Foreign Policy Takes Center Stage and The President's Judgement Will Too

During the last debate, the attacks in Benghazi took center stage.  President Obama told Mitt Romney, "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened.  That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."

Many people thought it was his strongest moment in the debate, but for anyone who has given this controversy 5 minutes of their time will quickly recognize that the Benghazi attacks have also shed light one of the weakest and disconcerting moments of his presidency.

It has been 6 weeks since the attack,  does this administration have a consistent story yet?  Will they at least acknowledge that they got it wrong and that it wasn't a spontaneous protest that got out of control?

Intelligence records and eye witness accounts have crumbled the president's repeated assertion that the attacks grew out of a protest over a video.  This simply isn't true.  I want to know, who told this fabricated version of the events to our president? Why did the president believe it for 14 days?  Has this person been fired?

During the debate, the president boldly promised that they would hunt down these vicious killers and bring them to justice.  Well, six weeks have passed.  Are there arrests?  Are there at least interrogations happening?

Or has six weeks simply demonstrated that the president's bold declaration "to bring about justice" is simply empty rhetoric?

***

The New York Times ran a fascinating article which shed light on the fact that the president may have delivered a carefully crafted answer to a debate question, but his actions tell a completely different story.

The NYT reporter David Kirkpatrick flew to Benghazi and personally met with a man who many eyewitnesses and government officials have said was outside the embassy that dreadful night, giving orders and is even considered one of the terrorist ring leaders.

Like me, you might ask, how did Kirkpatrick find this killer?  Did he have to meet with him in secret?  Did he meet with him in an undisclosed location surrounded by jihadist guards?  Shockingly no.  This leader sat with a reporter and "spent two leisurely hours one evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan government."

This terrorist says that he has never been interviewed by officials and he doesn't believe that they will come after him.  This man says "he has no plans to go into hiding."

Hmm.  It doesn't sound like a "hunt for those responsible" is actually happening.  It isn't.

What a mockery this terrorist is making of us.  He brazenly killed four of our own and now brazenly, scoffs at the idea that our president will actually do anything about it.  Can we imagine for one minute how these individuals must have laughed to see the president parade himself around on "The View," "David Letterman" and even before the United Nations assembly and for 14 days apologize for some obscure video that "sparked an out-of-control protest?"

Please.  They know the president was feeding us a line and they were the only ones laughing.

***

The president and his administration's tepid and sporadic response to this terrorist attack has been troubling and offensive.

9/11 should have taught this president an interesting lesson.  Americans rallied behind President George Bush at a desperate moment.  We were broken, but he wasn't.  We were scared, but he was strong.  And what was the result?  Patriotism began to swell and Americans rallied.  We rallied behind our president and above all, the terrorists knew that we were coming for them.

President Obama missed it.  We would have rallied and millions of Americans would have rallied behind him.  But what happened instead?  His message was muddied with talk of a video and a phony protest.  It still is.

President Obama has failed to show leadership and no carefully crafted answer in a debate can change that.

Obama was so focused on trying to downplay terrorism that he missed a rare opportunity to stand behind his "megaphone" and declare to the world that terrorism will not be tolerated and that America is coming fast and strong for those who attacked us.

Instead we have a leader who is still trying to articulate which "act of terror" he was referring to in his Rose Garden speech on September 12th.  Not strong.  Not impressive.  Not leadership.

***

Am I implying that the president should have used a horrific tragedy for political gain?  Absolutely not, but a firm and decisive response to this tragedy would have had a much different impact on a president who prides himself on being a bold foreign policy leader.

All we got was a lack of coherency, which speaks volumes about his judgement.

Tonight's debate focus on foreign policy is a perfectly timed gift for Mitt Romney.  He may been caught off guard by Crowley's participation in the last debate, but he will be ready tonight and the American people will see that not only is the president's judgment questionable, but Americans will see that Mitt Romney is more than ready to take his place.

Does Benghazi Matter? 3 Reasons Why it Does

The most highly talked about moment in Tuesday's debate isn't the fact that Obama had a strong performance---it isn't that the president "won" the debate---and much to Obama's dismay, the focus isn't "binders full of women."

Like it or not, the focus continues to be the Benghazi attacks.

