Romney's Win, Obama's Collapse

What was most surprising about last night's debate between Mitt Romney and Barak Obama was not that Mitt Romney won. Anyone who knows anything at all about Romney knows that he is a consummate professional who takes pride in everything he does - not a selfish pride but pride based on his profound sense of service...to his family, his church, his businesses, Massachusetts when he was govetnor, the Olympics turnaround, wanting to be President so that he can serve. What was immensely surprising was Barak Obama's lack of respect - lack of respect for the office of the presidency, for his opponent in the debate, for the American people, finally lack of respect for himself. Obama's failure to take the debate seriously, his lack of preparation, his disdain for Romney, his refusal to listen to what Romney was actually saying and insisting that he knew better than Romney what Romney meant, his testiness at being exposed to anything so non-elite as a public debate. Even the most partisan of Democrat counsel, James Carville, had to say that Obama wasn't there, that he refused to engage. Last night Barak Obama proved his unsuitability for the job he holds. He proved that he does not understand leadership or courtesy or the importance of listening. Mitt Romney, a profoundly honorable man, did not attack. He did not point out Obama's refusal to engage. He did not even try to pull facts out of Obama - something that would not have been possible in any case because Obama came to Colorado unprepared with facts. Mitt Romney simply made his case and watched, like the rest of us, bemused at the discouraging, frightening spectacle of a President of the United States coming unglued.

Syria Shells Turkish Border Town

The situation on the Turkish-Syrian border today is dangerously incendiary. Syrian mortar shells fell on a Turkish border town, killing five people, including a mother and three children. Turkey retaliated, shelling Syrian targets. A second Turkish town received mortar fire from Syria, injuring eight. Syria has fired into Turkey before, but this is the first time Turkish citizens have been killed. Syria has apologized and says it is investigating the event, but Turkey and NATO say the Syrian attack was atrocious. General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Commander, said a few minutes ago on CNN that the Syrian shelling is a "deniable event," that is, it is an attack not easily pinpointed for the purpose of blame. General Clark said that if it was done by Syria to warn Turkey to back off its humanitarian efforts or to warn the West not to continue to interfere, it would make no difference if Syria apologized for public consumption because the real message was received. The General also said that becaise Iran is active in Syria and Lebanon and because Syria is "the soft underbelly of Iran,' any confrontation, although minor in itself, could spark a larger conflict. He warned that Russia should pay attention and think seriously about its own role as Syria's supporter. Dear readers, it is much too early to draw any conclusions about this breaking story, but it is not too early to remind the world that the al-Assad regime in Syria is a rogue state following a course that includes torture and murder of its own citizens in an effort to remain in power...it is daily increasing the instability of the Middle East, indoubtedly as the pawn of Iran, which continues to believe it would benefit from greater instability by increasing its presence all over the region. Much of this could have and should have been prevented by firm action by the United States, Europe and the UN. That we are still watching passively as deaths in the Syrian civil war pass 30,000 is shameful. That Turkey should be shelled is, in terms of al-Assad, the red line. Are you able to understand this, Secretary Clinton and President Obama?

The Ambassador Stevens Affair Rachets Up

The Obama administration has not learned Rule One for surviving in Washington: "Do not lie to Congress." But President Obams has sent his people to Congress several times to make representations before Congress that turned out to be lies. The gun sales and tracking into Mexico comes to mind because the US Attorney General is now facing a criminal judicial proceeding because of lying and using delaying tactics to avoid telling Congress the whole truth about the affair. A second major confrontation between President Obama and Congress is now taking shape. It involves security at the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and what Obama and the State Department knew and in what timeframes about the assassination of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi on 11 September. The Associated Press reported today that "American diplomats in Libya made repeated requests for increased security for the consulate in Benghazi and were turned down by officials in Washington." This is not really news but where it comes from is interesting. The leaders of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee - Chairman Darrell Issa and Rep. Jason Chaffetz - said their information came from "individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya" and the Committee has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking whether the level of security at the US mission met the security threat, and how the department responded to requests for more security. The letter says there were more than 50 security incidents at the Benghazi compound. Two of them involved explosive devices: a 6 June blast that blew a hole in the security perimeter described to the committee as "big enough for forty men to go through"; and a 6 April incident where two Libyans fired by a security contactor later threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence. The State Department has refused to answer questions about Benghazi security, but Clinton recently said, "...we do our very best to limit...risk by ensuring that our security protocols reflect the environments in which diplomats work and the threats that they are presented with." The basic question at issue between Congress and Obama is why the administration insisted for some time that Stevens was killed during a spontaneous demonstration when it was clear from the beginning that Stevens' assassination was a deliberate terrorist attack. Clinton discussed security on 18 September, saying that security at Benghazi included "...a unit of host government security forces, as well as a local guard force of the kind that we rely on in many places around the world." She said there was "...robust security presence inside the compound...And the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent." However, Congressman Issa's letter included the following details: (1) unarmed Libyan guards at the consulate, employed by British contractor Blue Mountain Group, were warned by family members to quit their jobs because there were rumors of an impending attack 2 miles from the consulate between an unidentified armed group and forces loyal to the transitional government; (2) two Libyans fired from a contractor providing security at the consulate later threw a small explosive device over the consulate fence but there were no casualties; and (3) a June Facebook entry mentioned Stevens' early morning runs around Tripoli with members of his security detail. The page contained a threat against Stevens and a stock photo of him. Stevens stopped the runs for about a week, but then resumed. Everything is now in place for a Congress -White House confrontation. It seems clear that President Obama believes he can schmooze his way through the Benghazi affair. He and Secretary Clinton seem convinced that they can ease forward their story about the assassination of Ambassador Stevens often enough to prevent any actual "lying to Congress" to occur. They tried the same tactic in the Mexican gun sales affair and lost. I'm surprised that they are so unwise that they are willing to try it again in such a high-profile situation as the assassination of an American Ambassador.

The US Presidential Debates Begin This Week

It's presidential debate week in the US. President Barak Obama and Governor Mitt Romney will face off on Wednesday evening in Denver. The media and polls have been favoring Obama to win the election and believe that the best hope of Romney turning the polls around will be by doing well in the debates - a series of three that will end in late October. The first debate will focus on domestic issues -- the budget deficits and national debt, health care, tax policy, and energy independence should be on the menu. It is difficult to imagine Mr. Obama saying anything that will be unanswered by Mr.Romney. The Obama administration has never even passed a budget (not even in his first two years when his Democrat Party controlled both houses of Congress). Obama's suggestion on lowering the budget is to tax the top 1% of American taxpayers at a higher rate. This would increase tax income by about $40-80 billion per year at a time when budget deficits are at $1 trillion per year. Obama has said nothing about paying down the national debt except to blame Republicans...his favorite ploy when he has no answer for a failure of his team. Obama has never articulated a position or a proposal for revising the mare's nest that is US tax policy. So Romney should, if he decides to set out his ideas about revising US tax policy, have a clear win in this area. As for health care - the President's Obamacare was rejected by 60% of Americans when it was forced through Congress and it is now opposed by more than 50% (what % depends in which poll you believe). Obama has dragged his feet so often on energy - from no offshore drilling to no Canada-US pipelne - that anything Romney offers should be better. SO, dear readers, Mitt Romney should win the first debate. What he will need to do is speak clearly about his own ideas, remind Mr. Obama of his multiple failures as President, and hold his factual solid ground when Obama begins selling smokey hope and glory.