The Foreign Policy Debate

Next week, president Obama and governor Romney will hold their third and final debate of the campaign; the topic, by agreement, is foreign policy. When the Obama campaign agreed to the debate schedule and topics, the Obamacrats must have thought that limiting the last debate to foreign policy would make the encounter a major plus for the president. After all, by all liberal accounts, Obama has been a great foreign policy president. It is the one area where he has positive accomplishments: bin Laden is dead, America is out of Iraq, bin Laden is dead, America is exiting Afghanistan, bin Laden is dead, America's image across the middle east is much improved, and, last but not least, bin Laden is dead. Even ignoring for the moment, the silliness of that view at the time of the agreement (Obama's foreign policy has been a massive failure), events have now taken place that make the upcoming debate a major mine field for Obama. Let me explain:

The discussion of the Obama foreign policy has to begin with Libya and the dishonest policy followed there by Obama and the Obamacrats. It is a strange policy to say the least. The American ambassador and three others were killed in an attack by al Qaeda on our embassy in Benghazi on September 11th and the Obama response was to deny that the attack had taken place. It was clear to anyone who paid attention to the events in Libya that there had been a terror attack, but Obama and the Obamacrats (aided by their allies in the press) decided to tell us all that what happened was a spontaneous response from a mob angry about a youtube video. For two full weeks, Obama and his people kept up the lie even when knowledgeable people like the head of the Libyan government told us that this was a premeditated terror attack. Congressmen and senators who had been briefed on the situation said that it was a terror attack, but we still got the news from Obama that all that happened was a harsh critique of the video.

The reason for the Obama lie about Libya remains incomprehensible. Everyone knows that al Qaeda remains operational. An attack on the anniversary of 9-11 was a tragedy, but it was one that we knew would eventually come. Had Obama reacted differently to the disaster, he could have ended the election campaign in victory. Imagine the country's reaction if on September 11th, as the news came in from Benghazi, Obama had gone on TV to announce the tragedy, told the country that he would not rest until the perpetrators of this terror attack were brought to justice and then cancelled his political schedule for the next two days so that he could focus exclusively on dealing with the crisis. In other words, imagine the reaction if Obama had acted like the president of the United States instead of just another political candidate. The press would have glorified Obama's actions. Romney would have been forced to support Obama or look unpatriotic, and it would have been a major plus for the Obamacrats.

Now, we instead have Obama's lies and more lies coming back to haunt him. Even the other night in the town hall debate, Obama made a phony claim that he told the country on the next day that this was a terror attack. That claim is crap and everyone knows it. The bad thing for Obama, however, is that as this lie unravels, it makes it easier for folks to understand that much of the rest of the Obama foreign policy (and domestic policy) has been based upon lies.

In the last month we have also seen Obama refuse to meet with Israeli prime minister Netanyahu due to scheduling problems. Obama had time for Letterman and the View and the "Pimp with the Limp", but not for the head of government of a key ally who requested a meeting. For four years, Obama has been confrontational and unfriendly towards Israel. Sure, Obama always had a "reason" or "excuse" for his conduct, but the slights towards the Jewish state built up nevertheless. If Obama demanded that Israel keep certain sections of its capital Jerusalem free of Jews (the necessary effect of Obama's demands on so-called settlements), the Obama defenders justified it as part of the peace process. Similar justifications came for the other insults and confrontations. When an Israeli leader asks urgently for a meeting and says, in advance, that he will fly to Washington or any other location chosen by Obama, there is no way to justify Obama's refusal to meet.

The Obama mistreatment of Israel seems finally to be having a real impact. Jewish voters are finally being peeled away from the Obama ticket. In 2008, Obama carried 78% of the Jewish electorate. Two days ago, one poll split Jewish voters this year by 48 to 44%. No one can be sure yet that there has been a thirty percent decline in Obama's share of the Jewish vote, but if the decline is only half that much, it is a major political earthquake.

There are many other areas where the Obama foreign policy has failed: Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Britain and, of course, Iran come to mind. If Romney can dissect these policy disasters in the same way he recounted the Obama economic failures in the last debate, the foreign policy debate will be Obama's Waterloo.