So the final debate is Foreign Policy. What is interesting about this debate is that I think both sides are confident that their guy is on favorable terrain. Conservatives are adamant they have an opening to go at Obama for misleading on Libya (see below the fold). Meanwhile, the general public is more or less sees Obama as competent on foreign policy, and right now Democrats poll better on national security.
So being as the debate is all foreign policy, I hope it's not just 90 minutes of Israel-Palestine, Iran and Libya. There's actually more to foreign policy than the middle east. I'd like to see some other issues or questions asked. For example:
- CLIMATE CHANGE. This is a global issue you know.
- China and the business of outsourcing (opening for Obama to tie in foreign policy to local economy.
- Opinion on multilateral institutions such as IMF and United Nations.
- Africa
- Defense budget. If it's cut, is it safe? If it is going to increase, how will it be paid for?
- Talk some Russia.
- Viewpoint on the global governance of the internet and cyber security.
etc.
- TORTURE
I mean it doesn't have to be Israel, Israel, Israel, Libya, Libya, Libya, Iran, Iran, Iran ad infinitum. Jesus, I hope Scheiffer has some imagination, what's up with these moderators for real? My biggest problem with them is not their being shills or biased, but their inexcusable lack of imagination.
Ok, now on to Libya below.....
....which conservatives are adamant will come back to hurt Obama. The good folks at National Review say so. Jennifer Rubin has been absolutely flipping out on Libya since Monday--she's gone really become unhinged on it. Then there is this Krauthammer column in today's Washington Post. Here is what he says: (his emphasis)
The burning issue will be Libya and the scandalous parade of fictions told by this administration to explain away the debacle.
No one misled? His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”
...
The video? A complete irrelevance. It was a coordinated, sophisticated terror attack, encouraged, if anything, by Osama bin Laden’s successor, giving orders from Pakistan to avenge the death of a Libyan jihadist.
Not wishing to admit that we had just been attacked by al-Qaeda affiliates, perhaps answering to the successor of a man on whose grave Obama and the Democrats have been dancing for months, the administration relentlessly advanced the mob/video tale to distract from the truth.
And it wasn’t just his minions who misled the nation. A week after the attack, the president himself, asked by David Letterman about the ambassador’s murder, said it started with a video. False again.
Romney will be ready Monday.
You are offended by this accusation, Mr. President? The country is offended that your press secretary, your U.N. ambassador and you yourself have repeatedly misled the nation about the origin and nature of the Benghazi attack.
The problem wasn’t the video, the problem was policies for which you say you now accept responsibility. Then accept it, Mr. President. You were asked in the last debate why more security was denied our people in Libya despite the fact that they begged for it. You never answered that question, Mr. President. Or will you blame your secretary of state?
Well, surely Obama will be prepared too, right? Krauthammer is expecting the Obama of the first debate. Won't happen.
Now personally, I think the anger with which Obama defended himself on Libya, and the optics of Romney's gaffe on Libya (interesting Krauthammer has nothing to say about that in his column) were such that it really will look unseemly for Romney to go there himself. Rove's superPACs, and Fox can continue to lie, but surely Romney himself will look petty. Thing is even if there are supposed legitimate criticisms of the Obama administration's handling of the Embassy attacks, because of how it went down in the 2nd debate I see that Obama neutralized the issue for Romney to talk about. What do you all think? Furthermore, if Libya must be brought up, then let's talk about whether Romney supported the NATO/US intervention when Qaddafi was advancing on the rebels.
I get the sense that there is some massive "epistemic closure" from Neoconservatives on this one. Neoconservatives might be even more marginalized in this country than social conservatives. Given that GOP has always thought Obama is most vulnerable on the economy, I find this salivating over Libya to be wishful thinking on their part.