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.

Scott, Funny,when the president of the United States, if you read the reports out today outlining the White House aware what was going on during the attack in Libya, they trot out Rice and everyone for weeks lying to the American Public about US citiizens who were butchered, but in typical Globe fashion, nothing to see here folks, move along. When he is apologizing to Muslim countries and trying to apologize to Japan for us having the testicualr fortitiude to protect itself when it was attacked, you are correct. Mitt certainly can't match that foreign policy success!!!!

One of the beauties of being truly conservative is  I reserve judgement, am slow to accept and never willingly dive into waters I suspect may be inhabited by Great White Sharks.    The world of politics is a vast ocean filled with skinny little things swimming alongside those great whites.  Only occasionally have I had the occasion to witness the transformation of a man I watched in Massachusetts and thought of as a rather slow swimmer in the political world.  Evolution is that great force that changes species and works wonders.   Looking backward at the process of growth that has changed a govenor into a man so capable of leading this nation, I am willing to shed my conservative reluctance and proudly proclaim that I believe Govenor Romney is a Great White who can swim in those vast waters of foreign policy and give one swish of his tail and swat the likes of the " lie a minute"  Obama into permanent retirement.  

Profox: Hmmmm. Wouldn't he be more like a giant squid, that crafty creature who disguises where he really is with a big cloud of squid ink?

"Judged by realistic standards"? Oh, like the standard of fabricating a story designed to absolve the administration for the negligence in DENYING security to an ambassador in a nation in chaos? Its now clear that Obama knew the "video did it" story was bogus from day one, yet the administration flogged the notion that a "spontaneous" event occured for weeks. Why? Because a "spontaneous" event is "unforseeable" and no one can be held accountible for "unforeseeable" events. The true story of the Benghazi terrorist attack exposes this administration for the gross negligence of its "security" policy for the poor souls who begged for more support. It is a disgrace that these fools allowed their goal to extend their preferred appeasement of various factions around the world to include denuding Americans in a clearly dangerous area of any significant protection. Obama, from day one, has gone around the world, yes, apologizing and appeasing those who he deams America has "wronged" in the past. Attempting to deny the fact of Obama's clear "reset" policy is about as believable as the "video did it" fabrication. No president, even Romney, may be able to materially improve a middle east where Islamic terrorists have the upper hand. However, given the choice of a proven liar, one who blithely puts Americans at mortal risk to fulfill a political position of weakness and who foists a tale from one end of his administration to the other, its hard to see how ANY new president can manage foriegn policy WORSE. 

SCOT - TELL US WHAT IS WRITTEN in ~ the book Obama is distributing to voters in 'IMPORTANT' states. Obama calls it his "PLAN BOOK."

We deserve to know what Obama's proposing to the folks he calls ~ important voters.

Also:

Where was Obama's foreign policy knowledge in 2008?

Where is Obama's foeign policy knowledge in 2012?

Where is Obama's PLAN BOOK? 

Scot you said---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----\

As if Democrat policies had nothing to do with the housing bubble Scot? Is that what you are saying? It was Republicans who wanted the governent to guarantee loans to less qualified applicants through fannie/freddie and that it wasnt started under Clinton? I think many Democrats suffer from Romnesia as well. They all seem to forget 9/11 and why we ended up in two wars in the first place. They forget that Obama ran on ending 'the Bush wars and policies' and is still in one until 2014 at least (5 years later) and kept virtually all the policies he ran on ending, used them to catch Bin Laden and then took credit.  Interesting that in your mind Bush owns his terms in office but that Obama shouldnt be judged by his 4 years. 

