When it all comes down to it, who do you trust? Do we, as Americans, owe the office of the President our blind trust in settling the Syrian issue? Or do we take a look at this President's history and recognize there has been nothing he has ever done to warrant trust? In his remarks last night, the President spoke with a certain toughness reserved for heads of state. But in those same remarks, he showed tremendous contempt, not just to the people on the right (which has long been his want to do), but also to his supporters on the left (for a more in-depth analysis of the speech, click here.)
Sadly, our President - in his own need for hubris - made statements last year warning Syria that the use of chemical weapons would cross "his" (he said it in the 1st person) red line. So now that the dog caught the bumper, what now? Assad supposedly used the chemicals on his own people and now the world waits as Obama does something. So far, all he's done is preen, warn and acquiescence. In addition, he consistently contradicted himself, as well as sending Secretary of State Kerry to say one thing while undermining the Secretary the next.
What all of this leads to is a deep mistrust of the Commander-In-Chief. Left-wing television news will scream from the rafters that GOP opposition to a Syrian attack is hypocritical and an attempt to put party over the country. After all, when Bush went to war in Iraq the right supported him overwhelmingly. Of course, Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry also voted to authorize military intervention, before they changed their minds in order to defeat Bush in the next election.
But there is an enormous difference between Bush and Iraq and Obama and Syria. For one thing, the country was still reeling from 9/11 and were ready to attack any terrorist hideout. In addition, 14 times the UN Security Council voted to use force and always backed down. Hussein knew he had little to fear from the UN's sternly written letters and simply refused to cooperate with UN inspectors. For the UN to save face and to be taken seriously, Bush put together a coalition of over 30 countries who eventually fought with the US.
Today, Kerry claims there are countries willing to join a coalition, but has not been able to name a single one. The country is weary from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but only because when the Democrats won in '08 American goals changed from victory to "get the Hell out." Obama did not leave in place American boots who could have not only kept the peace, but to impress upon the opposition that American might is still around. Once Obama took tail and left, it became open season on any and all of our regional allies. And the same was done in Afghanistan.
Do we trust Obama because he killed Bin Laden? Kudos for making the call that anyone with half a brain would have made. Why he had to sleep on it, thereby jeopardizing not only the mission but the entire Seal team, is still an unanswered question.
How seriously can we trust him when he still hasn't come clean about Benghazi? How can we trust him when he supported (and still supports) the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt? How about his decision not to help the Green revolution in Iran, following their rigged elections?
It seems whatever happens, Obama chooses the wrong side, or the wrong course of action. Yes, whoever deployed the chemical weapons did cross a red line. But we only have Obama and Kerry's words that say it was done by Assad. There is reason to suspect that the rebels set off the chemicals in order to blame the regime.
And now, in his latest grand plan, he feels he can trust the Russians in securing and disposing these chemicals in the middle of a freaking civil war! Who, exactly, is going to enter the country, find these weapons and then remove them? Obama and Kerry have both sworn that no American boots will be on the ground. Does he really trust the Russians will do it? Assad's main supporter is Putin. What would make Obama believe Putin has American (or world) interest in weakening Assad? It simply makes no sense.
Obama is hoping Putin can save his butt. But there is nothing Obama can do at this point that will leave him looking anything but weak. As we speak, Russian and Chinese fighting ships patrol the Mediterranean and Iran is starting to squeak. Hezbollah has thousands of rockets aimed at Israel, waiting for an excuse to get their 72 virgins. Does Obama realize that if he starts a war, it affects others besides himself? Do you trust that?
I'm a conservative and after watching what Israel has gone through for the past 70 years, I am very convinced there is evil in the world. In addition, the United States is the sole nation that has the capacity to keep the worst from happening. Sadly, under this President, much of the reputation the US has earned has been squandered, bit by bit. The war in Syria is a direct result of the capitulating speech Obama made in Cairo. And the standoff with the Russians is a direct result of Obama's "reset" button that undermined our allies in Poland and eastern Europe. Obama's ego and naiveté have put this country on the brink of the worst happening.
Just because I'm a conservative, I don't believe in using our might unless it is for strategic needs for our home security, or the security of our allies. Obama should be ashamed of himself for assuming that we are simple warmongers because we supported President Bush in Iraq. When the Iraq war was not going well, we supported the surge that worked wonderfully. But all that was gained was lost when Obama came to power. How can you trust Obama to make the right decision now?
This situation in Syria is wildly erratic and unstable. Conservatives want to find the solution that settles the region, while keeping American interests safe. If we thought war was the way to do it, perhaps the right would support it. But as long as Obama is President, we simply do not trust him to make the right decisions. This has nothing to do with his color and really has nothing to do with his liberalism (not directly, anyway). And if we don't believe in him, you can be downright certain that Iran thinks little of him as well. And as bad as the situation is in Syria, it's infinitely more dire in Tehran, where nuclear weapons are being developed.
It's just a matter of trust.