Thursday, September 5, 2013

The Bold Leadership MA Deserves...

We have visionaries here in MA.

Sen. Markey Votes “Present” On Syria Resolution
BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts two Democratic U.S. senators say they want more information before deciding how to vote on President Barack Obama’s request for limited military action in Syria.

Sen. Edward Markey, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Wednesday he voted “present” on the latest version of the resolution.
Okay, so someone on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn't have enough information to vote yes or no on the proposal. What does that tell the rest of us about the strength of the information being presented out of Syria right now? I suppose it's possible that Markey's "present" vote is an homage to President Obama's senate career (and at this point, Markey has been an acting senator about as long as Obama had before he started running for President...)

We had a larger coalition going into Iraq. We had at least as much evidence that Hussein was slaughtering his own people. We had direct evidence that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to its neighbors. We had over a decade of sanctions and military action against Iraq (remember Tomahawk strikes on Iraq the night before Clinton's impeachment vote?).

And yet for YEARS we heard the left bleating about how Iraq wasn't a threat to us; that "Bush lied, people died"; how the war was "illegal" because it didn't have UN support; etc. Those voices are strangely silent now, aren't they? We're left with Cindy Sheehan - who, BTW, I have a lot more respect for now as she's not just complaining when "her guy" is out of office; although the media sure dropped her like a 10 pound sack of radioactive owl turds, didn't they...

And all Ed Markey can do is vote "present". Bravo, Ed. Way to really stick your neck out there. I mean, I guess it's a pretty tough call for a Senator from Massachusetts. On the one hand, we spent the last ten years talking about how bad war was, m'kay, and trashing the last President for warlike talk and actions. But on the other hand, Massachusetts liberals want their lips firmly planted on Teleprompter Jesus's hindquarters. Markey must have been up all night anguishing about his vote to punt...

I guess it is true what they say about getting the leadership one deserves...

That is all.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now, Jay. We do have a strong ally in France.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

I couldn't keep a straight face with that one.

Joseph in IL

Glenn B said...

He's just voting like Obama used to vote, isn't he!

Rob said...

Libya went well enough ($$$) they seem to have forgotten Iraq & Afghanistan. But maybe they went well too ($$$)?

Why get involved in another war over there?
Follow The Money....

Anonymous said...

Sweden called, they want their Peace prize back.

Gerry

Old NFO said...

Nobody wants to be on record on this one...

Geodkyt said...

Bush is pissed. He must not have bombed enough Arabs to get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Daniel in Brookline said...

I thought the Nobel Committee was quite clear -- that they gave Obama the prize, in large part, because he wasn't Bush.

(Had Obama lost the election, would John McCain have gotten one? I doubt it, but one wonders...)

Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for making everyone think he'd do Great Things, Someday Real Soon Now. Al Gore got one for making a movie full of lies about the environment (and as a consolation prize for not being President). Jimmy Carter got one for not being Bush. Yitzhak Rabin got one for shaking a terrorist's hand on the White House Lawn -- and the terrorist in question got one too.

At this rate, in a couple of years, they'll be giving out Nobel Peace Prizes in Cracker-Jack boxes. (To everyone but Bush, of course.)

TOTWTYTR said...

Ed Markey has always been a weasel and this is no different. The voters of MA got what they deserved, especially the ones that stayed home because Gomez wasn't enough of a Republican for their standards.

Every day I want to get out of this poor excuse for a state more and more.

Ed said...

Think about it. If you ask someone "Are you with me? Or are you against me?", then the response of "Present" cannot be taken as being "with me", while at the same time not declaring "against me", which most definitely would be used against the respondent.