Archive for October 23, 2012

‘Gaza Roulette’ Blows Up,Bibi Vows ‘Hard’ Response

October 23, 2012

‘Gaza Roulette’ Blows Up,Bibi Vows ‘Hard’ Response – Defense/Security – News – Israel National News.

Netanyahu promises a “hard response” after one of daily terrorist attacks from Gaza “succeeded” as Qatar leader visits Hamas HQ.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

First Publish: 10/23/2012, 12:00 PM

 

Hamas terrorists in Gaza

Hamas terrorists in Gaza
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu promised on Tuesday a “hard response” after one of the daily terrorist attacks from Gaza critically wounded an IDF officer.

“We will fight and we will hit them [Hamas] very, very hard – very hard. That’s the only way to fight them.  The way to fight terror is to fight terror, and that we shall do with great force,” the Prime Minister told visiting Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev.

Prime Minister Netanyahu reminded Plevneliev, “Iran supported Hezbollah’s terror attacks in Bulgaria; Iran is supporting terror attacks now against us in Gaza.

“Today we engaged in exchanges against terrorist aggression that comes from our southern border in Gaza, but it actually comes from Iran and a whole terror network that is supporting these attacks.”

His promise of a responding with “great force” is a continuation of the government policy to stage symbolic retaliations following rocket and bomb attacks that do not cause injuries or extensive property damage. In most cases, the Air Force targets a “terrorist smuggling tunnel” or a “weapons factory,” usually a small workshop. When there is a “ticking bomb” terrorist cell preparing to attack, or after serious injuries such as occurred Tuesday morning, the IDF carries out harsher counterterrorist measures.

The “Gaza roulette” tactic keeps violence from escalating to the level of a large-scale ground invasion into Gaza, similar to the Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist operation nearly four years ago.

However, the tactic leaves southern Israel residents in the same war-time preparedness routine they have suffered since the outbreak of the 12-year-old Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War.

Tuesday morning’s bomb blast on a patrol route at the Gaza security fence coincided with an historic visit by the Emir of Qatar, the first head of a country to visit since Hamas wrested control from the rival Fatah terrorist organization in a bloody militia war five years ago.

The Qatar leader promised $250 million in aid to Gaza.

AP NEWS ANALYSIS: Calm Romney pins hopes on momentum

October 23, 2012

AP NEWS ANALYSIS: Calm Romney pins hopes on momentum.

( Very similar to my own analysis. – JW )

Presidential Debate

WASHINGTON — Republican Mitt Romney is acting like a challenger who feels he has enough momentum and time to overtake the president by Election Day, two weeks from now.

Judging from Monday’s final debate, President Barack Obama almost seems to agree.

Obama was clearly the more aggressive combatant in the 90-minute forum, whacking Romney’s personal investment record, truthfulness and overseas fundraising. Romney, meantime, went out of his way to blunt his differences with Obama on several key foreign policy matters — supposedly the debate’s focus — and to appear calm, moderate and non-threatening.

Romney’s approach was one typically taken by front-runners: Do no harm. Don’t stir the pot. Keep the clock running.

Obama’s forcefulness appeared chiefly aimed at discouraged Democrats who might not bother voting, rather than at the sliver of undecided voters in the handful of states still in play. Romney is not the benign, acceptable alternative he claims to be, Obama seemed to be saying, and I, your president, am finally willing to fight tooth and nail for a second term after sleepwalking through the first debate, which triggered Romney’s rise in the polls.

“It’s all get-out-the-vote now,” said Matt Bennett, a veteran of Democratic campaigns. “If you’re undecided now, you ain’t voting.”

“Obama will win the debate on points,” Bennett said, “but it won’t matter much.”

A number of other Democrats shared that view. Interest in the third and final debate probably suffered, they said, from voter fatigue, competition from televised football and baseball games, and the official topic — foreign policy — in a campaign dominated by jobs and the economy.

These Democrats, however, don’t necessarily think Obama will lose. Some feel Romney took a big gamble by being so tame in the final face-to-face encounter.

Obama still holds a slight edge in Ohio in most independent polls. It’s the state that can almost seal the president’s re-election if he holds it, because it would force Romney to sweep virtually every other contested state, including tough Wisconsin.

Romney’s stay-the-course demeanor Monday points to confidence that his slight rise in the polls will continue, even if only a smidgen of voters are truly undecided. Democrats note that many thousands of people are already voting through early balloting programs in key states.

