The pundits on the left are still bellyaching that President Barack Obama was willing to
bomb Syria. The pundits on the right are outraged at the president's weakness
for consulting Congress, AND for not bombing Syria (yet).
Obama seems
content to let them all opine.
My sense of what Obama is more
concerned with is how historians will tell the story of managing
to avoid starting another war in the Middle East. And, how America and Russia
got Syria's outlaw government to admit to hording poison gas weapons, AND to be willing to
give them up.
How will historians regard a president who got
America out of two wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan? How will they regard a
president who avoided war with Syria and Iran? How will they regard a
president who brought America back from the worst financial crisis since
the Great Depression? How will they regard a president who was the
first president to do anything important about health care for America's workforce in
decades?
And, how will historians regard a president who did all
that, in spite of the obstruction and sabotage the Republicans have
hurled at him since he took office?
If the crazy Congressional Republicans do choose to renege on payments due, by not raising the debt ceiling, right wing pundits may applaud. But who thinks any historians will
give them high marks for such mischief?
So I’m laughing at
today’s know-it-all pundits. And, I suspect there are some folks who
work at the White House who are laughing, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment