By Donald Lambro
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The third and final presidential debate
Monday raised deeply troubling questions about President Obama's handling of
foreign policy in the last four years -- especially on the question of keeping
Americans safe in the midst of growing terrorism throughout the world, and
resurgent jihadist attacks across the Middle East.
Former governor Mitt Romney entered the last debate with
a preplanned strategy of calmly addressing the big, overriding issues that
threaten our safety and those of our allies. He deliberately toned down both
his delivery and his demeanor, as if to demonstrate his confidence that he had
already beaten Obama decisively in the first debate, held his own in the second
and would do well in the third.
And he clearly did that.
Romney's political advisers concluded after the second
debate that, despite Obama's more aggressive attacks, he did not improve his
poll numbers.
To the contrary, Romney saw his numbers climb to the
point where the race was dead even going into Monday's final bout. He had
erased the president's lead nationally and was leading or in a dead heat in the
pivotal battleground states.
Heading into the last debate in Boca Raton, Fla., a
Washington Post/ABC News tracking poll hours before showed Obama "no
longer holds a clear advantage on who likely voters believe would better manage
international affairs." Obama's eight-point advantage in September had
plunged to three points.
If timing is everything in politics, this was arguably
the worst time for Obama to debate his foreign policy -- in the midst of the
growing controversy over the deadly terrorist attack on our consulate in Libya,
where our ambassador and three others were killed. The president was being
beaten up on the network and cable news programs for his administration's inept
attempt to falsely describe the attack as part of a "spontaneous"
protest over an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.
Soon after the fiery attack, news organizations were
accurately describing what really happened. There was no protest. But at least
10 cars pulled up to the consulate and blasted their way into the compound,
according to eyewitness accounts.
Yet five days after the attack, when it was clear what
really happened, the White House sent Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, to five network Sunday morning talk shows, peddling the fictitious
"spontaneous protest" story line.
House Republicans held hearings with officials who said
the Obama administration turned a deaf ear to pleas from Ambassador Christopher
Stevens for increased security at the consulate. Senate hearings will also be
held soon on an issue that shows no signs of going away.
Surprisingly, Romney didn't really bore into the bogus
Benghazi story, preferring to focus on the larger failures of Obama over the
past four years, when the Middle East has fallen into chaos and the world has
become a much more dangerous place under his leadership.
The polls were still trending his way, and this time the
news media were raising serious questions about the White House's role in the
phony explanation to hide the fact that al-Qaida was behind the attack.
At the same time, it was clear that no matter how much
Obama relentlessly attacked Romney in the debates, he drew no blood. Instead,
the attacks made the president look desperate.
Maybe voters saw through Obama's political attacks on
Romney as merely cover for his own failures to restore the economy to full
health and vigor and to get America working again. Clearly that had not helped
Obama with undecided voters and, ironically, may have helped Romney, who stuck
to the larger issues on jobs, the economy and the crushing national debt that
threatens our nation's solvency.
Romney went into the ring Monday night knowing that all
he had to do was to forcefully make the case that Obama had not provided strong
leadership in his handling of foreign policy and rebut the president's attacks
with his best lines.
The Washington Post noted Tuesday that Obama "was
harsh, even condescending at times toward Romney," saying that he knew his
rival had "never executed foreign policy."
Romney at one point responded, "Attacking me is not
an agenda for dealing with a dangerous world."
And the world is certainly far more dangerous in more
places than it was when the former community organizer became president.
He came into presidency promising to sit down with the
world's worst despots and attempt to reason with them. He began with what
Romney said was his "apology tour" of Muslim countries, which did not
include Israel, our closest ally in the region. The U.S., he told the mullahs,
has been dismissive of the Middle East and he was going to change that.
But after four years, Iran is closer to building a
nuclear bomb and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. "Now there are some
10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium, preparing to create a nuclear threat to
the United States and to the world," Romney said.
At another point in the debate, Obama weakly insisted --
as he has many times before in this election -- that under his leadership
al-Qaida is on the run.
Romney shot back, "Is al-Qaida on the run? No."
The evidence is clear that he is right.
Al-Qaida in Iraq and its affiliates have moved into Syria
to exploit the civil war there and infiltrate Syrian insurgent forces.
It has spread terrorist war across the region, in
Lebanon, Nigeria, Mali, Yemen, Egypt and elsewhere, and now in Benghazi.
There are increasing reports of a newly resurgent
al-Qaida in Iraq, a post-Iraq withdrawal problem Obama never mentions.
Even here at home, there have been a growing number of
attempted terrorist attacks and plots that were foiled by our intelligence and
homeland security agents. What is alarming, however, is that these incidents
are increasing.
If anything, al-Qaida's forces have grown over the last
four years and have become more emboldened under the president's weak foreign
policy, which is in disarray across the Middle East.
But all Obama could say in Monday night's debate was that
everything's fine, al-Qaida is in retreat, re-elect me to another four years.
No comments:
Post a Comment