"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants" - Albert Camus

Monday, October 22, 2012

Questions Romney Should Bring Up in Tonight's Debate

In a perfect world, an impartial moderator would ask candidates about points of contention as well as other questions begging for answers.  Well, that would be in a perfect world!  Since we do not live in such a place where the media displays no bias, here is my suggestion for how Romney should approach this sham of a debate and the questions he should ask himself.

Romney needs to actively do three things tonight: Attack, Attack, Attack!
Obama foreign policy is the most incompetent and disastrous ever - much, much worse than even Carter's.
Point it out, Mr. Romney.  Ask questions like:

'Mr. President, you would not support the Iranian protestors who begged for support and let them be massacred, yet you actively supported the pro-sharia Arab Spring protestors; can you tell the public why?'


'Mr. President, can you tell the American public why you flew to Las Vegas and Colorado on fund raisers within 24 hours of our Ambassador's assasination - the first in 30+ years - instead of meeting with your National Security Council?  And while you are at it, can you please tell us why you have missed fully 60% of your National Security Briefings during your presidency?'


'Mr. President, isn't it abdicating your responsibility to our diplomatic staff overseas to deny them added security on the anniversay of 9/11 when they asked for it over and over again?'


'Mr. President, why did your Administration spokespeople keep on repeating a lie that you knew nothing about the cause of the Benghazi attack when later the CIA and other NSA officials made it clear to Congress in hearings that you knew this was a terrorist attack within 24 hours?  While you are at it, why did the V.P. lie about the reason for added security to be denied when he said the Congress cut funding for security when it came out that there is over $2 billion available for such contingencies waiting to be disbursed?'


'Mr. President, what did you exactly mean when you whispered in to Mr. Medvedev's ear to tell Putin to give you time until after the election when you will have more "flexibility"?  Is this the natural progression of us letting our allies down in the Czech Republic and Poland three years ago when we refused to honor our promise to install a missile defense shield?  What exactly is our commitment to our eastern European allies in an age Putin's Russia is starting to behave as a bully once again?'


'Mr. President, your White House asked Palestinians to sit tight on statehood until your re-election.  Coupled with your earlier comments regarding Israel's need to withdraw to its 1965 borders, are you letting our only ally in the Middle East know that they cannot count on the U.S.A. under your presidency?'


'The island nation of Fiji recently fell under Marxist rule and has become a base of sorts for the Chinese, what is your view on this situation and why have you or your State Department not made any comments about this worrisome development?'


Mr. President, you refused to back allies in Taiwan when you refused to sell them F-18 combat aircraft, in Colombia when you cozied up to their enemies in Venezuela and Ecuador who support the Marxist FARC guerillas, ......(list the long list of allies let down by this POS); can you explain to the American public if this is what 'leading from behind' is all about?'


'Do you think that a U.S. that abandons allies and cozies up to traditional enemies fosters trust on the part of our allies?  Do you see the U.S. as a super power which needs to defend America's interests around the globe while protecting our steadfast allies?'


'What do you think is the likely outcome of a foreign policy that leads to our allies not trusting us and our enemies not fearing us in an age when radical Islamists the world over are openly declaring their goal of annihilating Israel as well as infidels who reject Islam?'

It doesn't end with those vital questions.  There are so many more questions this POS has to answer unfortunately, but we all know that the lapdog who will be moderating will ask none of it.  So it is up to Mr. Romney to ask.  Go get him, Mitt!


CW said...

Great questions! Can I throw in one as well:

Mr. Obama – In the last debate you stated that you pretty much immediately declared the attack on the consulate in Libya a “terrorist” attack. Given that you subsequently came out multiple times to say that you were still waiting on the facts to come in, would you say that you shot first and aimed later?

Let’s hope Romney came prepared with a few answers as well.

A. Sinan Unur said...

I am a little dismayed that the pundits and the public are missing the main point that the attack on the embassy in Cairo and the attack on the consulate in Benghazi were two sides of the same coin.

In both cases, no help arrived despite widely available information on the severity of the attacks.

The only reason there were no deaths or a hostage crisis in Cairo is because there were fortified shelters.

The U.S. response to both attacks must be thoroughly investigated.

Why was the administration intent on projecting meekness?

The Patriot said...

Excellent questions CW and Sinan. The answers are as plain as the noses on our faces. This POS does not believe in America. Like a good proglib, he detests what we stand for and is doing his utmost to undermine our foreign policy responses.

And to think that Van Jones just praised the Prez. as a mighty foreign affairs president. LOL. Mighty alright, if the intent is to destroy all our relationships with our allies and embolden our enemies.

The Patriot said...

Unfortunately Mitt didn't capitalize on the opportunities as he should have. I do not think it will matter but he needed to be more agressive tonight. Barack and Schiffer surely served enough softballs for him to hit out of the park. He was just too kind.

CW said...

I agree with you. I know republicans are spinning it as Mitt being careful to appear presidential and so forth, but he could he could have done that and still called Obama on the carpet for his most obvious failures.

This election, IMO, is a rare opportunity to have a referendum on the policies of the Left. These debates that reach 60 million or more people are some of the few chances we get to make our case unfiltered by the biased media. While I understand Mitt needed to have a winning strategy, we can’t afford to leave any opportunities on the table, and I think he could have easily preserved his lead and dealt some fatal blows to Obama.

Even if Mitt wins, who’s to say Obama won’t be back to challenge him in 4 years? That wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Why not put some mortal damage on him while we have the chance. Also, if Mitt does end up losing by a hair, everyone will be re-examining the lost opportunities from this final debate.