The election’s outcome may turn on whether Obama’s get-out-the-vote ground troops can outrun Romney’s momentum. Polls show Romney doing considerably better among likely voters, as opposed to registered voters. That gives Obama’s volunteers a chance to hunt down thousands of “soft supporters,” and persuade them to get to a polling place.

From the debate’s opening minutes, Romney showed no appetite for verbal fisticuffs. Moderator Bob Schieffer invited the former Massachusetts governor to critique Obama’s handling of the fatal attack on a U.S. Consulate in Libya, a topic Romney had fumbled in the second debate, six days ago.

Romney showed no interest. Instead, he congratulated the president on the killing of Osama bin Laden, hoping to negate an Obama strong point as quickly as possible.

Throughout the evening, Romney continued a recent trend of moderating his foreign policy positions. He seemed bent on presenting himself as a sound commander in chief, even if it required him to narrow his differences with the president.

Romney offered unusual praise for Obama’s war efforts in Afghanistan, declaring the 2010 surge of 33,000 U.S. troops a success and asserting that efforts to train Afghan security forces are on track to enable the U.S. and its allies to put the Afghans fully in charge of security by the end of 2014.

Romney said U.S. forces should complete their withdrawal on that schedule. Previously he has criticized the setting of a specific withdrawal date.

And on Iran, Romney mollified his previous criticism of Obama’s sanctions policy. He stressed that resorting to war to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon would be a last option, softening the hawkish tone that had been a hallmark of his campaign.

Longtime GOP strategist Terry Holt defended Romney’s soft touch.

“His first goal is to appear presidential,” Holt said. “This is not a grand jury where all he has to do is indict. People are looking to him for presidential qualities. Cool, calm and clear.”

Obama, by contrast, looked for every chance to criticize Romney on as many topics as possible.

“Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s,” Obama said.

He chided Romney for having said Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical foe. “The Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama said.

“Presidents always have an advantage when debating foreign policy,” said Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak. “Romney did well enough tonight to maintain his momentum and win this race.”

Obama has 14 days to stop that momentum. He plunges in immediately Tuesday with events in Delray Beach, Fla., and Dayton, Ohio. On Wednesday and Thursday the president plans to campaign in Iowa, Colorado, California, Nevada, Florida, Virginia and Ohio.

Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, on Tuesday were headed to Nevada and Colorado. Romney planned to campaign Wednesday in Nevada and Iowa, and Thursday and Friday in Ohio.

Neither ticket can afford to write off the other competitive states. But Ohio seems destined to be the testing ground of whether Obama’s tiny lead and big ground operation can hold off Romney’s October momentum.

EDITOR’S NOTE — Charles Babington covers national politics for The Associated Press. Associated Press writer Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.

For What it’s Worth -10-23-12

October 23, 2012

A series of vids I hope to make on a daily basis regarding stories posted on “A Sclerotic Goes to War.”

Topics covered include:

1. The debate and Romney’s unassuming performance.
2. Iran threatens to cut off oil sales… Right!
3. Fort Hood victims unable to receive combat benefits because Obama refuses to recognize it as a terrorist attack.
4. Netanyahu promises to respond to the wounding of our soldier on the Gaza border: “Very forcefully.  Very, very forcefully…”

Any and all feedback in the comments on this post would be most appreciated.

Joseph Wouk

Obama: Cooperation with Israel has never been stronger

October 23, 2012

Obama: Cooperation with… JPost – 2012: The US Presidential race.

( This was said at a campaign rally in FLORIDA.  Lotsa Jews in Florida.  “Phasers on pander!” – JW )

By JPOST.COM STAFF
10/23/2012 16:53
Touting his record, US president points to Romney quote saying he’d “do the opposite” of Obama’s policies; in debate, Obama says current military, intelligence cooperation with Israel is unprecedented.

US President Obama at a campaign rally [file]

Photo: Jason Reed / Reuters

Pointing to his own record of support for Israel in order to question those of his Republican rival, US President Barack Obama asserted that cooperation between Washington and Jerusalem has never been stronger than during his presidency, speaking at a campaign rally in Florida Tuesday.

Recalling statement by Mitt Romney from earlier this year in which the Republican presidential candidate said of his positions on Israel, “I think by and large you could just look at the things the president’s done and do the opposite.”

“Last night I reminded [Romney] that cooperation with Israel has never been stronger,” Obama retorted in front of a crowd of supporters.

The night before, the two presidential candidates repeatedly spoke of their support for Israel and their intention never to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons, in the final debate before the election.

