- The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 24, 2012

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

While most of the polls indicated President Obama had won the third and final presidential debate of 2012, I saw a different result based on the inappropriate actions of the president, with his constant efforts to interrupt Republican challenger Mitt Romney and characterize him as a liar and a waffler.

Despite Mr. Obama’s claim that the media agree he had not apologized to the Muslim world for all injustices done to it by the United States, many of the president’s comments certainly sounded like an apology — not only to me, but to The Washington Times’ editorial board and Op-Ed writers.

While both Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney made supportive remarks about Israel during the final debate, Mr. Romney did it with passion and Mr. Obama did it with reluctance. Both candidates stated they would not let Iran obtain a nuclear bomb, but neither clarified how they would prevent it. Both men also stated they would stand by Israel if that nation were attacked by Iran. However, with one Iranian nuclear bomb delivered into the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv-Haifa triangle able to wipe out half the population of Israel, I would have been more convinced of the candidates’ intentions if they had promised Iran would never be allowed to launch a nuclear bomb against Israel — and that the United States would launch a pre-emptive strike if this appeared to be imminent.

NELSON MARANS

Silver Spring, Md.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide