Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Foreign Policy Face-Off; Obama and Romney Debate Tonight

Aired October 22, 2012 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: And my thanks to you, Ashleigh. Welcome to NEWSROOM INTERNATIONAL. I am Michael Holmes and I am filling in for Susan Malveaux. We are taking you around the world in 60 minutes.

Well, they are locked in a dead even race just 15 days before the presidential election. Tonight, President Obama and Mitt Romney square off in their third and final debate, if you didn't know already. The tight race and the split decision on the previous two debates have raised the stakes for tonight. The focus? Foreign policy. But expect both candidates to also try to shift the discussion, of course, to their domestic agendas.

Here's the format for you. It's a 90-minute debate. It's going to be divided into six segments of 15 minutes each. Each segment starting with a question, followed by two-minute answers from the candidates and then a bit of a chat, some discussion.

This time they're going to be seated with the moderator, unlike last week's town hall. And the first debate, of course, was standing behind the podiums. Libya, Iran, China, just some of the issues that are going to come up tonight, no doubt. We're going to break down those issues and what's at stake with White House correspondent Brianna Keilar and foreign affairs reporter Elise Labott.

Good to see you both.

Let's start with you, Brianna. You know, we can expect Mitt Romney to raise, you know, more questions about the terrorist attack in Benghazi tonight. President Obama likely to portrait perhaps Mitt Romney as unprepared to be a world leader on an international stage. You know, what more do we know about their debate strategy?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's exactly what we're expecting, Michael. And during the last debate in New York last week, that was really a missed opportunity of Governor Romney's. He sort of fumbled when it came to the Libya issue. And President Obama has a lot of foreign policy experience, foreign policy successes. I mean you can't argue with four years of hands-on experience. Something that Governor Romney doesn't have. But the president is vulnerable when it comes to Libya.

So these are the issues, obviously, that we're looking for tonight. We're expecting -- and this is what Romney sources are telling our Dana Bash. We're expecting that he's going to be trying to portrait a calmer demeanor. Obviously, appearing presidential. That he's expected to hit President Obama, of course, on Libya, and also that he's going to be trying to turn it to the economy, as you mentioned. That's more his wheelhouse. And so we're expecting him to try to shift conversation back to that.

Now, President Obama, for what he is aiming to do tonight, we're expecting that he'll be maybe pointing out some of Mitt Romney's foreign policy blunders. Remember when he went on his foreign trip and managed to miff the British off. Things like this might be coming up. And also hitting Romney on his lack of specifics. And then, finally, it's really this issue of is Romney presidential in a way that he could lead the U.S. on the world stage? We've seen an ad and a memo out today from the Obama campaign trying to paint him as bellicose, as not ready, and we expect President Obama is going to be doing that tonight here in Florida.

HOLMES: You know, one of the other big issues likely to come up tonight is Iran. Over the weekend, that "New York Times" article saying that the U.S. and Tehran had agreed to one-on-one talks about Iran's nuclear program after the election. A U.S. official denied that. A lot of people might say, what's wrong with talking anyway. But regardless, can the president make the case that his strategy on Iran is working, the sanctions and the like, or does this give Mitt Romney an opening?

KEILAR: You know, the answer may be yes to both of those. Obviously President Obama would make his case that these are the toughest sanctions ever and that they have been working. You just look at Iran's economy, you look at the value of Iran's currency, which has plummeted, and he can say the sanctions are working. But, obviously, Governor Romney can say they're not really shifting Iran to changing its behavior. Even if everyone expects that ultimately Iran moves towards talks, he can say that there's really no evidence showing that they are changing their behavior at this point. So they can sort of both make a point. And it may also be in sort of the style in which they do it that we'll be watching.

HOLMES: Yes. Yes. Briana, thanks so much. Brianna Keilar there.

You know, there's a new poll out today that shows how concerned voters are about Iran in two key swing states. Seventy-two percent of voters in Florida said they were very interested in hearing the candidates' views on Iran moving towards perhaps nuclear weapons. In Ohio it was 61 percent. The study sponsored by Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Let's go back to Libya now, which is another big issue the candidates will be talking about tonight. The Romney campaign wants to keep hammering what it is calling the administration's security failures surrounding that deadly attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Democrats accuse Romney of playing politics. How will this play out tonight? Elise Labott joining us from the State Department.

Always good to see you, Elise. All this talk about, you know, what did the president know, when did he know it, in the aftermath of the attack and the security threat before the attack. Does that threaten to overshadow perhaps a more important (INAUDIBLE)? ELISE LABOTT, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER: Well, Michael, I think all this back and forth about specifically about what the administration kind of went out on Sunday talk shows and was telling the American people, very narrowly focused Mitt Romney on this last debate, kind of does a disservice and glosses over some of the larger issues about the breakdown in intelligence, how did the U.S. intelligence community misread the threat, this growing Islamist threat in Benghazi, and perhaps they were planning some kind of attack, and also why wasn't the security enough at the U.S. consulate? I mean if there were growing threats and the intelligence community was warning about this, why didn't the White House, the State Department answer some of these requests for more security? So I think by focusing very narrowly on this one point, it glosses over these larger issues that are very important to making sure that this never happens again.

