults he has hurled at the
Republicans, why should Obama even expect them to return his phone calls as he
goes begging for their "blessing" to bomb Syria? If they give him that
"blessing", then they are made of the same "cloth" as he is and
they deserve the wrath of the voters because they will have the blood of
innocent men, women and children on their hands, just like he will.
I agree he probably wouldn't have gone to Congress. Until the UK rejected
the request to go in with the USA Obama and Kerry had no intention of going to
Congress (when asked about it by reporters all Kerry said was they didn't
have to go to Congress).I think when Brittan and France surprisingly
did not give Obama cover... that made it imperative that they at least go to
Congress or risk the campaign wrath of Republicans mocking Obama for "Going
it alone", "Unilateral action", "Being the world's
police", etc (the exact tactics Democrats used endlessly to keep Bush and
any Republican that dared support him on the defensive in any future political
campaign where voters don't like America being involved in wars with
countries that have not attacked America.Imagine anti-Iraq-war
Democrats seeking election after Obama took us to our third new war during his
administration with countries that hadn't attacked America, and we went it
alone, didn't get UN security council approval, couldn't get an
international coalition, didn't even ask the US Congress for cover. That
would be the epitome of "unilateral" action.
Gotta love the smug, "'Church Lady'-esque" (Google "SNL
Church Lady") self-righteousness and assumed moral superiority of an
armchair politico, as well as those who sycophantically praise his
"insight" . . . I readily admit that I don't know what
the best course of action is with regard to Syria. The "Greater
Middle-East" (by which I mean, roughly, from Morocco to Pakistan, and from
Turkey and Kazakhstan to Somalia) is a quagmire, with complicated present-day
dynamics and a nuanced history that we have little hope of fully comprehending;
and Syria is certainly representative of this.I'm not in the
"Big Chair", tasked with making consequential decisions regarding Syria
(nor are Mr. Will or the other commenters on this board), but the President is.
In fact, he is really in a no-win situation, because any action or inaction with
regard to Syria will have undesirable consequences, and will be viciously
condemned by his detractors, simply because he is the one doing it.I
am certain, though, that neither Mr. Will, nor the President's detractors
here, have the wisdom or the gravitas to navigate the situation in Syria and the
surrounding region to the best possible outcome.
Oh man! Obama is the worst! I wish we could have had Bush or Cheney again. We
all know everything would be much gooder with them.
We have history on Obama. He has shown us exactly what he will do when someone
criticizes his actions. He will fight back without thinking whether that
"someone" was right or wrong. He has shown us that he see nothing but
his opinion, no matter how flawed that opinion is. He has proven that he will
lie to cover up his actions, as he did in Benghazi. He has proven that he
expects others to cover for him. What he has never shown is
leadership. He is a follower, not a leader. His poll numbers are falling so he
wants to drop some bombs. Is there a worse reason to bomb a country? Over
100,000 people have been killed in Syria before either side used gas, but that
didn't bother him. All that bothered him is that nobody would march in his
parade when he called for bombing as the solution for Syria.Does he
have any concept of what happens with a bomb explodes? Does he understand that
children will be killed? Is his ego so pronounced that he doesn't care?
SG in SLC,So... was it "smug and Church Lady'-esque" when the
politicos on the left kept insisting a good leader should be able to negotiate
and not resort to bombs (when Bush was President)?Was the smug
"unilateral", and "Go it alone", and the "they didn't
attack us", and "America is not the world's police", type rants
at Bush only because he was a Republican? Or does it go both ways?Seems like the "smug" was on the other foot just a few years ago.
What happened to you guys since then?
@MountanmanObama needs a distraction so he's pursuing something that
is even more unpopular than he is? There's no logic to that.
Maybe we should have let the British win.
Mike Richards,"Let's hope that Obama reads George
Will's column."______________________________What the
President needs right now is clear-headed advice from dispassionate advisors who
have the nation’s best interest at heart. George Will has nothing to offer
these days except bitter invective and vitriol.
It sure is a comfort going to war knowing we have such an astute commander and
chief in charge.
2 bits,Sure, it goes both ways . . . at least, in my view.For my part, I was pretty silent about President Bush's foreign policy
and military actions. I didn't necessarily agree with them, but I
didn't condemn them with the hateful invective that others did, either. I
don't have much use for that kind of uncivil discourse, nor do I have much
use for extreme partisan dogma -- either from the radical far-left, or from the
reactionary far-right. Those who said that everything that President Bush did
was wrong (just because it was President Bush, or a Republican, doing it) were
just as mistaken as those who say that everything that President Obama does is
wrong (just because it is President Obama, or a Democrat, doing it).So I stand by my original post. Please also note that I did not make specific
reference to any commenter by name, nor to any specific comment prior to mine,
just a general observation about those in agreement with Mr. Will's column.
Good to hear SG in SLC. If there's something I respect it's someone
being objective and non-partisan. There's all too much blame one side and
give the other a pass going on now days.
Sheesh! Bush was wrong, and now Obama is wrong. What's with this need to
intervene all the time? Every intervention starts out to be "limited"
and "precise" but ends up being indefinitely long and messy. Just stop!
So much for all the loyal lemmings who constantly declare that Obama is some
kind of visionary leader with all kinds of rare insight and wisdom regarding any
given subject. If you want to know how all this will end, all you have to do is
take a good hard look at every other position he's taken and cause
he's championed. And of course there are those who complain that
we're too "partisan," too involved in "labels," and should
support our wonderful universal guru regardless of the facts or the risks. This
situation just illustrates how much trouble we are in here, and how much we
could stand to lose in the next 1,200 days or so before we can try another new
A year ago, pundits were saying Assad was toast, that it was just a matter of
days until he was killed or ousted. It seemed low risk then for Obama to say
Assad had to go. But Assad surprised the pundits making them look foolish by
hanging on and coming back strong. Now the U.S. plays a totally reactive game
because too much was left to chance. The only one who looks good is John McCain
who can say I told you so.So now it’s gone from
non-intervention to intervention in Syria. It’s gone from the President
needs no Congressional authorization to asking Congress to authorize military
action. The Administration keeps scrambling to get its act together.