During the debate, Obama said that when it came to the relationship with Israel and other allies, “Our alliances have never been stronger, in Asia, in Europe, in Africa, with Israel, where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat.”

Both candidates said they would stand by Israel if it was attacked by Iran.

“If Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel,” US President Barack Obama said when asked that question by moderator Bob Schieffer.

GOP challenger Mitt Romney echoed Obama, saying, “if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily.”

Hilary Leila Krieger contributed to this report.

Prime minister promises to respond to injury of officer on Gaza border ‘with great force’

October 23, 2012

Prime minister promises to respond to injury of officer on Gaza border ‘with great force’ | The Times of Israel.

Platoon commander in hospital in critical condition after bombing near Kissufim crossing

October 23, 2012, 11:01 am 4
Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu shakes meets with Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev as they meet at Netanyahu's office in Jerusalem on October 23 (photo credit: Moshe Milner/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu meets with Bulgarian President Rosen Plevneliev as they meet at Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem on October 23 (photo credit: Moshe Milner/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel would respond to a recent wave of terror attacks originating from the Gaza Strip “with great force.”

Earlier, an IDF platoon commander was injured by a roadside bomb during a patrol near the Kissufim crossing on the Gaza border.

The officer received first aid treatment at the site and was then evacuated by helicopter to Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba. Initially said to be in moderate condition, the IDF Spokesman’s Office later said his condition was critical. The officer reportedly suffered from injuries to his face and limbs.

During a meeting with the visiting Bulgarian president Tuesday morning, Netanyahu said Gaza-based terror organizations were receiving aid from Iran and pledged to strike back at them.

“Today we engaged in exchanges against terrorist aggression that comes from our southern border in Gaza, but it actually comes from Iran and a whole terror network that is supporting these attacks,” said Netanyahu. “Iran supported Hezbollah’s terror attacks in Bulgaria; Iran is supporting terror attacks now against us in Gaza. We will fight and we will hit them very, very hard – very hard… The way to fight terror is to fight terror, and that we shall do with great force.”

Residents of the villages surrounding Gaza were instructed to remain near bomb shelters.

On Monday the air force killed three Palestinian terrorists and injured four others in airstrikes on the Gaza Strip.

Gaza’s Hamas rulers reported in a text message to reporters that one of the men killed was a member of the group’s military wing. The Popular Resistance Committees said in an email that the second man was from its ranks.

A third man died of his injuries later Monday night. His affiliation was not clear.

Hamas’s military branch promised to retaliate.

The Israeli strikes came in response to rockets fired on southern towns and mortar fire on an IDF patrol.

No injuries or damage were caused by the rockets.

On Monday, Netanyahu had told visiting Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair that Israel was ready to use force to restore calm to the Gaza border. “We’re not going to let anyone arm themselves and fire rockets on us and think that they can do this with impunity,” Netanyahu told the former British prime minister. “They’re not going to get away with it. We attacked them before, we attacked them after and we’re going to prevent them from arming themselves. This is our policy. This is a very different policy that I put in. You don’t let them get away with it. And they know that’s what we’re doing.”

Also Monday, an IDF paratroopers brigade commander said the army may soon need to launch another ground incursion into Gaza.

Col. Amir Baram told Channel 2 News: “I think there won’t be a choice… we’ll need to enter Gaza soon.” Baram, the commander of the 202nd Battalion of the Paratroopers Brigade, said the IDF may need to “enter Gaza again” and its fighters may “have to go in, house by house” in order to maintain deterrence in the Strip.

Iran threatens to cut oil exports if Western sanctions tighten

October 23, 2012

Iran threatens to cut oil exports if Western sanctions tighten – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

The Islamic Republic’s oil minister tells reporters that Iran has prepared plans on how to run the country without oil revenues.

By Reuters | Oct.23, 2012 | 11:40 AM | 2
Gas flares from an oil production platform - Reuters - July 25, 2005.

Gas flares from an oil production platform at the Soroush oil fields with an Iranian flag in the Persian Gulf, 1,250 km (776 miles) south of the capital Tehran, July 25, 2005. Photo by Reuters

Iran said on Tuesday it would stopoil exports if pressure from Western sanctions got any tighterand that it had a “Plan B” contingency strategy to survivewithout oil revenues.

 Western nations led by the United States have imposed toughsanctions on the Islamic Republic this year in an attempt tocurb its nuclear program that they say is designed to produceatomic weapons. Tehran says its nuclear plans are peaceful.

