By Douglas V. Gibbs
Romney began saying that "we can't kill ourselves out of this," but a strong stance must be in place.
Obama used the word "I" a bunch, and explained how the governments need to take care of their own country. He touted the Arab Spring as something we have to encourage.
Romney said we need to go after the bad guys, but also we need to get the Muslim world to reject extremism. Go after the groups of jihadists. As for helping them in rejecting terrorism, keep foreign aid and help them with economic development and education.
Obama then turned to Romney, claiming Mitt has been all over the map, and that he has been wrong each time. Tried to school him: "One thing I've learned. . . you've gotta be clear."
Obama is a failure at foreign policy, but I don't think Romney is understanding what we are up against, either. He is calling for us helping the Islamic countries financially, and educationally. In other words, nation building. Unless we are bound by treaty to protect a nation, or come to their aid, we have no constitutional authority to be there. Syria is none of our business. But now that there is some push into Turkey by the Syrian military, and remember that Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), we have a need to pay attention. Same thing with Israel. As long as the Muslim nations squabble with themselves, we have to stand back. When they move on Israel, or kill Americans as they did in Benghazi, then we must take action. Both candidates do not seem to understand that this is not about nations as much as it is about Islam. The war is being waged by Islam, through terror groups. Both were talking about removing Assad in Syria. Removal of Assad, without a strong coalition in Syria to manage the change of power, will result in a rise of an Islamist government in Syria, just as we've been seeing in the other participants of the Arab Spring.
The debate then became a re-run, going around and around with the two using the same arguments, and taking the same stabs at each other. Obama seemed to live in a fantasy world, talking about Egypt, for example, as if it is being led by a responsible government, and that the revolution was "successful" from the point of the view of the United States Government. Egypt is a disaster, just like Libya. Obama's policies of appeasement have failed, but Romney's plans don't seem a whole lot different.
Though I think Romney fared better in this debate, I was not totally in agreement with his foreign policy plans, either. Romney won the debate. . . barely.
Sure, we want a peaceful planet, but let's recognize evil for what it is, and when it comes to the Middle East, Islam is the evil and violent threat in the region. And when that threat takes actions against our allies, or kills Americans, let's not be shy about retaliation - a quick and decisive retaliation.
One thing Romney did get right: America must be strong.
We are the world's last great hope.
Obama claimed to support strength, but his record says otherwise.
Then the economy and education, came up. The same things were said as in the other debates.
After Romney discussed his desire to make the military strong, Obama went back into his anti-military talking points, and calling government spending "investments."
I cracked up when Obama used the words "our budget," when the Democrats have not produced a budget in three years.
Mitt Romney talked about balancing budgets in Massachusetts, and then went back to the military. Our smaller forces are unacceptable. "The highest responsibility of the President of the United States is to maintain the safety of the American people."
Obama denied shrinking the military.
Then called Romney's plan a game of Battleship. Better capabilities allows for fewer vessels, argued Obama.
Then Israel was brought into the argument. Is an attack on Israel an attack on the United States?
Obama called Israel a true friend, and said if the tiny nation is attacked he will stand with Israel.
Netanyahu may disagree. Obama's history with Israel is not exactly supportive.
He then promised as long as he is President, there will not be a nuclear armed Iran. They are state sponsors of terrorism, after all.
Once again, Obama's words conflicted with his actions over the last four years.
Barry then accused Romney of wanting to take pre-mature military action against Iran.
Romney also said that America has Israel's back. As for the threat of Iran, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. He called for stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions by peaceful and diplomatic means, and that current sanctions need to be tightened.
Though he is right, a military response must remain on the table. Romney called a military action the last resort, but is he like Obama, willing to avoid it at all costs?
Obama denied that there is a deal with Iran, calling the reports in the newspapers untrue. Then Obama said that the only deal they will accept from Iran is an end to their nuclear program.
Romney listed Obama's actions over the last four years, discrediting all that Obama had just said with the facts.
Actions speak louder than words, and Obama's actions contradict what he said in this debate.
Of course, Obama said that everything Romney said about his was not true. . . especially in regards to his "apology tour."
Romney reminded Obama that on his apology tour, he visited Muslim nations, but skipped Israel. Obama said, according to Romney, that America "dictated" to nations, and called that an apology for America's strength. America doesn't dictates. She frees other nations.
Obama replied that he used his travels to stop violence. "Who's going to be credible to all parties involved? They can look at my track record. . . and say the President of the United States. . . stood on the right side of history."
Romney sees Iran four years closer to a bomb, the Middle East in chaos, terrorism strong, Syria with 30,000 people dead, a trade deficit with China larger, North Korea still exporting nuclear technology, and "I don't see our influence growing. . . I see it receding."
38 Democrats wrote Obama a letter about his tension with Israel.
Obama said Romney is endorsing what he is doing, and said four years ago he said the opposite.
He was trying to paint Romney as a flip-flopper on national security, as he continued to list what he considered to be changes of mind by Mitt.
Then Obama went into "after we killed bin-Laden."
"Getting bin-Laden brought closure" - a way to emphasize his belief that the end of bin-Laden means the end of terrorism.
But Islam still exists, and they still want to use violence against the United States.
On the question of Afghanistan, Romney agreed that the troops should leave in 2014. Obama played the same game he did earlier about Romney agreeing with him, but not in the past, and that the Afghans must be able to take care of their own affairs. Time to do some nation building at home.
In all honesty, our move into Afghanistan has been too long. We should have originally moved in, hammered on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and then departed. The length of the war in Afghanistan is the fault of both Bush and Obama.
As for Pakistan, Romney sees Pakistan as technically an ally that isn't acting like an ally. With their nuclear arsenal, we have to work with them, and move them to a more responsible course. As for drones, Romney said we should use any and all means to take out the enemy, and agrees with Obama's use of them.
Obama claimed we stood on the side of democracy in the Muslim World, but admitted there are groups that stand against it. . .
Obama said the greatest future threat to America and the world, he began with terrorism, but said China is too. He plans to insist China plays by the rules, such as in regard to them not abiding by international trade rules.
He then accused Romney of calling him a protectionist on some of his actions against China.
Mitt hit quickly with an attack on Obama's love of big government. We don't need protectionism. We don't have to be an economic adversary with China, we can be a partner. To do so, America needs to be strong, and have trade relations that work for us. China is a currency manipulator, hacking into computers, taking our intellectual property - and it has to stop.
The moderator asked if that stance will cause a trade war?
There is a trade war going on, said Romney, but it is a silent one. We can't just surrender. We can't allow them to just continue to hold down the value of their currency, or steal American intellectual property. I want a relationship with China, but they can't be allowed to just roll over us.
Obama accused Romney of sending jobs overseas, and being on the side of China with his policies. Once again, rather than provide substance, Obama did as all democrats do - work the personal destruction of the opponent angle.
Romney rebutted Obama's point that Mitt would just let GM fail. He said that he would not just start writing checks, but allow a managed bankruptcy, so that GM could come out of it reorganized and stronger.
I would like to add that Obama continued to take as many opportunities as he could to interrupt - especially when Romney said that government does not build business.
The closing statements were about big government (and going after the wealthy) versus smaller government and a strong military - and of course Obama continued to blame Bush.
Once again, Romney won the debate, but not by a lot - not because Obama did well, but because Mitt often failed to point out the distinction between him and Obama. He played the "I can work across the aisle" angle, just as McCain did, in his failed presidential run. However, Romney lost no votes over it. He will still win by a landslide - because Obama is such a failure.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment