The “who won the debate?” question is a kind of second tier issue compared with which of the two candidates would be more likely to manage the foreign affairs of the United States more competently and in a manner that is likely to preserve and extend the values of the West. These are momentous issues for which, so far as Obama is concerned, have been comprehensively answered over the past four years. In every way, so far as the preservation of our way of life is concerned, we have been moving backwards and his policies are a large part of the reason why.

But to the extent we have not been driven farther back than we have, to the extent that there has actually been some advance made on four years ago, it is only because of the continuation of policies introduced by President Bush following 911. Guantanamo remains open, attacks on al Qaeda have continued, Osama bin Laden has been killed, Iraq has been stabilised and Afghanistan is on its way to being able to maintain an army in the field to defend itself against further attacks by jihadists. All of the policies to achieve these ends were in place on the day of Obama’s inauguration for which the only steps he needed to take was to do nothing at all but allow the past to roll into the future.

So when I see the usual crowd on the left say that Obama won the debate, you have to wonder what they mean since everything Obama said represented exactly the kinds of things that would have been said by George Bush eight years before and by John McCain in 2008. Obama, who became president on the back of his promise to unwind all of the war efforts commenced by President Bush, now argues for re-election because he has been able to complete each of the initiatives that Bush set under way. Had Obama run on promising to continue the war in Iraq, extend the war in Afghanistan and prosecute a war in Libya, other than because they are shameless hypocrites with no genuine principles, those who support Obama now as they did then cannot explain their support other than because Obama is a man of the left. It’s certainly not because he did what he promised to do.

But on issues that arrived on Obama’s watch or needed to be dealt with by him, each has been badly mishandled. The Green Revolution in Iran was an opportunity to strike back at the jihadists who run the Iranian state. Nothing was done. In Egypt, the Democracy Movement of whatever kind it was has ended in a takeover of the state by the same anti-American types who run Iran, the same people who support the Assad regime in Syria. And there is, of course, Obama’s statement addressed to the Russian Premier Medvedev, picked up by that live mike, to tell Putin that he will have “more flexibility after the election”, which if that doesn’t worry you then nothing will. And the question really is, where else does Obama think his extra flexibility will be able to count once he is re-elected if he is re-elected and how will this flexibility play out?

These Presidential debates are not like debates in the Oxford Union. These are deadly serious discussions about who can better manage America’s domestic and international affairs, and on that score, both given past performance and the policies enunciated by each of the candidates, I cannot even remotely see how Obama has “won”. His next four years are likely to be as disastrous as the past four while Romney provides every evidence that he would be a major step in the right direction. That is my certain takeaway from listening to the two of them debate.

The third debate is to focus on foreign policy which to my amazement is supposed to be one of Obama’s strengths. I suppose that if someone is as bad on domestic policy as the president is, that relatively speaking he might well be better on foreign policy and therefore in some very lame sense it could be described as one of his strengths. But since he’s hopeless with both, I cannot see how saying he is better at one than the other is much more than a bad joke.

The intervention by the second debate moderator, Ms Candy Crowley, an American journalist and therefore an Obama supporter, over what Obama had said about the disturbance in Benghazi – did he maintain for two weeks that it was a reaction to a Youtube trailer or did he acknowledge from the start that it was an act of terrorism? – transformed what could have been the decisive moment in the election into an indeterminate outcome. Obama shamelessly lied about what he had said but in doing so clearly knew he was to be rescued by Crawley so went ahead anyway. Romney now knows the score and will no doubt be prepared but there are lots of surprises still to come. Bob Schieffer of CBS will be the moderator who will no doubt display his own agenda during the night. Since the media will not trash Obama for his untruths and misstatements while Romney must play a perfect game just to stay on the field, it will be a very challenging hour and a half. It is a debate not to be missed. The details:

Tuesday October 23: Presidential debate #3: Foreign policy

Watch the debate live on SBS ONE or streamed live on the SBS World News Australia website from 12pm ADST.

Dear Jack (I hope that’s OK)

I am part of the largest conservative, right of centre blog here in Australia and I did my own posting on the Crowley-Obama setup.

I did another on Australia’s equivalent of National Review Online, our Quadrant Online.

I have been pleased to see that you also saw this set up for what it was, an immense scandal of beyond Watergate proportions because it is not just evidence of corruption by underlings and then a cover up at the top, but involved corruption in which Obama was himself necessarily complicit. And this really is an attempt to steal the election.

I also saw that James Taranto and John Yoo had approached this issue but then they both backed off. But because Romney – who is as shrewd as any man I have ever seen in public life – would have understood exactly what had happened, my conclusion is that it was the Romney election team, in fact Romney himself, that made the decision to lay off this issue since it would be a distraction from the main event this late in the campaign. From the way both articles are written, where they head for the jugular but then at the last moment both back off and think up some way to pull Crowley off the hook, I think both Taranto and Yoo had contacted Romney’s campaign team and were told not to make an issue of it. Or so I think, because I can find no other serious explanation for their both to have pulled their punches in the way they did.

Anyway, down here in Australia it doesn’t matter what we write and say so I will have put this up and nothing further will have come of it. But I did want you to know how much I enjoyed your post and thought you would be interested in mine.