“If sanctions intensify we will stop exporting oil,” Iranianoil minister Rostam Qasemi told reporters in Dubai.

Qasemi’s statement is the latest in a series of threats ofretaliation by Tehran in response to the sanctions, which haveheightened political tensions across the Middle East andanalysts say, led to a sharp drop in Iranian oil exports.

“We have prepared a plan to run the country without any oilrevenues,” Qasemi said, adding, “So far to date we haven’t hadany serious problems, but if the sanctions were to be renewed wewould go for ‘Plan B’.

“If you continue to add to the sanctions we (will) cut ouroil exports to the world… We are hopeful that this doesn’thappen, because citizens will suffer. We don’t want to see

European and U.S. citizens suffer,” he said, adding that theloss of Iranian oil on the market would drive up oil prices.

The U.S. government has focused on blocking Iran’s oilexports because it estimates that crude sales provide about halfof Iranian government revenues and that oil and oil productsmake up nearly 80 percent of the country’s total exports.

The rial plunged by about a third against the U.S. dollar inthe week to Oct. 2, reflecting a slide in oil income wrought bytightened sanctions over summer aimed at pressuring Tehran todrop its nuclear program.

How long the economy could function without selling any oilis unclear, but Iran has large currency reserves accumulatedover decades as one of the world’s largest oil suppliers.

“What else can they export to generate the necessaryrevenues?” Carsten Fritsch of Commerzbank said in the ReutersGlobal Oil Forum.

Because of the slide in the rial and oil export earnings, the government is already moving onto an austerity footing, cutting imports of non-essential goods and urging its citizensto buy fewer foreign products.

Iran has in the past said it could shut the vital shippinglane of Hormuz at the head of the Middle East Gulf. However, alarge Western naval force sent to keep open the route, throughwhich about a third of the world’s seaborne oil exports pass

might be a large obstacle to such an attempt.

Earlier on Tuesday, Qasemi said Iran was still producing 4million barrels per day (bpd), rejecting reports the country’soutput has fallen to around 2.7 million bpd.

According to the latest secondary source estimates publishedby the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Iranpumped just 2.72 bpd in September, and Iran’s own data submittedto OPEC showed the country produced 3.75 million bpd in August.

 The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that Iranianexports fell to a new low of 860,000 bpd in September, down from 2.2 million bpd at the end of 2011.

Assuming a crude oil price of e110, such a sharp drop meansIran making just e95 million dollars from daily crude sales lastmonth, about e147 million less every day than it was making latelast year.

Nevertheless, Qasemi said Iran was pumping oil at fullcapacity and refining more of its own oil to meet domesticdemand.

“It is currently 4 million barrels per day,” he said,declining to give export figures.

“Iran has been facing U.S. sanctions for 30 years whilesuccessfully managing its oil sector,” he said.

He said Iran’s refining capacity was now 2 million barrelsper day (bpd) with another 200,000 bpd of capacity to be addedbefore the end of Iranian year next March.

The increase in refining capacity had already ended Iran’sneed to import vehicle fuel and could soon drive a boom in fuelexports, the minister said.

“Our daily consumption of petrol (gasoline) is 90 millionliters … Earlier, a big portion of that was being imported butwe no longer import products,” he said.

“Right now, we not only don’t import but we also export someproducts … there are always customers for Iranian oil.

“By the end of the Iranian year they will reach theirmaximum capacity and then we can export more Iranian oilproducts,” he said

Wanted: a commander in chief

October 23, 2012

Israel Hayom | Wanted: a commander in chief.

Boaz Bismuth

The next presidential debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney will take place at the ballot box. Having gone through three televised debates that captivated some 180 million viewers in the U.S. and millions more worldwide, there is no doubt that the best show in town will take place on Nov. 6. Actually, this will be the best show in the world. Elections are always interesting, especially when they involve the largest superpower in this very unstable and leaderless world.

This is in essence what the third foreign policy debate in Florida was all about: leadership. The U.S. electorate’s list of concerns has domestic issues and the economy at the top, much higher than foreign affairs. This has been all the more true in the 2012 elections. But U.S. voters, who are so proud of their flag and anthem, know that on election day they don’t just choose who gets to sit in the Oval Office and fly Air Force One but also who will be commander in chief. In the U.S., this title carries great significance.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent countless hours with their advisers prepping for Monday’s debate, going over issues ranging from Egypt to China and from Tripoli (or rather, Benghazi) to Moscow. But what matters most was not the command of the details but the way the candidates projected leadership. Recent polls conducted among voters in Wisconsin, Virginia and Colorado — three swing states — show that less than 10 per cent consider foreign policy to be the most important issue of this election. Thus, at Monday night’s debate, the candidates’ most important task was to come across as natural commanders in chief. Just like their tuxedos had to fit on them, so did that title.

