US election debate: Candidates spar on foreign policy

 

Romney accuses Obama of 'apology tour'

US President Barack Obama has forcefully attacked his Republican challenger Mitt Romney, in their third and final presidential debate.

During the tense encounter in Florida, the rivals tangled over the Arab Spring, Iran, Israel and China.

Mr Obama said his rival was "all over the map" on foreign policy. But Mr Romney said the president had allowed "chaos" to engulf the Middle East.

Two instant polls said Mr Obama won the head to head.

The Democratic president went on the attack from the start of Monday night's forum, trying to trip up his rival.

'Rising tide of chaos'

But Mr Obama did not appear to land any knockout blows on Mr Romney, who has been gathering momentum with two weeks to go until election day, in a race that is now neck and neck.

Our experts' analysis

Mark Mardell (L) and Kim Ghattas (C) and Jonathan Marcus (R)
  • Mark Mardell, BBC North America editor - Barack Obama had the best lines, but perhaps Mitt Romney had the best night. Not in the sense that he won the debate - it was a draw if you have to judge these things that way. This final debate probably won't shift the opinion polls, but it saw a marked change in emphasis in Mr Romney's foreign policy... Read more from Mark
  • Kim Ghattas, BBC's US state department correspondent - Romney agreed often with the president, made sure he did not sound like he was going to take America into another war. He criticised the president by attacking him from the left a few times. Maybe that could sway some undecided voters who prefer Republican economic policies but were worried about electing a warmonger. How Kim tweeted the debate
  • Jonathan Marcus, BBC's defence and diplomatic correspondent - For all the apparent divisions on the campaign trail, this final debate was about proving statesmanship and a capacity to lead and to keep America safe... Read more from Jonathan

The debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, moderated by veteran CBS News presenter Bob Schieffer, was not as fractious as their second encounter last week, when Mr Obama came out fighting after his lethargic performance in their first meeting.

But there were several scathing exchanges, with the president seeking to portray his challenger as a foreign policy novice lacking the consistency to be commander-in-chief.

Mr Obama said the former Massachusetts governor had backed a continued troop presence in Iraq, opposed nuclear treaties with Russia and flip-flopped over when the US should leave Afghanistan.

"What we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map," said Mr Obama.

But Mr Romney charged that the president had allowed a "rising tide of chaos" to sweep the Middle East, giving al-Qaeda the chance to take advantage.

"I congratulate him on taking out Osama Bin Laden and taking on the leadership of al-Qaeda," said Mr Romney, "but we can't kill our way out of this. We must have a comprehensive strategy."

Mr Obama hit back sarcastically that he was glad Mr Romney had recognised the threat posed by al-Qaeda, reminding him that he had previously cast Russia as the number one geopolitical foe of the US.

"I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy," said Mr Obama, "but every time you've offered an opinion you've been wrong."

Mr Romney, who kept a measured tone during the debate, described a trip by President Obama to the Middle East as an "apology tour" that had projected American "weakness" to enemies, while bypassing close ally Israel. Mr Obama called that claim the "biggest whopper" of the campaign.

The Republican also said: "We're four years closer to a nuclear Iran", although he softened the uncompromising tone that has been the hallmark of his campaign by emphasising that military action should be a last resort.

'Fewer horses and bayonets'

Mr Romney barely touched on last month's deadly assault on the US consulate. His line of attack on that subject was widely perceived to have misfired in the last debate.

The rivals also found plenty to agree on - declaring unequivocal support for Israel, voicing opposition to US military intervention in Syria, and insisting that China play by trade rules.

Mr Romney even backed the president's policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2014 - something the Republican has previously disagreed with.

In one of the most biting exchanges, Mr Obama mocked Mr Romney's complaint that the US had fewer ships now than it did during World War I.

"You mentioned the Navy, for example," said Mr Obama, "and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets than we did in 1916."

Although the debate was meant to focus on foreign policy, the two candidates repeatedly pivoted back to the fragile US economy, an issue uppermost in American voters' minds.

A CBS News snap poll declared 53% believed Mr Obama won, versus 23% for Mr Romney and 24% saying it was a draw. A CNN poll put Mr Obama as the winner by 48% to 40%.

An NBC poll the day before the debate had put the men in a dead heat, each with 47% support.

Their last meeting behind them, both men have now launched a final two weeks of campaigning in swing states.

Already four million ballots have been cast in early voting in more than two dozen states.

 

More on This Story

US Presidential Election 2012

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 420.

    @409.Slarti_Bartfast

    Gotcha ;)

    It's grotesque isn't it. Why do Presidents even go the UN for permission to invade when the Constitution says only Congress can Declare a War? It's bananas. Where is the UN mentioned on the Constitution? 1/2 the time the US acts unilaterally without Congressional declaration or UN resolution.

    All those poor dead troops & civilians too!

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 419.

    "Why is Romney evil for being rich while Obama surrounds himself with millionaires like George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah Winfrey and Gearge Soros? Why is their money ok but Romney's is somehow tainted?
    Why is "businessman" a bad word these days?"

