Finally, the debates are over!  YAY for all the political news junkies!

Before tonight's foreign policy debate, governor Mitt Romney spoke against President Obama's
plans on Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and the usage of drones.

During the debate, Romney agreed with everything Obama has done in regards to foreign policy
from Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt as well as the use of drones.  However, Romney denied
that he was previously against any of Obama's plans on Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, and Egypt and
the use of drones.

In regards to tonight's foreign policy debate, Romney seemed to embrace everything Obama
proposed with the only difference was that Obama had details whereas Romney had none.

Tonight, Romney agreed with Obama so much that I almost forgot it was a debate between two
contenders.  Instead, it was an appearance by Romney endorsing Obama.

When Obama reminded him of his inconsistent position, Romney accused Obama of "attacking"

What we hear Romney say during his campaign rallies is not what we hear him say during all
three debates.  It is as if there are two Romneys.  Their appearances are identical, but their views
on the issues are completely different.  Which of the two Romneys will the voters pick on
Tuesday, November 6, 2012: Mitt Romney or Willard Romney?

Previously, Romney has said that he was against withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan.
  • "…you don’t set hard fast deadlines." (July 2012)
  • "I don’t think you set hard and fast deadlines." (Summer of 2012)
  • "…you don’t announce deadlines to withdraw." (February 2012)
  • "This President has done an extraordinary thing: he announces the day we would
    withdraw…this was wrong." (January 2012)
  • "We shouldn’t have adhere to an arbitrary timetable on the withdraw of our troops
    from Afghanistan." (June 2011)

During his campaign rallies, Romney had constantly mocked Obama's plans to withdraw troops
from Afghanistan, but during tonight's debate, it was just the opposite.

Previously, Romney said that he "would not move heaven and earth to go after Osama bin Ladin."  
He said that we should ask Pakistan for permission.

Side note:
I had always said that former Pakistan leader Pervez Musharraf knew exactly where Osama
bin Ladin was located.  I did not trust him.  And when Romney said we should have asked
Pakistan for permission to hunt for Osama, it made me believe that not only did Pakistan
know his whereabouts but our government did too.  At the time, it made me justify my belief
that 9/11 was not just a foreign terrorist attack but an attack that was formable with domestic

Although it is clear that the Obama administration has al-Qaida on the run, the Republicans have
refused to give them credit.  Saying that Bush's previous plan led to the capture of terrorist leader,
Osama bin Ladin and his chief followers.

On several occasions - during his campaign rallies - Romney accused Obama of not being tough
enough on China, allowing them to take advantage of our currency.

However, it should be noted that history reveals that no other president has ever been as tough on
China as much as Obama.  Going through the World Trade Organization, (WTO) Obama was
successful in dealing with unfair trade practices in China.

Previously Romney said that we should still have 20,000 troops in Iraq.

Previously, Romney said that it was wrong to go after Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Romney, along with several other Republicans had recently stated that Russia was the biggest
threat to America.  At the RNC convention, it seemed as though they were eager to start a war
with them.  But tonight, Romney suddenly sides with Obama; saying that the biggest threat is al-

Moreover, at some point during the debate, Romney says, "
And — and we're going to have to
recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on — on taking
out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaida. But we can't kill our way
out of this mess.

During the debate, Romney said, "
Secondly, Syria's an opportunity for us because Syria plays
an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the
Arab world. It's their route to the sea.


U.S. Matters:
Romney said that other Countries were no longer influenced by the U.S., but according to reports,
he his wrong.

Approval of the U.S. is evident based on the following numbers:
  • Technology: in 2007 at 69%; currently 71%
  • Ideas About Democracy: in 2007 at 35%; currently 45%
  • Ways of Doing Business: in 2007 at 32%; currently 43%
  • Entertainment: in 2007 at 60%; currently 66%
  • Ideas Covered: in 2007 at 19%; currently 27%

At some point during the debate, Romney said, "With the Arab Spring came a great deal of hope
that there would be a change towards more moderation and opportunity for greater participation on
the part of women and — and public life and in economic life in the Middle East."

When he said that, I just turned and looked away.  I was dumbfounded.  I said to myself, 'he is for
women's rights in foreign lands, but not on his very own?  He's for democracy on foreign land, but
sees nothing wrong about suppressing voters rights in America?'  I was confused.  No, I was
astonished.  No, I mean confused.  Whichever emotion, it was clear that Romney's priorities were

Due to Romney's inconsistencies as well as his lack of knowledge on foreign affairs, makes him
dangerously unstable.

The Auto Industry:
On more than one occasion on Romney's campaign trail, he has said that he would have allowed
the auto industry to fail, but tonight he said that he would have saved them.  When Obama pointed
it out that Romney was saying something differently now; Romney tried to deny it.  Obama then
said, "Well let's check the records."