For that reason, the Florida debate was Romney’s big test. He came out of the Denver debate the big winner and momentum shifted his way. In that debate, he suddenly came across as presidential for the first time. Florida’s debate presented another hurdle he had to overcome. He had to show he was qualified to lead a superpower.

Throughout the campaign, Obama has had the upper hand over Romney when it came to foreign policy. Until the first debate, the president had a large 53% to 38% advantage on that front. By the time the two arrived in Boca Raton, Florida on Monday, Obama’s advantage on foreign policy had shrunk to four percentage points (47% to 43%). The Denver debate and the administration’s missteps in the wake of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi were among the factors that contributed to this erosion.

At the debate on Monday, Obama naturally wanted to focus on his accomplishments: ending the war in Iraq, setting a timetable for ending the combat mission in Afghanistan (currently set for the end of 2014), imposing crippling sanctions on Iran and, the most importantly, killing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Obama took pains to dispel the notion that he was soft on foreign policy or to feed into the Republicans’ narrative that he preferred to “lead from behind.”

Romney tried to explain how under Obama’s watch, the U.S. had become estranged from its allies (including Israel), how it failed miserably to “reset” relations with Russia and allowed Iran to get dangerously close to acquiring a nuclear bomb, not to mention that it presided over a general decline in American strength. On the whole Benghazi controversy, Romney probably wanted to be like former Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, who during the Watergate investigation posed the simple question, “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” (Romney has faulted the administration for not calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror in its immediate aftermath).

Given that Romney’s performance contained no major gaffes, like the one President Gerald Ford made in the 1976 debates when he said that there was “no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” journalists would be well advised to make hotel reservations in Boston come Nov. 6 rather than head to Chicago.

The Truth About Fort Hood

October 23, 2012

The Truth About Fort Hood – YouTube.

( This is beyond outrageous.  Political correctness carried to its logical extreme.  Obama still refuses to acknowledge that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.  This, even at the expense of the brave, patriotic victims.  Why Romney hasn’t picked up on this is beyond me.  I leave it to my readers to spread this story as far as they can.  – JW )

_

Justice for Ft. Hood Heroes

October 23, 2012

Caroline Glick :: Justice for Ft. Hood Heroes.

( This is beyond outrageous.  Political correctness carried to its logical extreme.  Obama still refuses to acknowledge that Fort Hood was a terrorist attack.  This, even at the expense of the brave, patriotic victims.  Why Romney hasn’t picked up on this is beyond me.  I leave it to my readers to spread this story as far as they can.  – JW )

October 18, 2012, 1:18 PM

November 5, the day before the US Presidential elections will be the third anniversary of the massacre of 13 US soldiers at Ft. Hood by Islamic terrorist, US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

The Obama administration has refused to acknowledged that the attack was a terrorist attack. The Defense Department has insisted on covering up the nature of the attack. The reports it released following the attack failed to mention Hasan’s Islamic motivations. Still today the Defense Department insists on defining the massacre as a case of “workplace violence.”
To advance this fiction, the Defense Department has refused to award Purple Hearts to the families of the soldiers murdered by Hasan, or to those who were wounded in his attack. It has refused to compensate the families of those murdered or the survivors who were incapacitated at the level the US military compensates the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty and soldiers wounded by enemy fire.
This year Congress tried to rectify this obscenity by including Purple Heart citations for Ft. Hood casualties in the Defense Appropriations Act.
Obama said he would veto the bill, (and thus deny the military funding), if they didn’t remove the clause about the medals. That is how far Obama is willing to go to keep up this fiction, cover up the existence of enemy forces within the US military, deny the threat posed to the US by radical Islam, and in the process, punish and dishonor American soldiers who were killed in the line of duty in an act of war against the US by a self-proclaimed “Soldier of Allah.”
There is no precedent in US history for this sort of behavior by an American president. None.
Watch the video above, with testimony from the victims of the attack. It was produced by the Coalition for Ft. Hood Heroes. And think about them, and the commander in chief who refuses for ideological reasons to recognize what happened that day, and so dishonors them every single day.
Think about four more years of this reckless behavior if he is reelected the day after the third anniversary of the massacre, and then share this video with everyone you know.
(Thanks to Steven K. Harr)

Combative Obama finds subdued Romney

October 23, 2012

Combative Obama finds subdued Romney | The Times of Israel.