    It isn't that he is rich, it's how he got that way. By selling out companies and taking jobs overseas.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 418.

    thank you powermeerkat.
    An now to you Bola Aladeniyi America is not your policeman. America has to look at two strong Allies of Syria.Russia an China.They both back Assad. Turkey is at least defending its borders an saying enough is enough. Well when it come to the Saudia's they just power players be knocked down with a pufff.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 417.

    @338 IW acts of violence by palestinian terrorists opposing zionist imigration originated with that imigration in the 1920's under British Rule. The zionist (Irgun) bombing of the king david hotel in 1946 was probably the first large scale terrorist act in palestine. Both sides use of violence has been pretty indiscriminent during all the period of this struggle.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 416.

    It seems tragic and scary that the population of the USA, by and large, have zero recognition for the raising of appreciation and respect held by the rest of the world towards the USA since Obama took office. The USA was in free fall in the world's eyes, due to Republican policies and pseudo Christian sabre rattling and idiotic behaviour. Obama has single handedly turned it around, be grateful.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 415.

    Romney still prevaricates about his off-shore tax affairs. If he is not prepared to pay his taxes in America, as an American - why does he expect the majority of ordinary Americans to do so to fund wars?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 414.

    The world does not look to US for the leadership - some are simply forced to agree otherwise allegations such as possession of weapon of mass destruction would on your door for the next 10 years. Of course as a result of that the "invasion" begins!

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 413.

    397.M Holderbach

    "I find it interesting that so many posts accuse repubs as war mongers when dems got us into 4 of the last 5 wars."




    Have you counted WWI (Wilson-D) and the war on Libya? (Obama-D)

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 412.

    I don't mind Obama, I like him, but I havn't seen him do anything that made him stand out or really made the world a better place. Give Romney a shot I say. May do really well, if not - maybe we'll get a good laugh.

  • rate this
    -4

    Comment number 411.

    Why is Romney evil for being rich while Obama surrounds himself with millionaires like George Clooney, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah Winfrey and Gearge Soros? Why is their money ok but Romney's is somehow tainted?
    Why is "businessman" a bad word these days?

  • Comment number 410.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 409.

    @403Bastiat
    I think you will find that the US is NOT "at war" in Afghanistan, it is a "peace keeping" mission. Deployment of troops or other military hardware does not constitute "War". Not that US Citizens seem to care about the constitution much anyway with the total misunderstanding of "the right to bear arms", i.e. lets buy lots of guns and shoot each other.

  • rate this
    -2

    Comment number 408.

    It is difficult to consider USA as World Police?
    More as agrressors who invade all country`s that do not openly support USA-Israel business interests. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Phillipines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Lebanon, Chile, Argentina, Angola, Nigeria, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, Grenada have all been subjected to US-led war mongering last 50years

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 407.

    @262. bwthomas "Iraq & Afghanistan were started by the US, remember?"

    And both were invaded & occupied by Britain before the US. It all depends how far you want to go back. Afghanistan was invaded by the US & allies in response to 911. Bin Laden planned 911 because the US had troops in Saudi Arabia. The US was there because Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait and the Saudis...not enough characters.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 406.

    So, ok from this American's point of view. Plain and simple, we are screwed if Romney gets elected. I just pray when Romney starts his war mongering, the sane leaders of the world won't fall for it like they did with Bush. These intellectuals that voted Bush in...are still out there..

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 405.

    278 Twerpsworth
    And you must be in denial.
    Micky Mouse could run the US economy better than Obama.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 404.

    when romney did well in the first debate,mr mark mardell and so called pundits were quick to point out to us how this will help him to win the presidency.Now that obama did well in the last 2 debates,to mr mardell and co, it was a draw and wont have any bearing on the election.
    so much for our north america correspondent and pundits!!!.
    i guess they want the recession to continue and WW3

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 403.

    @399.powermeerkat
    Can you please tell me the clause in the US Constitution that authorises the President to declare war, or the clause that allows the President to go to war with only a UN resolution, or sometimes even without one?

    Why did you think George Washington in his farewell address, said to avoid entangling alliances?

  • rate this
    +7

    Comment number 402.

    One benefit Romney has is that he probably knows every tax loophole in the book. If he closed those and got his fellow 1%ers to pay the tax they morally owe he could probably double tax revenue over night, solving the debt crisis. But I imagine there's a difference between "could do" and "would do"!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 401.

    Why is America so slow on Syria, and they were swift to kill Gaddafi and Saddam, or is Assad not murdering is own people to the gleam of the whole world.Give me a break to you foreign policy is about interest of America and not necessarily the interest of the so called allies. Where is the democracy in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and who those America support more, a non democratized govt.

 

Page 1 of 21

 

More US & Canada stories

RSS

Features

  • Two sphinxes guarding the entrance to the tombTomb mystery

    Secrets of ancient burial site keep Greeks guessing


  • The chequeBig gamble

    How does it feel to bet £900,000 on the Scottish referendum?


  • Tattooed person using tabletRogue ink

    People who lost their jobs because of their tattoos


  • Deepika PadukoneBeauty and a tweet

    Bollywood cleavage row shows India's 'crass' side


  • Relief sculpture of MithrasRoman puzzle

    How to put London's mysterious underground temple back together


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.