In the days that followed, congressmen and commentators rightly wondered on what other critical issues the president might show “more flexibility” if he were to win a second term. Might the president offer concessions to Iran rather than stand firm in his insistence that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable? Might he accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and go to greater lengths to reach a peace agreement with the Taliban? Might he once again pressure the Israeli government on settlements and more once he was safely beyond his reelection?
The president’s inadvertently public comment raises serious questions about a possible gulf between his administration’s public statements and his actual views on foreign policy.
This is a long-standing problem. As I've written:
[Since] the president and his purported national security team have belittled the very idea that we are at war with Islamist terrorists, it was no great leap in logic to conclude from their actions and language that this team just doesn't feel at war. Not in their bones.
I just don't trust the president's words. And because I don't trust his words, I don't trust that even his actions that I support reflect what he wants to do--if only he was free to act on what he believes.
And it isn't just me or the right, in general that doesn't think the president is telling us what he will do. Face it, President Obama's adoring Left doesn't believe him, either, when it comes to the war:
[The] Left was the president's most fanatical base of support during the campaign despite Obama's declaration that he'd devote more resources to fight the good war in Afghanistan and even go into Pakistan if necessary.
Got that? The Left heard those campaign words vowing to fight in Afghanistan yet assumed that candidate Obama was not telling the truth--just saying what the rubes wanted to hear in order to get elected. So that's why the Left is angry with President Obama over the escalation in Afghanistan--they never believed the president was telling the truth about fighting the "good" war. So war supporters are supposed to take his words at face value?
Even after two Obama escalations, I don't believe the president is committed to winning the Afghanistan campaign:
I'm still unhappy with the Obama foreign policy in many specific instances, but my opinion isn't merely weighing all the policies. It is in large part a matter that I don't trust our president's judgment. So while President Obama surged forces in Afghanistan, I don't trust--the way I trusted Bush--his commitment to winning the war he escalated.
Yet it isn't just the war--which the president doesn't really believe in. As Flexigate shows, I have reason to worry about any national security issue that the president stakes out in public. President Obama is willing to reassure that autocrat Putin about Obama's future policies, but the president won't share that knowledge with Americans before we have to vote in November. Thanks, Mr. President.
I don't trust my president. How can I when he has given me no reason to believe anything he says is anything but a tactical move to achieve his unstated strategic goals that don't seem to reflect a belief that we have strategic interests to defend?