( This basically outlines my own reaction to the debate.  I will add only that I believe Romney kept his head down and played the moderate because doing so was what lifted him out of the doldrums in the first debate.  I have felt from the beginning that Americans were only looking for an excuse to vote against Obama.  By moderating his tone, he made Obama look somewhat mean and strident without having to risk alienating voters with strong, new ideas.  Bottom line, though this may indeed be Romney’s best strategy to win the White House, it meant the last debate was as I feared it might be… A lead balloon. – JW )

As president takes the offensive, Republican challenger projects moderation

October 23, 2012, 5:57 am 0

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama came ready Monday for a fighting finish, deriding Mitt Romney as reckless and overmatched in world affairs. Instead he found a subdued challenger who was eager to agree and determined to show he was not a warmonger.

Romney starkly moderated his tone and his approach in the closing debate. He seemed determined not to unnerve undecided voters who are weary of another US-led war, or to upend a race that remains remarkably tight with two weeks to go.

No moment was more telling than when Romney had a clear opening to respond to Obama’s lecture that he was wrong and irresponsible on foreign affairs. He responded by giving his five-point plan for fixing the economy, leading to a bizarre exchange that took the debate wildly off topic. It showed how much the commander in chief was in his comfort zone, where the challenger was not.

The last debate turned into a mirror of the first one, when Romney had been the aggressor and Obama was intent not to fiercely challenge him. Even in trying to outline differences with Obama, Romney often started by agreeing with him. Suddenly, it was Romney who was talking about supporting economies abroad, while Obama the Democrat warned against nation-building.

From drones to Afghanistan to Syria, Romney and Obama spoke in agreement on goals, if not strategy.

The president’s biggest vulnerability — last month’s deadly assault on the US Consulate in Libya, and all the unanswered questions that surround it — barely surfaced. Romney seemed to pass on the opportunity to assail Obama’s leadership on it.

Obama accomplished portraying himself as a world leader, facing a former governor who he said had offered positions that sent a mixed, and unsettling, message to allies and the American people.

He did so at times mockingly, but faced little fire in return.

“I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong,” Obama told Romney. He later questioned Romney the businessman’s ability to understand the Navy’s needs, saying: “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them.”

Romney’s clearest points were to try to turn Obama’s most aggressive moments against him, and to outline a more comprehensive strategy for combatting the extremism that has roiled the Middle East and North Africa. Even then, his tone stood out. Politely.

“Well, of course I don’t concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that I’ve said,” he said. “They don’t happen to be accurate. … Attacking me is not an agenda.”

With the race extremely tight and several states hanging in the balance, Romney sought to show he was reassuring, poised and in essence, presidential. Instead, he seemed to lose some of the edge that gave his campaign a bump in the first debate, where he aggressively challenged the president on economic issues.

Trying to capitalize on the mood of voters, Obama has campaigned as the leader who ends the wars, not the guy who begins new ones. Romney tried to combat that by saying, for example, that he would not get the United States involved militarily in Syria even though he wants to find a way to arm the opposition.

Yet millions of viewers at home were often left to discern exactly how much Romney and Obama differ in a world of diplomacy that is enormously difficult and nuanced.

Before the debate, Romney aides said they believed viewers would, above all, be looking for Romney to demonstrate leadership and confidence. His answers often appeared driven to show he understand the regions, players and challenges at play instead of undermining the president’s positions on them.

The moderate Romney was dominant.

On Afghanistan, for example, Romney said he also would bring troops home by 2014. Often, though, Romney would agree in principle before saying he would have executed differently.

Romney congratulated the president on killing Osama bin Laden, for example, but then said, “We can’t kill our way out of this mess.” He agreed that sanctions were hurting Iran, but then said he would have initiated them sooner than Obama did. Romney also said he agreed with Obama’s decision to stop supporting Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak — “I supported (Obama’s) action there” — but said he would have been more “aggressive” in trying to encourage democracy.

After a whole year in which foreign affairs has been the undercard of the campaign fight, it got its moment with the stakes right where they should be — high.

The presidency is about the world even during inward-looking times. Currency standoffs with China, nuclear showdowns with Iran and military tensions around the globe affect the economy and security of the United States.

The debate season ended with Romney looking like he wanted to get off the stage and back on the economy. That, ultimately, is where this election will be settled.