I will also mention that I have been consciously following you on American Thinker ever since 2008 and your revelations about Dreams from My Father which also ought to have been a scandal but on that occasion I believe it was McCain’s inept and ridiculously gentlemanly approach to the election that meant this did not become an issue, although to some extent whether a book had been ghost written is not necessarily the strongest reason to vote against someone even if it was by Bill Ayers. For what it’s worth, your Deconstructing Obama was the only book I ever read on Kindle which cured me for life since you cannot go back to find annotated passages the way you can with a book. I also wrote that one up for Quadrant but that time for the magazine. It’s unfortunately not online but this is the abstract and as it was done by some librarian obscures the final point since the aim was to create that very lack of clarity that was so admirably achieved:

The article offers the author’s views on the political memoirs of U.S. politicians such as George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Barack Obama. He says that the style of “Decision Points,” by Bush shows Bush’s keenness of observation. He adds that the “Known and Unknown,” by Rumsfeld highlights the nature of uncertainty and decision-making process. He discusses Obama’s “Dreams From My Father” in light of Jack Cashill’s “Deconstructing Obama,” which doubts the memoir as ghost-written by Bill Ayers.

Anyway, this is just in the way of being a bit of fan mail but if what I have written can assist you, that would be a true bonus. I wish you well in your efforts.

With kindest best wishes

Steve Kates

This is not the scandal it ought to be. You watch the following and tell me after watching that moment at 1:30 whether or not when Obama says “get the transcript” that Crowley does indeed get the transcript. Why, of all statements available that either of the two candidates for president might have said, does she have that transcript, but more to the point, how does Obama know it?

Obama can only know it if they had worked it out together in advance.

I have a more complete article with more discussion at Quadrant Online, A Trap Baited with Candy?. I am not the only one to have put this idea up, but either because of journalistic solidarity or the libel laws in the US it has not been pursued. But you look at this and if you don’t see how suspicious it is, I can only think it’s because you don’t want to.

Was Romney Set Up by Obama and Crowley?

Was Romney set up? It certainly looks like it. First we run the tape. And note this when you watch. When Obama says, “get the transcript” Crowley the moderator actually does seem to get the transcript because she pulls a bundle of papers out which she is holding just as she declares that “he did indeed call it an act of terror” (1:30 in the video).

Now some corroboration. First let us turn to Sally Zelikovsky at The American Thinker.

But before the pundits continue to beat up on Romney for lost opportunities and a flubbed answer, Romney pounded Obama on his Rose Garden claims. With deadly seriousness he looked at Obama and said ‘I think it’s interesting the President just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.’

Obama interjected: ‘That’s what I said.’ Bam!

Romney continued: ‘You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror; it was not a spontaneous demonstration. Is that what you are saying?’

Obama haughtily invited Romney: ‘Please proceed Governor.’ Bam!

Romney responded: ‘I wanna make sure we get that for the record because it took him 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.’ Bam!

At which point Obama called for Candy to ‘Get the transcript’ and she came to his rescue ruling that Obama did say it was an act of terror–applause–and that Romney was also correct that it took 14 days for clarification–applause.

Romney, with a bit of stuttering, says: ‘The administration indicated that this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction….It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group….On Sunday…the Ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how “this was a spontaneous reaction.”’ Bam! Bam!

Obama–desperately wanting to change the subject–announced ‘I’m happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy….’ as Candy tells them that she wants to move on. And the President concedes ‘Ok, I’m happy to do that, too…. I just wanna make sure all these wonderful folks are gonna have a chance to get some of their questions answered.’

We all know she took Obama off the hook but the question needs to be asked, did she and Obama plan this together in advance? So let’s continue with a a similar post from Neo-Neocon. She has gone through everything said by Obama in that Rose Garden address and adds this:

Speaking of options—watch the tape of the moment in the debate when Obama makes the claim. The words I’m talking about occur right at the beginning where Obama says [emphasis mine], ‘The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we were going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror, and I also said that we were going to hunt down those who committed this crime.’

To me it appears that Obama feels that he is putting down some extremely tempting bait for Romney, hoping his opponent will bite.

He has rehearsed this approach in preparation for a Libya/Benghazi question; he believes it to be his trump card, and he knows Crowley will cover for him—or, if she fails to do so, that the MSM will do it for her.

It’s also possible that Obama (or his surrogates) have worked this out ahead of time with Crowley. I don’t know; it’s certainly possible, because her waving those papers around when asked to look at the transcript of the speech (are they actually a transcript? Or something else?) is rather odd. Whichever it is, pre-arranged or no, Obama seems especially delighted at what Crowley says, asking her to repeat it and setting up a nice round of forbidden applause (led by Michelle–preplanned as well?) from the audience. Gotcha!

Note also Obama’s affect when Romney questions him as to whether he really means to assert that he called it an act of terror the day after the attack. The camera zooms in on Obama as the president says to Romney ‘Please proceed, Governor,’ and then cuts away just after the fleeting ghost of a faint smile crosses Obama’s face (mostly in his eyes; it occurs at about 1:22). It is at that point that Obama summarily orders Crowley to ‘check the transcript’ (no ‘please’ for Obama), and she immediately answers that Obama did say it that way. Not only do we know that assertion is false, but she didn’t even seem to have time to check any transcript between Obama’s request and her answer.

Check the transcript, and there it is? Was this worked out together? Given the nature of the media in the US and how unnatural it appeared while watching, and how improbable it would be that Crowley would be so confident of her memory of what was said in the Rose Garden weeks before, that is what it seems to me. If so, the corruption on both sides is very very deep.

OBAMA ON COMEDY CENTRAL: ‘WHEN FOUR AMERICANS GET KILLED, IT’S NOT OPTIMAL’

Just about the biggest headline ever on Drudge. Not only does he describe the deaths of four diplomats as “not optimal” he does it on Comedy Central. This is beyond the classless society into a world of cretins.

He could still win but the tide is moving in the opposite direction. He cannot be gone and out of the way soon enough.