Image from ABC News

During the debate, Mitt Romney said, "It took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

The president then interrupted and said, "Get the transcript." (Who was he talking to?)  Then out of nowhere, the debate moderator Candy Crowley, interjected and declared that the president did indeed call it an "act of terror."

Wait...When the president said, "Get the transcript," did he actually cue the moderator?  Had the president actually prepared her in advance with materials to help him at just the right moment?

Is that even allowed?  Isn't that a conflict of interest?

Well, I want to know if Mitt Romney was granted the same courtesy.  Because I am sure Romney would have appreciated Crowley's "fact checking skills" when the president flatly denied that his administration has cut the number of permits and licenses for oil drilling on federal lands and waters. Obama said Romney was lying.  Fact checkers and analysts have confirmed that Romney was right.

{It is worth noting, that following the debate, Crowley admitted that "Romney was largely right on Libya."}

Image from Wall Street Journal

But thanks to the debate, Obama finally offered some clarity:  He wants the American people to know that on September 12th, he officially, although somewhat ambiguously, called the embassy attack an "act of terror."

Well, I would argue that there are three reasons why Obama made a huge mistake in "clarifying an act of terror:"

***

#1 Did the President Prioritize Fundraising over National Security?

1) If the president firmly believed that the attacks were an "act of terror," how did he justify hours after the attack, to leave the confines of closed door meetings with his National Security Advisers and Intelligence Staff at the White House to parade himself around at fundraisers and campaign events? 

Obama in Las Vegas on September 12th (Image from Flickr)

Hadn't terrorists just committed a despicable act of war on America's interests abroad?  Wasn't an Ambassador dead?  For the first time in 30 years, an American ambassador had been murdered in an attack on our embassy and hours later, the president is off talking to supporters in Las Vegas about looking "Forward?"

That doesn't exactly look like leadership.  And it certainly doesn't show the terrorists that we have a president who is serious about terrorism.

#2 Who Fed the President False Information? Why Did he Believe Them?

If the president was convinced on September 12th that it was terrorism, then at what point did he change his conviction?  Who told him that it was a spontaneous attack in response to a YouTube video and why did he trust them enough to believe it?  Who had the president's ear?  And how did they convince him so quickly to change his description of the attacks to repeatedly say that it was simply a spontaneous protest in response to an obscure 20 minute video? 

Image from UPI.com

Whoever fed the president and Secretary Hillary Clinton this false information should be fired.  This information tarnished their reputation and their judgement.  My heavens, days after the attack, our president and the Secretary of State stood before the caskets of the four dead Americans and in front of their families, they simply condemned the video.  

Even worse?  Obama and Clinton spent millions of dollars on a commercial aired in Pakistan where they actually apologized for any offense that the video had caused---yet not one condemnation of terrorism.  

For two weeks, White House spokesmen, Obama and Clinton repeated claims about the video.  President Obama appeared on The View, David Letterman and he even spoke before the United Nations, but never once clarified that our embassy had been attacked by terrorists.  Rather, we simply heard that there was an investigation and that the video clip had sparked the violence.    

We now know that this not true. 

#3 Why Are Only Women Taking the Heat?   Did Obama throw Women Under the Bus?

Five days after the Benghazi attacks, the White House sent the current UN Ambassador, Susan Rice to appear on five different Sunday talk shows.  On each of these shows, Rice adamantly and consistently insisted, "Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, a spontaneous protest prompted by the YouTube video." 

The Washington Post reported that Rice says that "days before her TV appearances, she relied on updates from Security Officials and also on a set of talking points prepared by the administration."  She says that there was no attempt on her part to "pick and choose" possible explanations.  

Either she is lying or someone deliberately used her to downplay suspicions of terrorism.  Why?  Either way, Rice's reputation and her credibility is ruined and someone in this administration is letting it happen.

Secretary Hillary Clinton is also at the center of this controversy.  She now takes "full responsibility for what happened on September 11th."  Full responsibility for what?

Is Hillary confirming that she was the one who ignored Ambassador Steven's repeated requests to beef up security in Benghazi?  Was she responsible for the phony talking points provided for Susan Rice?  Was she the one who had the president's ear and convinced him to waver on his September 12th "act of terror" declaration? 

Was she the one who failed to inform the President and Joe Biden that this was truly terrorism and that there were security breeches?  Because according to the last two debates, apparently neither of them were "aware" of any security issues at this embassy.

