This morning, the news is breaking that contrary to what Susan Rice and other administration figures told the American people ad nauseum about the attack in Benghazi, the Administration knew within 24 hours that it was an organized attack by Al Queda. They even knew the identity of the person responsible for planning the raid. And furthermore, despite multiple bleated promises to seek the facts, not one FBI agent has yet set foot in Benghazi.

Which brings us to next month’s presidential debates.

First, let me review the debate format and topics:

1. Oct. 3rd. Topic: Domestic policy. Questions to be asked by the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS.

2. Oct. 11th. VP debate Topics: Domestic AND foreign policy. Questions to be asked by the moderator, Martha Raddatz of ABC News.

3. Oct 16th. Town Hall Meeting. Topics: Domestic AND foreign policy. Moderated by Candy Crowley of CNN.
QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED BY “UNDECIDED (?)” VOTERS” as chosen by the Gallup poll.

4. Oct 22nd. Topic: Foreign policy. Questions to be asked by Bob Schieffer of CBS.

When the debate format was agreed upon, foreign policy was most likely not on anyone’s radar. Everyone was focusing on the economy, jobs, the debt, and gridlock in Washington.

Well, times have changed. The Middle East is in turmoil, and the situation is deteriorating daily in several countries in the region. There could be a new war ongoing within a week. Yet we should ignore this, pretend it’s not happening?

Note that under the debate format above, foreign policy will not be seriously discussed until the LAST debate, less than two weeks before the election.

The first scheduled discussion will occur during the VP debates. Paul Ryan should have a field day with Joe Biden.

The second debate will allow so called “undecideds” to question the candidates. The choice of which questions will be asked is crucial. And that ignores the fact that we are giving center stage to the idiots of the electorate. Anyone who is undecided at this time is a cretin, an impulse voter, and not worthy of the attention.

Which returns us to the initial question. Should Romney demand before the debate that at least half the time be devoted to foreign policy, or should he attempt to change the topic during the debate?

If the latter, all he would need to do is use his opening remarks to discuss the situation in Libya and the Middle east. Obama would then be forced to respond, and then..we’re off and running.

I personally think Mitt should do this..shake things up, throw Obama off stride. It could be a game changer.