Charlieboy: I am talking here about the Middle East, not the housing bubble. On Iraq: Could you explain to me what they had to do with September 11? Scot

My statements still hold---all I hear from Democrats today is look at the policies from the previous 8 years.  I dont like war and neither do you, but 9/11 had people thinking we better deal with the middle east sooner rather than later.  No one was arguing at the time of the initial conflict.  The Iraqis had already used chemical weapons on the Kurds and many still believe they fostered terrorism.  Who doubted WMDs at the time?  I certainly dont think anyone lied about believing Iraq was up to no good bc they probably were.  So like I said, Bush had far more to deal with than Obama.  Yet the media, you included, simply blame the previous 8 years as to why he has done nothing in the last 4. 

Charlieboy: Imagine for a second what your attitude would be if Obama had invaded a country based on assertions that turned out to be completely untrue. Would you have been so forgiving? Do you think the Fox News crowd would have been clamoring for his impeachment?

I still dont think they were completely untrue---especially if you are implying it was an intentional misleading of the American people.   And I dont support a party blindly.  For instance, you criticized much of Bush's policies but stopped when Obama continued them.   I have no problem defending Iraq based upon what we knew then and what had just happened to us as a nation.  Its why you wont hear me criticize Obama on Lybia because I dont think he could have done much to prevent the attack.  He could have been more honest afterwards, but thats true of most, if not all politicians. 

System: Do you do anything other over the course of the day than post silly stuff under my columns? Don't you have a job of some sort?

On Sept. 11, 2012, just two hours after the State Department first began notifying government agencies back in Washington--including the White House--that the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was under attack by armed men, State sent out an email that went to at least two people in the White House that said the group Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility for the attack.

this is a huge scandal that needs to be resolved. He is lying.

How many angels fit on the head of a pin?   What a fruitless discussion/fault finding foray.  If only some manufacturer could produce a
"W" punching bag they would sell millions in Boston.   For Pete'sake, just get over it.  Everytime I read a  "W" didit comment, I start humming, "Roll me over in the clover and do it again".     Hearing and reading "W" didit has become the liberal anthem.    Even the "Bam" stopped swinging at that slow pitch.   And, Scot, that "fox news crowd" has become an epithet and is unworthy of your journalistic talents.  

Begolfing its interesting how its always the lying afterwards thats gets these guys in trouble--had he just come out with the truth and ripped the attacks as terrorism and said we need to improve security the issue goes away.

Profox: Well, you have to look at the news product there. Some of the Foxies are just laughable. Not Bret or Shep or Brit or Chris or Carl. But oh my god, the morning Foxies are so uninformed and, frankly, dumb that it should embarrass the network. I give them some credit for getting rid of Beck, who was a wild-eyed lunatic, but honestly, what reputable news outfit would have someone like Sean Hannity doing a show? I don't see how an intelligent person can watch more than five minutes of that.

This is the best read of the post-debate week.  It certainly makes Scot look good!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/opinion/the-final-presidential-debate.html

I am constantly amused by this ranting on and on about the "liberal" bias of the Globe.  I expect it from "system" he can't get out of his own peculiar way.  "HHK" surprises me a little.  A lot is made of "liberal" hypocrisy yet these same folks, (I might exclude HHK), seem incapable of seeing the hypocrisy of the "right".  I no longer call them "conservatives" as this new group is more "libertarian" and unhinged than a true "conservative" would ever be.  For many here it isn't a discussion it is just this "holier" than thou, "I'm merely pointing the liberal hypocrisy."  I'm not sure why they bother reading the paper.  I guess they figure the rest of us don't realize the Globe is a liberal paper and the Herald is "right wingnut". 

The whole narrative regarding foreign policy within the string becomes almost laughable.  We have those who would hold that "liberals" are pro-Islamists or apologists or that "conservatives" are war mongering.  It is almost as if folks have lost their sense of what is "liberal" or "conservative".  What conservative would support foreign adventures?  None.  Neo-cons different story.  "Liberals" like to seperate "Islamism" from Islam and rightfully so.  There is a long reach from one to the other except those who can only accept the idea that the "fundamentalism" of Islam is Islam itself.  Which is the same as saying "christian fundamentalists" are Jesus's fault. 