If all of this is true, will the president be forced to fire Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton?  If it isn't true, then why is President Obama allowing these two women to take the blame?

Either way, his administration seems perfectly willing to throw these women under the bus.

***

The president and his administration have handled the Benghazi tragedy with sloppiness and careless ambiguity.   An ambassador is dead.  American interests have been attacked by terrorists.  American security has been breached.  And yet, all we see from this administration is that a strange cover-up is unraveling.

To defend the president on many things is fine with me, but to defend his handling of the Benghazi attack is indefensible.

The press may not want to hold him accountable for it, but in 19 days, we can.  We should.  We will.

Go Mitt.

The Presidential Debate: Sorry, Mr. President, You Built This Economy, but I Can Fix It

As we have come to know our president over the past four years, I think most would agree on a few things about him: 1) He is extremely competitive.  2)  He doesn't like to lose.  3) He hates it when he isn't the smartest person in the room.

All of this has been tested since his debate debacle in Denver.

Should it come as a surprise to anyone that his campaign is now vowing a "more aggressive," "improved," "47 percent referenced," "Bain Capital infused," "Romney tax plan," "better prepared" performance tonight?  

Everyone is expecting it--especially Mitt Romney, but he is ready for it.

Yes, the president will come out swinging, but the danger for Obama is that he knows his base is demanding it of him.  Biden tried to feed that beast last week and it proved to be disastrous for him among independents.  The latest Pew poll shows that 50% of independents thought Paul Ryan did a better job compared to 39% for Joe Biden.  Ouch.

It is going to be a tricky line for the president to feed his base the contentious meat they crave, while still convincing the undecided voter, (who is now giving Romney a solid look), to feel inspired that Obama's 2nd term agenda will somehow make up for all he was unable to accomplish in his first.

But what is going to be the hardest thing the president has to face?  Mitt Romney has found his feet.  

Image from The Examiner

In just 90 minutes on a stage here in Denver, Mitt Romney shattered the image that the Obama camp had desperately tried to create with hundreds of millions of dollars spent on ad campaigns to destroy his character.  Instead, Mitt Romney emerged as the leader with solutions, the leader with competence, and the believable, likable leader with the resume to back it all up.  

Like it or not, Romney spoke with authenticity.  He spoke with authority.  He inspired us and offered real solutions to our problems.  Americans liked what we heard.

Is Obama going to be feisty?  Probably.  Is Obama going to attack?  Undoubtedly.  Will Obama have a good debate?  Most likely, but what will Obama be unable to do?

Defend his record.

All Mitt Romney needs to do tonight is to continue to remind voters that Obama has had four years to accomplish everything he now promises.  He already had four years to fix the mess he inherited--to make things right.  He didn't.

Since Obama's inauguration:

• $4500 drop in Median income
• $5.5 trillion added to the deficit
• 47 million Americans living on Food Stamps
• 23 million unemployed Americans
• 5.5 million homes are in foreclosure
• 1 in 6 Americans now living in poverty
• Gas prices have doubled
• US credit rating has been downgraded for the first time in history

Maybe Mitt needs to simply say, "Sorry Mr. President, like it or not, you built that." And then confidently say, "But I can fix it."

Mitt Romney needs to remind us of Obama's record and then ask each American if their family can afford to find out what happens if the president gets it wrong...again.  The answer is most likely no.

Image from mittromney.com

What can we expect of Mitt Romney tonight?  Feistiness?  Anger?  Rattled?  Nerves?  Nope, just a subtle confidence that will continue to intimidate and rattle his rival. 

I can't wait. 

Go Mitt. 

A Blatant Display of Intolerance and Disrespect--and it Came from our Vice President

Last night, as I left parent teacher conferences, I was in a panic to get home and plop myself on the couch---I was an hour behind in the Vice Presidential debate.  (For political junkies like me, events like last night are our version of the Superbowl).

I reluctantly decided to listen to the debate on my car radio.  I was shocked at what I heard.  Biden was strong.  His answers were direct and authoritative.  He seemed to be commanding the debate.  I was worried.  Was Biden winning?

But then I got home and everything changed.