HOLMES: Yes. And I'm curious about that, too, that, you know, in the wake of it too, you had the positive, I suppose if there is one, was, you know, the great support from ordinary Libyans who were coming out against that too. You know, I want to ask you about your sit down with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It was about a week ago, I think, to talk about this. Tell us what she said.

LABOTT: Well, that's right. You know, I asked Secretary Clinton -- because if you'll remember, Michael, the State Department never kind of jumped on this bandwagon of spontaneous protest or any kind of mob mentality, tying it to some of these protests throughout the Arab world. And I asked Secretary Clinton whether the U.S. kind of -- the administration rushed to judgment by giving this assessment or whether they got bad intelligence from the intelligence community. Let's take a listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence. Everyone who spoke --

LABOTT: Bad intelligence?

CLINTON: Well, everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed. We've gotten more detail. But that's not surprising. That always happens. And what I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game going on because that does a disservice to the thousands and thousands of Americans, not only in the State Department and USAID, but in the military who serve around the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LABOTT: And so, Michael, I mean, clearly, the way the administration handled this in the days after the attack is up for some kind of criticism. But to Secretary Clinton's larger point, the real goal here should be an investigation that finds conclusions that -- where those breakdowns happened and making sure that it never happened again because the consulate was brutally attacked, four Americans killed. The real goal is to make sure that this never happens again.

HOLMES: And quickly, too, you've covered this part of the world. Tell me, if there are requests for more security from embassies or consulates or whatever around the world, how likely is that request ever to get to someone like Hillary Clinton, let alone the White House?

LABOTT: Well, as we saw over the last couple of weeks, that security officials did ask the State Department lower levels for additional security that were denied. But to the larger issue, if there is intelligence from the intelligence community that says, hey, extremism is growing in some areas, there's a lot of chatter in the intelligence community, you know, the State Department puts out travel warnings about -- warning Americans in any various places. I mean it is up to the leadership of the State Department, of the administration, to just make sure, are we covered in these places? I mean, clearly, Secretary Clinton isn't getting every memo from every security officer, and -- but I think that what Mitt Romney is going to talk about tonight is a larger issue about how President Obama and the administration kind of missed the signals of the growing extremism in the region and didn't make sure that the consulate was adequately protected.

HOLMES: Yes, Elise, thanks so much. Elise Labott there. Appreciate it.

And, don't forget, our coverage from the third and final debate in Boca Raton, Florida, begins tonight at 7:00 p.m. Eastern. A little under seven hours from now.

Well, while the debate tonight focuses on foreign policy, most voters, well, they want to know how it all impacts the economy, their lives. We're going to get analysis from former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and also Congressman Jason Chafit . That's coming up.

And also China gets blamed for a lot of American's woes. We're going to look at the full extent of China's economic balance of power and how it impacts you here in the United States.

And, also, Lance Armstrong loses those seven cycling titles that made him a legend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Welcome back, everyone.

Fifteen days and counting, as we've been saying. The presidential election coming up. The campaign is in overdrive. But all the focus tonight will be right at Lynn University. Let's show it to you there. That's Boca Raton, Florida. That's where it's all going to happen.

President Obama, Mitt Romney will take the stage there one last time to debate. The coverage, of course, right here on CNN at 7:00 Eastern. The debate supposedly to focus on foreign policy, but, come on, really, they're going to get some domestic stuff in there, aren't they?

Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is a Democratic political analyst and the host of "The War Room" on Current TV.

Good to see you, Jennifer. How did your guy, you know, tie, let's say the auto industry, into a debate on foreign policy? Because he's going to want to.

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, FORMER MICHIGAN GOVERNOR : I think that any time you hear the question about China, it's a -- that's an economic foreign policy question and you will see it brought back to the United States. And, Michael, I think it's going to be very interesting to see how both of them pivot because both of them will want to go back to the economy for their own reasons. The president is going to want to say -- and I predict you will hear him say -- 5.2 million jobs created over the past 31 months. That the unemployment rate is the lowest that it's been since he has taken office. Five-year high in consumer confidence. Five-year high in housing starts. Four-year low in foreclosures. You're going to hear five-year high in stock markets. So, if he doesn't say that, then he's missed an opportunity. And I bet you he will. And then he has to pivot forward as well and to lay out the specifics of his five-point economic plan. And I'm sure Mitt Romney's got strategy to do the same thing, but I think China is the key question .

HOLMES: He's also got to talk foreign policy, but I'm wondering whether you think women's issues, because Mitt Romney was criticized for his talking points on women's issues in the last debate, do you think that will get back into the discussion?

GRANHOLM: I -- it will be hard to wedge in a question on contraception when you're talking about Benghazi. But who knows, there may be an issue related to getting out, for example, of Afghanistan and women's rights in Afghanistan. That could be a pivot.

But I think the other opportunity, Michael, is if they get a question on the Defense Department cuts, because that relates to the fiscal cliff and sequester. They will want to not talk so much about women's rights, but certainly the economy. And I think that will be an opportunity for them.

