Mr. Brent Budowski adds to the long list of Churchill comparisons over the Syria tragedy by comparing President Obama to Sir Winston (The Hill, September 13th). Senators Ted Cruz (R., Tex.), and Rand Paul (R., Ky.), and Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.) “literally offer no policy and no ideas about how to stop the slaughter of innocent people with chemical weapons.”
Obama by contrast “has made the hard call and proposed the strong action that would take a real stand and make a real difference.” Just like Churchill in the 1930s, “when the Spanish fascists with support from Hitler and Mussolini began their attacks against the Republican government of Spain.”
Really, these Churchill comparisons need to stop. For the record, Churchill took no sides and proposed no action in the Spanish Civil War. He knew of and was appalled by the fate of Guernica, which killed about as many as the chemical weapons—whoever authorized them—in Syria. But he proposed “no ideas to stop the slaughter.” That was chiefly because his unwavering focus was on the main danger, Nazi Germany.
We cannot postulate what Churchill would do today. But it doesn’t seem far-fetched to suggest that in today’s Middle East his focus would be on the main danger. Figure out which regime that is, and you too can be compared to Winston Churchill.