Image from Politico

Image from NBCnews.com

I turned on my TV and was quite frankly, shocked and disgusted by what I saw.  Joe Biden, the Vice President of the United States was treating his fellow colleague, a fellow leader  and "friend" with complete lack of respect and civility.  It was shocking.  The mocking tone he used was degrading.  His constant eye rolling, gasps, laughter and his "Cheshire-like" smile was quite frankly, insulting.  I could not believe that I was watching the Vice-President of the United States treat a fellow colleague with such disgust and contempt.

Wasn't it this Administration that promised to "change the tone?"  Promised to bring Americans together?  And promised to be a leader for all Americans not just the "blue" ones?

It sure didn't feel that way last night and to be honest, it hasn't felt like that for the last four years.

What I saw last night insulted me as an American.  My views may be different than the Vice President's, but it doesn't mean that my view point doesn't deserve to be respected.  It wasn't.  

I kept waiting for Ryan to look at the Vice President and say, "Mr. Biden, I know that you would like this to be a discussion between just the two of us here tonight, but it isn't.  This discussion tonight is about the differing ideology that millions of Americans hold sacred---and my viewpoints represents half of them.  Half of this country embraces these principles and you are insulting every single one of those Americans.  So you can laugh and roll your eyes at me, but keep in mind that you are actually treating half of this country with disrespect for the principles they hold dear."

Then I wish he would have said, "But Mr. Biden, Americans are just seeing for themselves why it has been virtually impossible to work with your Administration to pass any bipartisan-led legislation.  This is how your Administration has treated us from day one---with arrogance, mocking and complete lack of respect."

Image from USA today

But kudos to Paul Ryan for staying his genuine self, for keeping his composure while being mocked and for being, as CNN contributor David Gergen stated, presidential.

The outcome of this debate is still unknown, but nearly every poll released showed that Paul Ryan won the debate.  He did.

Will it matter?

Most analysts say no, but a few things became crystal clear and will resonate long after the debate clips stop airing:  In just 90 minutes, our Vice President typified everything that frustrates Americans about our government.  Joe Biden was the poster child for intolerance.  He was the epitome of disdain.  Joe Biden perfectly typified bitter partisanship and stubbornness.  And I would be willing to bet that most Americans didn't like what they saw.

That is the image that will last.  That is the bitter taste that will linger.  And like it or not, that is what will affect the undecided voter.

So the President can continue to praise his running mate for a strong performance and the Vice President can continue to flash his award winning smile, but the only base that was fired up last night was their own.

Yes, Joe Biden delivered some meat, but it was pretty clear it was covered in blue.

And with 25 days until election, that is not the kind of meat that wins elections.  That kind of meat insulted.  That kind of meat offended and that kind of meat came across a little desperate.

I firmly believe that all Americans deserve better than what this Administration has offered--on every front.

Go Mitt.

Really Mr. President? I'm speechless...

It has not been a good week for the president and things are about to get even worse.

The president and his team have seen today's poll numbers and undoubtedly recognize the fragile state of his campaign.  Yesterday's poll numbers show that Mitt Romney picked up a huge bounce from the debates.  Rasmussen poll has Mitt Romney leading nationally.  Pew shows Mitt Romney with a four point lead and Gallup shows the race tied at 47-47%.

Nearly every poll shows that Mitt Romney benefited significantly from the debates.

Image from politic365.com

What is important to note?  Every one of these polls had the president leading by several points just a week ago.

Even more noteworthy? The polls reflect that Mitt Romney has eradicated President Obama's lead among women voters.  In the Pew Research Center poll, Mitt Romney is now tied among likely women voters.  This is significant because the president has boasted of an 18 point lead among this crucial demographic.

The polls also reflect that Mitt Romney has a significant lead among independents.

Like it or not, Mitt Romney got a bigger bounce from the debate than Obama got from the Democratic National Convention.  The convention where former President Bill Clinton gave a "game changing" speech.

So what does the president do to reclaim his message?  How does he now reassure the American people that he cares about our financial stability?  And that his second term would somehow be different than the dismal results of his first?

He ran this ad.

Umm... I am speechless.

This is sophomoric.  This is ridiculous.  This is not presidential.

The president just made Mitt Romney's job a little easier.  Why?  Because Mitt Romney is the grownup in the room with a real and authentic plan to improve the state of our economy in America.  Even better? Mitt Romney has the resume to back it up.

Americans heard Mitt Romney's plan.  We believed him.  We liked what we heard.

