By Tom Quiner

This Syria thing is big.

Columnist George Will clarified my trepidation in supporting President Obama’s call to bomb Syria.

Mr. Will put it this way in his column this morning:

“Because Syria’s convulsion has become as serious as Barack Obama has been careless in speaking about it, he is suddenly and uncharacteristically insisting that Congress participate in governance. Regarding institutional derangements, he is the infection against which he pretends to be an immunization.

In the Illinois legislature, he voted “present” 129 times to avoid difficulties. Now he stoops to tutor Congress on accountability. In Washington, where he condescends as a swan slumming among starlings, he insists that, given the urgency of everything he desires, he “can’t wait” for Congress to vote on his programs or to confirm persons he nominates to implement them. The virtues of his policies and personnel are supposedly sufficient to justify imposing both by executive decrees.”

What does it say about a guy who doesn’t have the guts to vote yes or no 129 times? That he is spineless; that he has no conviction; that he can’t be trusted; that staying out of the hot seat is his overriding goal in public life.

Would you follow a man like this into war?

The president knows things we don’t. Who knows, maybe he knows horrible things about Syrian president Assad that are too sensitive to reveal, but that would be persuasive if we did know.

Even ultra liberal Democratic Senator, Charlie Rangel who does know stuff we don’t, isn’t supporting the man who voted present 129 times:

“I don’t see where this issue is important enough for members of Congress who have no skin in the game. You know, they don’t get these volunteers for combat from Harvard or Yale. They get them from communities like mine. And so there’s risk involved — risk for whom?

… They don’t go to funerals like I do — they don’t have any skin in this game. And they don’t have to worry about their families ever being drafted. I say this: For all of these excursions and intrusions militarily, if members of Congress thought for one minute that (the government would be) drafting their kids and their grandkids, you wouldn’t see this overwhelming sense of patriotism that you see.” 

I would not want to send my son or daughter to go to war with the waffler-in-chief who now commands our armed forces.

Would you trust YOUR child with this man?

 

7 Comments

  1. abcinsc on September 8, 2013 at 11:30 am

    Unfortunately my son is a US Marine, serving in the Middle East.

    • quinersdiner on September 8, 2013 at 11:36 am

      God bless him for his service to our country. I shall pray for him, just as I pray for God to impart wisdom on the leadership of this country.

  2. JoeC on September 8, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    So Obama is wrong for wanting to help stop the slaughter of women and children via chemical weapons while Bush got us in two wars on the possibility that Saddam may have chemical weapons. I fail to follow the logic you and many other bashers that seem to take such delight in name calling our commander in chief.

    If you are like most of your fellow Obama haters, you were all for the war Bush pushed us into.

  3. oarubio on September 12, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Tom, I sometimes I wish we could be around 100 years from now — if this country makes it to 2017 (there I go, being a “hater” again). I am sure that 22nd century historians will still be amazed that such a non-accomplisher and a.. (better stop, more “hate”) ever made it to the White House ONCE, let alone twice.

    “129” should be coined to refer to “passing the buck.” Looking at Truman’s desk we see “The 129 stops here!”

    • quinersdiner on September 12, 2013 at 1:09 pm

      I think he was reelected in part due to a free PR campaign that he received from the MSM.

      • oarubio on September 12, 2013 at 6:45 pm

        Absolutely!

Leave a Comment