Well, because I was interested in this fact touted by several Democrats, I referred to
and found that Romney said the following:

I suppose it is a matter of "nuance"; Romney words - in my opinion - suggests that he would have
let the auto should industry fail, without government assistance.  It is semantics.  The difference
here is between the definition of two words: "fail" and bankruptcy."  Some may argue if I say that
they mean the same thing, but what is or at least should be agreeable, is that the results are the
same.  I suppose that is debatable - either or.  But due to Romney's and the Republican Party'
attitude towards Obama, it seems as if they were saying "Let them fail and then we can blame
Obama for their demise."

Admittedly, at the time, I agreed with Romney and that government shouldn't bailout the auto
industry.  Yes, I considered the high unemployment rate and that there would be more job loss, but
I was thinking about our existing high deficit.  If no one was willing to see the profitability in the
auto industry, then neither should our government.  At the time, I felt that it was my money and I
wasn't willing to gamble my meager funds.  I figured that if insatiability got us here, then there was
no need to give money to irresponsible Companies who thrived on greed.

As one news pundit noted, there was not a large business or wealthy individual that was willing to
invest in the auto industry, so it must not have been a good bet.

Fortunately, I was wrong and the auto industry prevailed by using treasury money.

At some point during the debate Romney said, "
It was President Bush that wrote the first
checks. I disagree with that.

    That was interesting to hear him say that, as I
    always thought Republicans were disappointed in
    Obama for "bailing out" any corporation as well as
    the auto industry.  I may be wrong; I have nothing
    to backup my statements.  However, knowing
    Romney and his constant inconsistencies, I could
    not help but wonder if what he said was true as he
    has a habit of twisting the truth, or as Obama said,
    "air brush history."  Again, I just may be wrong.
               The Final Debate: Foreign Policy
                         Monday, October 22, 2012
All contents Copyright (Keeba Smith) or other copyright holders. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed for any commercial purpose.
Privacy Policy
Foreign Policy Debate
Posted Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Filed under
Commentary & Political Notes
Keeba Smith is a published writer and desired screenplay artist.  She is the author of “Shades of Bright Pale,” and many other
unacquainted writings. Please visit to find out more about Keeba Smith, read additional critiques and her
unpublished autobiography,
“Spirit in the Dark.”
© 2012
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 and is filed under Keeba’s Commentary    
To post a comment, click
here.  (comments posted here)
Iran has a large southern coastline with access to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
And it has no land border with Syria.
"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for
yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight,
but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers
will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor
and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
    Watching Governor Mitt Romeny over the past months has made me
    realize that he is great at playing against the intelligence of the low-
    information voter.  (And at this time, it would be truly senseless for
    anyone to cast their vote in his favor.)  However, he is a great salesman.  
    As one news pundit put it, if you do not need a vacuum cleaner, he would
    try to get you to buy it anyway.  If you told him you do not have carpet,
    he would say that the cleaner is great on hardwood floors.  If you said
    you just do not need it, he would say that it sucks dirt and dust in mid air.  
    If you still say you do not need it, he would say that it washes dishes.

To the person who has been nominally paying attention to each of the candidates, they should question Romney's
character, as he will lie, lie some more and then later deny that he didn’t sat what we just heard him say.  It was obvious
Romney had no idea as to how he would keep our Country safe - most notably, our soldiers.

For months, I had been concerned of Romney being elected but now I am bothered, as his incompetence will affect my
military family and those who are considering a military career.

Listening to him over the past few months made me think of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and how
they led us into two senseless wars and the cost of innocent lives.

I was already thinking that Romney reminded me a lot of Bush even before Obama could say, "Now Governor Romney
has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. You know, both at home and abroad, he has proposed wrong
and reckless policies. He's praised George Bush as good economic steward and Dick Cheney as somebody who shows
great wisdom and judgment. And taking us back to those kinds of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that
we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century."

Before tonight's debate, I never had the impression Romney was capable of leading this Country.  However, I did and still
believe he will toss out the beneficial policies Obama has put in place, and have us right back into the mess created by
Bush and Cheney.

After tonight's debate, I am more convinced than ever, that Romney will have us in a war within a year or two into his

Tonight, Romney proved that he is clueless on foreign affairs and his arrogance cannot overpower and shield his

Romney's performance tonight showed he obviously didn’t have the slightest idea of how to retain allies nor did he give
any sign that he knew how to effectively deal with our adversaries.  It is apparent that he is clueless as to how to make a
positive impact on either.  He either does not care or does not have a clue as to how to work sensibly within the foreign
policies with peaceful results.

It was clear that Romney intensely prepared for this debate on foreign policy, but it takes more than that.  It is even more
serious than that.  It is about being able to make prompt concise decisions.  It's about the war we are currently in and past
and present threats of war.  It is the difference between life and death.