Romney/Ryan rally in Florida (Image from freerepublic.com)

Sorry Mr. President, you are failing to address the fact that despite everything you oversaw, tried and spent, Americans are still hurting---Americans are still losing their jobs---America's economy is still broken.

What has changed?  Americans are now demanding results---results that your leadership could not produce.

Romney/Ryan rally in Florida (Image from freerepublic.com)

Go Mitt!

Who is Drinking the Obama Kool-aid? None Other Than the President Himself

My husband is incredibly quick-witted and funny.  Combine that with his passion for college sports and it would be fair to say that he has frequently dumbfounded many who are loyal supporters of his rivals' teams.  I will never forget the time that a friend left a message on our answering machine hours after we left a college football party.  Our friend said, "Hey, I just thought of the best comeback to something you said."

It was a little sad.

This comes to mind as I have read that Obama is planning to make a "strong and decisive showing" in the next presidential debate.  Hints that he will make plenty of reference to the 47%, Mitt Romney's years at Bain Capital and his wealth.

Only problem?  Like our friend, the time for those punchlines and comebacks will have long passed.  It will appear a little sad.  A little weak.  A little desperate and definitely a little too late.

Image from Toledoblade.com

The effects of last week debacle in Denver will be long lasting.  The shock waves of the president's poor performance are still being felt.  Many reputable polls released today show that Mitt Romney has stopped the president's two week surge and is now virtually tied 47-47%.  Obama's 5-point lead in Gallup has disappeared and Rasmussen, the poll that many analysts argue is the most reliable, has Mitt Romney leading nationally.  Rasmussen also shows that Romney leapfrogged Obama in Virginia and Florida and his now leading in both swing states.

Ouch.

But was the debate really that important?  Was Obama's poor performance really that detrimental? The answer is yes and the president's team knows it.

Image from slate.com

Obama stood on a stage with his rival in front of 70 million voters and was dumbfounded.  He couldn't defend his record.  He didn't lay out an agenda.  He didn't defend himself and it almost appeared as if he was hearing about the dismal state of our economy for the very first time.

Even his closing remarks---the one statement he could prepare in advance---lacked any hint of inspiration or skill.  It fell flat---a lot like the president's hopes for changing this country for the better.

Mitt Romney on the other hand commanded the night.  He spoke with authority and presented his case for a return to prosperity in an authentic and relatable way.  He clearly identified what has gone wrong and what he planned to do to rectify it.  He spoke as a leader and I felt like I caught a glimpse of what it must have been like to watch Romney run the meetings at Bain Capital.

He showed that he was an incredibly smart, well-informed leader with a plan to improve our lives and strengthen our country---and he has the resume to prove it.   Most devastating to the president? He showed that he was likable.

It was remarkable.  It was inspiring. It was game-changing.

Image from politico.com

Romney was so effective that after the debate, Dennis Miller joked on his radio show that even Obama will be switching his vote to support Mitt Romney.

The president's team was busy on the Sunday talk shows in full damage-control mode.  They gave Mitt Romney credit for a "strong, theatrical performance."  The biggest problem with that defense?  Aren't "strong, theatrical performances" Obama's real strength?

The president is trying to make the case that his poor performance was because a "different" Mitt Romney appeared on that stage.  The problem?  A true leader doesn't get distracted.  Obama did.  This tells me that the only person guilty of drinking the Obama Kool-aid is none other than the president himself.

Image from talkingpointsmemo.com

Branding Romney with a "strong theatrical performance" doesn't explain one simple reality:  Why did that allow the president to perform so poorly?  Why couldn't he even defend his own record?

Sorry Obama Team, no matter the excuse, Obama missed a momentous opportunity to sell the American people on his plan for our future.  And many are questioning if it was simply because he didn't have a plan to sell.

The next presidential debate is 8 days away---an eternity for someone is losing momentum.

Obama thought he was untouchable.  He thought he was unaccountable.  He thought his 2008 speeches could never be forgotten.  He thought he was likable enough to dispel the reality that he has been a terrible president.  He was wrong.

Lofty speeches---masterful oratory skills---and a "brilliant mind" aren't going to be enough this time around.  Americans are still hurting.  Americans are still losing their homes.  Americans are still scared about their future.  Americans are still desperate for a leader to help them rather than a leader who simply blames someone else for their pain.

Americans are ready for results---results that Obama failed to deliver.

This is why Americans are ready for Mitt Romney.