As one who is frightened by historic Republican saber-rattling, but is also critical of the general attitude of dominance over others shown by the American government, I find the article linked below useful. It does seem clear that Pres. Obama "won" last night's debate on both style and substance.
Two things struck me. First, I had expected the President to be competent enough to more than hold his own in a debate on foreign policy. What I did not expect was his near-total dominance of the evening. Second, I was reminded again of how full of bluster this country's foreign policy has become. The fact that the deaths of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Ghaddafi, can be crowed over and held up as trophies as if in some primitive battle scene is still startling to me. As far as I know, not one of these killings comports with international law, no matter how persuasive the arguments on behalf of the assassinations. This is not the popular position to take, but it is one which supports the rule of law, a concept the U.S. still uses when it is convenient to do so.
At the same time, a Romney win would spell disaster, if he were left to operate the way he operated last night. He showed a chilling ignorance of international diplomacy, the place of Russia and China in the world, and the nuances of the Middle East. His talk of peace was welcome but surprising as he hasn't spoken much of peace, at least not through the media. On style, he was much less combative than in the last two debates. One can credit him for acknowledging Obama's successes. Yet, Romney was far from devoid of hubris and impertinancy, as in the case of declaring our Navy is smaller than any time since 1917.
Whatever else may be true, W. Mitt Romney is not the man for the job of President of the United States. And Pres. Obama has a decisive edge on foreign and domestic policy.
Obama Wins Third Debate Decisively
Coming Soon: More on Alternative Candidates for President (and why you might not want to vote for them)
Two things struck me. First, I had expected the President to be competent enough to more than hold his own in a debate on foreign policy. What I did not expect was his near-total dominance of the evening. Second, I was reminded again of how full of bluster this country's foreign policy has become. The fact that the deaths of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Ghaddafi, can be crowed over and held up as trophies as if in some primitive battle scene is still startling to me. As far as I know, not one of these killings comports with international law, no matter how persuasive the arguments on behalf of the assassinations. This is not the popular position to take, but it is one which supports the rule of law, a concept the U.S. still uses when it is convenient to do so.
At the same time, a Romney win would spell disaster, if he were left to operate the way he operated last night. He showed a chilling ignorance of international diplomacy, the place of Russia and China in the world, and the nuances of the Middle East. His talk of peace was welcome but surprising as he hasn't spoken much of peace, at least not through the media. On style, he was much less combative than in the last two debates. One can credit him for acknowledging Obama's successes. Yet, Romney was far from devoid of hubris and impertinancy, as in the case of declaring our Navy is smaller than any time since 1917.
Whatever else may be true, W. Mitt Romney is not the man for the job of President of the United States. And Pres. Obama has a decisive edge on foreign and domestic policy.
Obama Wins Third Debate Decisively
Coming Soon: More on Alternative Candidates for President (and why you might not want to vote for them)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting. All comments are moderated. Your comment will be reviewed as quickly as possible. Off-topic or inappropriate will not be considered. Timely and appropriate messages are most welcome.