Honestly, did Scott write this before or after the debate?

Scot most certianly did have most of this ready to serve up as anoher Globe sponsored arrow slung to hurt the local candidate.  Romney had one mission in this debate:  To rise above the petty bickering of the lat debate, and come across as the geown up.  He succeeded in spades, acting measured, mature and presidential compared to Obama's petty demeanor.

What, exactly, was Obama's foreigh policy "gravitas" in 2008?  Growing up in a Muslim country?  Decrying all of the George Bush policies?  Being mentored his whole life by some of the most anti American radicals?  On this measure, he had none, and his results have been a disaster.  He his treated Israel with disrespect, he has failed to slow the Iranian march to being a nuclear power, and terror is on the rise against the US.  He has projected Neville CHamberlain like weakness, begining with his apology tour, and continuing through his Pakistan TV ad where he apologized for this anti Islam video.

Yes, he ordered the attack which killed Bin Laden.  But that does not make for a good foreign policy record, any more than John Kerry's serviing in Vietnam would have.  

Scot is going to keep taking these little shots at Romney, and he has for 10 years.  It is becoming a little tired.  Romney has succeeded in just about every endeavor he has undertaken, and has earned the trust of the American people.  Obama was an anomoly.  A charasmatic black man, who attracts adoring crowds like a rock star, but who lacks the basic qualifications to be the chief executive of our nation.  It seems quite amazing that smart people like Scot are still under the spell, expecially after these last 4 years.

Romney's weakness, incompetence, and cluelessness in foreign policy make him unfit for the presidency. His unsteady, nervous performance in Monday's debate was just another demonstration for the world to see that he cannot handle the responsibilities of commander in chief. Romney's proven dishonesty, his demonstrably bad judgment and recklessness in international relations, and his patently unpresidential demeanor (bullying, petty, flip-flopping, etc.) show him to be far too great a risk for this country and its future. 

The incumbent is not tried and true, but rather tried and false. Romney is indeed the safer bet in this election.

Let's get down to basics. In order to form a policy about another country you should have some pertinent facts about its geography at hand. This is especially true to understand such non military interventions such as sanctions. Mitt Romney said Syria was a land locked country at the debate and depended on Iran for a sea lane. This means he has not even looked at a map of the region. It is very risky to take him seriously as a possible President when he has such a poor idea of a country's borders or a woeful neglect of pertinent facts. As President he would be putty in the hands of his neo-conservative advisors with such gaps in his knowledge. It is also disturbing that neo-conservatives make up the overwhelming majority on his foreign policy team. Some of them are out and out war mongers with crazy notions of human behavior and our role in the world. Names like Dan Senor and John Bolton should send a chill up anyone's spine that they are so close to this Republican candidate. Mitt Romney thinks they are the future in spite of their dismal destructive past record.

Scot, did you read Carol Rose's article in community Voices, she's the first person to write about the consequences of the drone attacks, here's the link in case you missed it. http://boston.com/community/blogs/on_liberty/2012/10/terror_tuesday_dread_of_drones.html

Scot, great column.  A better wording might have saidwere hindsight we're a horses's rear end, Romney would be the tallest cowboy in the saddle.

OETB:

I have to admit, when I heard the sea lane comment, I found myself saying, Wow, either I'm hugely mistaken about the geography of the Middle East or he is. It goes to support the notion that Romney really doesn't know much about the world. He probably didn't pay much attention during his long, busy business career and so has the kind of knowledge you get when you just study briefing books.

Thanks, Salem Reader.

Romney agreed with everything the President has done. He is not actually criticizing Obama's foreign policy. He just wants to be President so he is criticizing Obama. While that is understadable, the intelligent voter wants more before unseating a President who has kept us out of another war in the Middle East. Romney had nothing more to add. At the same time, it is difficult to forgive his blunders during his trip to Europe. We don't need another person in the white house who insults people who think differently from him.

This campaign comes down to 2 issues: personal liberty and  fiscal policy.

One one side, you have a party that wants to control whom you marry while taking a laissez faire attitude toward the growing income gap and letting the free market decide.