HOLMES: Yes, it's going to be -- it's going to be the master of the segue, I think, tonight. You know, speaking of China economic policy, contraception.

But what do you think the biggest thing is that the president has to do tonight to, you know, win the debate, go on and win a second term? You know, foreign policy has never won an American vote, I should think, you know, then there's broader domestic issues in play. So it may not be about what's said today, but it might be more about how things are said.

GRANHOLM: You are so smart. That is exactly right.

It is going to be a question of who projects leadership. Who looks like they are rushing to judgment or too bombastic and that would be the way that Romney might be portrayed, or at least the president would like to see that to remind people of how he came out barreling out of the gun on Libya.

But the president is calm, steady leadership and he is somebody who can portrait that this is a complex world and that the decisions that have to be made are nuanced decisions and you cannot have a cowboy-like foreign policy which will offend the alliances that the president has put together.

You do not want somebody leading that will take -- undo the good work that has been done to raise the status of the United States and to build those alliances that will ultimately bring peace to the Middle East.

HOLMES: Yeah, because why -- while, you know, a domestic audience might not see value in foreign policy because it doesn't necessarily impact their life, my primary role is over at CNN International and the people that we're broadcasting to over there outside the U.S., they care very much what comes out of this.

GRANHOLM: Sure, they do and I'm sure that this will be played and replayed across the globe, as well.

And I think that the president having raised the standing of the United States, the esteem of the United States, globally, is an important part, but for the domestic audience tonight, it will be a question of who projects global leadership.

Now, you remember that the president has been coached in this debate by John Kerry, of course, who has an extremely long series of international experiences and he will -- I'm certain the president will come in armed and confident, steady, and sure.

The question is how Mitt Romney is able to counteract that without looking like he is jumping the gun on everything, without looking like he wants to take the United States to war at the drop of a hat.

HOLMES: Yeah. Exactly. Really fascinating to talk to you, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, there. Appreciate your time.

GRANHOLM: Thanks so much. You bet.

HOLMES: And just so you know, coming up later in the hour, we're going to hear from a surrogate of the Mitt Romney campaign. Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz will be talking to us about tonight's debate.

Don't forget. Come on. You know, already, don't you? You can watch it here, 7:00 Eastern, live.

All right, if the last debate is any indication, we're going to be hearing a lot about China tonight. So many of our goods come from China. It dwarfs the amount we export back.

We're going to look at how the candidates propose to fix the trade imbalance and then about all that debt as well.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: One topic that is sure to get plenty of attention in tonight's foreign policy debate, it is China. It is the U.S.'s second biggest trading partner after Europe, but each size has accused the other of not playing fair.

The president and Mitt Romney went toe-to-toe over China in the last debate. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years, and the president has a regular opportunity to label them as a currency manipulator, but refuses to do so.

On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The currency has actually gone up 11 percent since I have been president because we have pushed them hard, and we put unprecedented trade pressure on China.

That's why exports have significantly increased under my presidency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And joining us now to talk more about U.S. policy on China, the impact on the presidential election is Gordon Chang. He's a columnist for Forbes.com and author of the book, "The Coming Collapse of China," a scary title. He is in New York.

You know, I want to start, if I can, with what the Republicans are trying to make their main point of attack right now and that is this whole currency manipulation issue. Should the U.S. be more aggressive about trying to get China labeled as a manipulator?

GORDON CHANG, COLUMNIST, FORBES.COM: Well, it should because U.S. law requires the Treasury to designate a country a currency manipulator if it meets two requirements, and it's an open-and-shut case that China meets those requirements.

Now, currency manipulation is, by far, not the most important thing to talk about, but if we don't follow our own law, we're sending a signal, and that's going to make Beijing even more intransigent on the more important issues.

So, currency manipulation is not just about currency. It's about the whole range of economic issues that we have with Beijing.

HOLMES: Yeah. Now, you know, if they -- OK, say they get labeled a currency manipulator under the rules. What changes, though?

CHANG: Well, very little changes in a sense because all that requires is the Treasury to open up formal discussions with the Chinese about their currency.

Now, we have been talking to the Chinese for more than a half decade about the renminbi, but we should certainly continue those discussions because, although the renminbi has depreciated against the dollar over the last four years, it may be more undervalued today than when President Obama took office.

HOLMES: Yeah. Let's talk about the relationship -- some would say a symbiotic relationship with China. The Chinese, are they crucial to the U.S. being able to finance the deficit?

You can argue in a way that the U.S. is more important to the Chinese because they need our massive demand for what it is they produce.

CHANG: Right. China needs us much more than we need China.

Last year, China's merchandise trade surplus against the U.S. was 190.5 percent of its overall surplus. I mean, 190.5 percent. You know, China was running massive deficits with the rest of the world in order to run a surplus with us and that means that we have very much the leverage in this relationship.

You know, we can buy our shoes from elsewhere, but China really can't find a market to replace the American one.

HOLMES: Well, then how much of a big stick is the debt?

CHANG: Well, you know, our problem is not that there are too few people willing to lend us money. