The Presidential debates

I have avoided commenting on the Presidential debates so far, since they take place in the middle of the night here and they are not so consequential to lose sleep over.  But, a few comments nevertheless.

I was glad that Republican candidate Mitt Romney won the first debate by all accounts, since until then he had not been treated as a real contender and was not considered "Presidential."  I think now he is on both counts.  It made up my mind to support him.  In the second debate the candidates were declared more or less equal, which was considered a plus for Pres. Obama, since he regained stature as it were.  But, I dispute that, because of the exchange over the issue of what transpired at the US Consulate in Benghazi, where four Americans were murdered, including Ambassador Stevens.

In the debate, reprising his original report on the subject, Pres. Obama did say that what had happened was "an act of terror."  But, subsequently for two weeks his team, including the leading players, Secty. of State Clinton,  UN Ambassador Rice and his Press Spokesman, reiterated that the attack occured during the demonstration against the so-called video "Innocence of Muslims" that had been shown in the US and that was considered by Muslims to be insulting to Mohammed.  However, it was subsequently revealed that 1. There had been direct threats to the Consulate that had been ignored by the White House; 2. Several requests for increased security were rejected by the State Dept.; 3. There was in fact no demonstration at the consulate; and 4. The nature of the attack, including heavy machine guns and many armed men, clearly indicated an organized attack by a terrorist group. 

Together with the fact that the attack occurred on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the US, this indicates that the Obama Adminstration was engaging in a cover-up.  When the Pres. spoke at the White House immediately after the attack he could not but term it a "terror attack," but neither he nor any of his Administration termed it a "terrorist attack" nor did they acknowledge that it had been planned and that the US was completely unprepared for such an attack.  And why were they unprepared, because of the failure of the Obama foreign policy towards the Middle East.  They preferred to leave the lives of US diplomats and personnel in the hands of the (unstable) Libyan Government.  In other words, if we show that we are not aggressive nor threatening in any way then the Arabs will like us.  This strategy doesn't work, as shown in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt in the anti-American demonstrations and now in Libya.  Only a show of force can demonstrate to Arabs to leave well alone.  So Obama's "act" in his second debate with Romney was dissembling and disingenuous.  Don't let this influence your comparison of the two candidates in their thrid and last debate, even if Obama is an incompetent leader and a liar.