On the other side, you have a party that wants to stay out of your private life and focus instead on programs that serve the bottom 75% (public schools, health care, physical infrastructure).

There is a clear choice on the home front.

"But too often, the conduct of foreign-policy is a real-time exercise that uses imperfect tools to respond to unexpected events in an uncertain world."

This seems to be exactly what Romney is denying.  He seems to believe that he can create a "certain" world, ordered in accordance with the interests of the United States as he understands them.  He would never be surprised.  He would always know what's coming next.  A news conference in the middle of a battle would resolve all uncertainty and describe how we won before the battle's over.  This is delusional.

Nahant: If one listens to Mitt, Obama is responsible for all the "tumult" in the world. I guess for conservatives, who have conveniently (and almost instaneously) forgotten the proceeding eight years, that makes sense, but from a rational point of view, it seems to me to be the first premise in a faulty syllogism.

Russia is re-emerging as a foe - see what they are doing in Syria and how they are using gas a sa weapon. Read an article on an ex-ussr state that they are trying to get back in the fold and are using gas prices as the stick (sorry forget state's name) Also, used it against the EU last winter.

John Mccain has it right about Obamas policies and I think Romney will be more realistic

I was standing in the kitchen this morning making scrambled eggs when I froze.    I thought I heard the miraculous voice of God speking to me.  His deep throated, resonant voice spoke the wordes, "I want you to believe in me"!   Tembling, I looke over my shoulder.  Instead of tje almight Lord, though, I saw the face of President Obama, eyes cast upwarad, waving his arms in  a beckoning gesture.   Instead of the Lord God, President Obama was speaking at a campaign rally.    I looked down in dismay.  Why, I wondered, can't Governor Romney become more like the messiah?  Perhaps then, morre columnists would be morre accdepting of the wonder and awe of his every spoken word.

Profox: The real reason those of us who have covered Mitt for ages are skeptical is that we have seen so many different Mitts. I'm someone who very much  liked the progressive Mitt of 1994 and who back the Moderate Mitt of  2002. I didn't like South Carolina Mitt of the 2008 cycle, nor I have I been enamored of the "severely conservative" Mitt of this cycle, in no small part because as someone who has long followed fiscal issues, I know his plans can't possibly add up. But I know Fox viewers probably don't realize that; it's not a station that delves deep into complexities.

HH: Oh come on. Do you really think that's an intelligent comparison?  You don't know anymore about this than Mitt did!

HH: Oh come on. Do you really think that's an intelligent comparison?  You don't know anymore about this than Mitt did!

Romney is a complete chameleon, with no core beliefs that anyone can depend upon. His campaign had to make it look as though he is basically in total agreement on virtually all of the President`s foreign policies. If you are a Republican and are dismayed by this apparent shift in positions just hang in there. If you are a Democrat and are scratching your head over what just transpired in the last debate, hang on to the hope that sensible and discerning Americans will see through the "chameleon" and reject his attempt to fool not all of the people, but enough to win the Presidency he effectively been seeking since 1992.

WHat about Obama's awful attitude and policies towards Israel? That is good fp? And sequestration helps us how?

Sorry, Scot.  Didn't mean to irritate you.  Just a little friendly A.M. poke.

Since you brought up Khatam, why didn't Obama do more to support the Iranian Green revolution?

and Benghazi?

The major newspaper in Salt Lake City, Mitt's spitritual home, has said the same things as contained in Scot's column.

Profox: No offense taken. I'm just having a little sport with you. But I am curious about which Mitt conservatives think they are getting ...

Begolf: You can argue that, but the clear strategy was to keep a lower profile so the Iranian hard-liners wouldn't be able to dismiss the protests in the streets as merely the result of American "Great Satan" agitation and thus delegitimize them. In retrospect, you can say maybe it would have been better to support them more vocally. Hard to tell, really. 

HH: Okay, quick quiz: Is Iran a landlocked nation? Does it share a border with Syria? Answer those two questions correctly without checking a manp, and I will gladly concede you have greater expertise than Mitt.