    Romney is a one-term governor who won his first term with
    nearly 49% of the vote.  However, after 4 years in office he
    had a 30% approval rating.  It has been said that
    Massachusetts is friendly to Republicans - voting straight
    Republicans for the last 16 years: William F. Weld, Argeo
    Paul Cellucci, Jane M. Swift and Willard Mitt Romney.  I
    am not sure, but perhaps Romney did not seek reelection
    because his constant cuts to social programs and increased
    taxes hurt the middleclass too much.

    Romney's running mate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul
    Ryan, is the chairman of the House Budget Committee who
    proposes a deficit reduction plan with numbers that fail to
    demonstrate how it will help a poor economy.  As such, his
    figures are like "fuzzy math" and simply do not add up.  The
    numbers both the candidate and running mate propose is
    pure fantasy, as there is no way in the world that they can
    balance the budget without additional revenue.

    It is obvious that Romney is not ready to be commander-in-
    chief.  Simply put, he is not confident and therefore, there is
    no reason for The People of the United States to have any
    confidence in him.

Some Republicans have claimed that Romney is strategizing but I am not so sure.  Instead, it appears that they are flaky
and purposefully dishonest.  They have a strategy all right, and their scheme is definitely working on their constituents;
they are being duped.

Whether it's strategy, lies, change of plans or reinventing or whatever, it is in fact confusing and dangerous.  Romney is
too undecided.

The reason Mitt Romney Should Not Be President:
    If you're running for president of the United States, you
    should be able to come up with your own set of plans and
    ideas and take them to The People, but that's not what
    Romney has done.  Instead, he has mimicked all of
    Obama's successful ideas and is initiating them as if they
    were his own - as if he was the originator.

    If you're running for president of the United States, you
    don't just agree/copy everything your opponent says, instead
    you should be trying to come up with ideas that are even
    better than your opponent's.  Unfortunately, Romney has
    not been able to reveal he's competent.

    Although Romney revealed his inadequacies, the Republican
    Party praised him.  I suppose it makes sense to some  
    degree; putting character aside, they do stick together.

Even when they know they look and sound asinine, they stand by one another.  Putting character aside, I suppose the
Democrats could learn something about allegiance to the Party.  UGH!  I am just kidding.  Nope, I will never go that far,
but the Democrats should listen to Alan Grayson's remark: "The real two-party system in America is the meanies and the
weenies.  The meanies are the ones who take your money and it's the weenies that allow them to do it."

America needs another

Although the Democrats are not combative and I know they could fight harder for the sake of The People, I still have
more respect for them than I do the Republican Party.

George Herbert Walker Bush made me admire them, but those days are long gone.  Today's Republican Party is all about
"looking presidential" while lacking facts, significance and character.

Insulting Scorn:
Those who continue to support Mitt Romney after tonight's debate are stupid, simple and slow.  No, they cannot claim its
deception, but they are confused and easily swayed.

It may sound harsh, but at this point, I do not believe it is.

At first, I was optimistic and wanted to believe that they were just uniformed.  But even if they were paying just the
slightest bit of attention to the person they plan to vote as commander-in-chief, they should know better.  Please, its only
been 18 months - if not longer.  The voter has no excuse, as they should know a little bit about the person they support.  If
not, then they are not voting for the candidate's ideas and ability, but Party affiliation.  It is as if to say, "I don’t care if his
statements are inconsistent, I'm voting for him anyway."  As well as, "I don’t care what my candidate of choice is for or
against what I believe, he still has my vote."

    Over the last few years, all I seem to hear from die-hard Republicans and
    their constituents is "Anybody but Obama."  It says to me that these
    people would rather have a house filled with 10,000 pregnant roaches
    then to deal with one annoying gnat.  Or even worse, they would rather
    have a killer and rapist run free than deal with an intelligent minority.

    It tells me that they would rather have an incompetent, dangerous White
    man than a Black man who has repeatedly proven that he knows how to
    react during a crisis.  They know he has the ability to fix this dimensioning
    economy, but they constantly degrade and block him.  Yes, things could
    have been better, and Obama has worked diligently and made some
    improvements.  I honestly believe there would have been more progress,
    but the Republicans are telling me that he did not clean it up fast enough,
    and because of their opposition, this economy will continue to diminish.

Yes, The People - those in the middleclass - who still support Romney are stupid, simple and slow.  It is no longer sad for
me - anymore.  Instead, it is disgusting.
President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Romney & Obama at the 2012 Foreign Policy Debate
Romney at the 2012 Foreign Policy Debate
The opposite of President Barack Obama
Ryan's Plan equals fuzzy math
George W. Bush & Mitt Romney
If you're unsure, do not vote!