The fact is we have had eight years of GW's policies and now we have had four more years of the same policy and regardless of who wins we will have four more years of the same.  Why?  Because whoever is elected is restrained by the fact that we cannot impose upon the ME our own desires, that they must work their own way through.  Secondly, we just don't have the money regardless of who is President.  The problem with a lot of these folks is they think everyone must think like we do.  It's a big world and we are merely a part of it.  Some people seem to think the old Teddy Roosevelt saw still applies.

"System"  And once again you can't control yourself, And the liberal outrage-mongers and liberal hypocrites and liberal demagogues vilified Bush for it,... Obama enjoys the overwhelming support of Republicans"  

Lest an opportunity is passed for you to go on with this inanane drivel regarding "liberal" hypocrisy and missing the "lying" and the "hypocrisy" of the far right day in and day out.  You can only find fault in one direction.  It is why you are pointless without credibility or value.  You cannot see hypocrisy in only one place or with one group not when it comes to politics or foregin affairs.  Hypocrisy surrounds us like the light of the sun, yet for one group you wear pink sunglasses.

"HHK"  As I said I had no interest in Gitmo before nor do I have any interest now.  I see nothing special about it one way or another.  There are plenty of federal prisons that could serve the same purpose probably at less cost.  But given to the "hypocrisy" of the "right" who politicize the movement of these people we are stuck with this propaganda nightmare. 

I agree with you regarding military trials, but they should be here in the US, before the press and the world thereby proving that America follows its own laws. 

"System"  By the way Mehanna why should I know about him it wasn't big down here.  Here about the minister down here painting swastika's probably not. 

"System"  Let's not get in a long debate.  You have a biased viewpoint of the world and that's your choice.  Why you want to act like you are objective is beyond me.  Save us both a lot of wasted typing, just sputter out your "stuff" take the objections and quit trying to act like you're Mr. Objective when you are Mr. Pink Sunglasses.

"system"  Ahh, now I'm a liar.  I thought you never called anyone a "liar"  oh well another "system" fable.  And still you are unable to say how you were insulted.  My, my "system" your inability to maintain your "core principles" is stunning.  Terribly sorry about that. 

"HHK" "Jerin Arifa, a member of the National NOW Board and chair of the NOW's Young Feminist Task Force writes and works on issues related to feminism and Islam. She had this to say about the attack on Malala: "As a Muslim feminist, this is hurtful on all fronts. The Taliban are not Muslim; they stand against the most basic tenets of Islam -- education, peace, respect and equality."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First We can easily agree on the horrendous nature of the attack.  However, technically and theologically speaking Ms. Arifa is correct.  At the same time it is nearly impossible to say what "Sharia law" actually represents.  There is no central authority, nod deciding group.  There are at least five schools of thought regarding Sharia and I doubt seriously the Taliban are in compliance with any of them.  But you are correct in that she could have made a stronger argument against Sharia by simply attacking it through Koranic statements.  Obviously the Taliban are as Muslim as the ultra orthodox Jewish group, “Lev Tahor,” is Jewish or the ultra othodox in Jeruselam who recently filed charges agains a women for singing are Jewish.  It is in any aspect insanity whether Muslim or Jewish or Christian. 

However, again Ms. Afrin is correct when she says the Taliban stand against the basic tenents of Islam.  You do realize the Prophets first wife was a merchant and quite wealthy.  That another of his wives was renowned for actions in battle. This suppression of women is not fundamental to the basic religion.  It is really a cultural import very similar to the patriachial hijacking of all the other myth religions.
 

Well this thread of commentary is in the dumper. It has degenerated into a shouting match between two immovable forces. Of course whether or not Attaturk has any valid points is moot. TSW lives inside the neo-con echo bubble and is intellectually impenetrable. Typically, whenever someone like him is accused of being a bully and a loud mouth, they will respond by shouting threats. As Lucy sez, "if you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your voice.!"