Let me know if I missed something in the final 45 minutes, because that is about where I turned it off. Was there something brilliant and coherent said by either participant? Did I jump to a conclusion too soon?
Thinking back it’s kind of a blur in my mind but I was so sick of Obama’s “uh-uh-uh,” but when Romney said (even with the great benefit of hindsight) that he would also have supported the Arab Spring in Egypt and thrown Mubarak (and subsequently Israel) under the bus thus making way for “democracy” and Muslim Brotherhood dominance (something that was obvious to even casual observers of the Islamists’ strategy at the time), I thought he doesn’t get it. He also had some mumbo-jumbo about moderate Muslims rejecting the extremists.
So, if you saw the whole debate and liked what you saw, tell me why I’m wrong to be disappointed, and I’ll add it to this post.
Here is reader Lee on the debate:
I think Mitt was coherent and cautious in his presentation; and in the latter part of the debate, he made some excellent points about supporting the opposition in Syria and Iran — not with military strikes, but rather strong involvement with friendly elements, and conditioned on proper use of support.
Unscrambling the egg of the “Arab Spring” is highly speculative. The moderator tried to bait romney with a question if Isreal went ahead with bombing, would we support. He wisely didn’t take the bait; but said the relationship would not allow that to happen.
You remember the “weapons of mass destruction”? Obama wanted to unscramble that egg — why get in in the first place. OK, fair enough. But, we’re there. Romney’s concept was “what do we do now?” I think that’s wise. Newt Gingrich before got in trouble by advising action to take in the past, about intervening in Libya, and then walking it back, when things changed.
Michele Bachmann, when she was running, warned everyone to stay out of Libya, and not to get involved with Egypt as well. (I was a strong supporter of her. Now, I hear from otherwise intelligent persons, that she is “wrong about everything” I don’t get that at all. If we had followed her advice, we would see a different landscape, and we would not have had Americans killed in Libya — but then, who can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Maybe Romney will be wise enough to appoint Michele Bachmann to secretary of state, or national security advisor. Am I dreaming?).
The problem with life, especially outside of USA, where we have so little control, is that things change, and what was good advice in one context, shifts in the next. No one likes to see women and children killed in violence, such as Syria. We have to do something.
A lot of the debate flowed back to the domestic economy, which I think gave Obama a big sigh of relief, because he never had to explain his ‘apology” tour. (I thought Romney made his best points on bringing that out, that our enemies were watching, and making calculations).
I was out at a dinner last night and everyone had a different take on what happened in the debate, were we all watching the same thing? While I was out….
…..this is what Henry sent in:
I had the debate on until the end, but I’m afraid I stopped paying attention to it. I did notice after it was over that Barack and Mitt were very warm and friendly to each other. Interestingly (?), I was listening to Alex Jones radio show today and he said he watched for an hour and ten minutes and then got nauseous and couldn’t watch the last 20 minutes. Alex said a caller’s description was perfect: “The debate was like watching two demons trading lies about fairy tales.” What made me mentally tune out was hearing Romney support the things I hate most about Obama – the NDAA, interventionist wars, and drone strikes.
Oh … and “crippling sanctions” … OMG! sanctions are an act of war. They both support starting wars of aggression without congressional approval.
Here is Greg late last night:
Here is what I heard a lot about during the “foreign policy” debate. Jobs, jobs, jobs. This worked rather well for Romney, who was, of course, wanting to push the economic issues since Obama’s record isn’t so good on that issue.
Romney also gained some “points” in mentioning the “apology for America tour” that Obama went on early in his Presidency. Romney scored again, in my opinion, that while on the “apologize for America” tour, that Obama skipped Israel.
This is what I didn’t get from the debate: I still do not know much about Romney’s knowledge or ideas about foreign policy, other than he said that he would stand with Isreal if push came to shove. I guess thats something.
Another thing that got my attention was that Obama seemed to be perfectly willing to let Romney continue to return the conversation to economics, rather than foreign policy. Hmmm, I wonder what that was about?
As far as the “foreign policy” discussion went, Romney re-iterated that under Obama’s admin. that Iran was four years closer to nuclear weapons, etc. Obama countered that the sanctions were working. I’m not sure who won that argument.
Bottom line- I do not like Obama’s foreign policy and I do not have much of an idea as to what Romney’s foreign policy might be. So there you go!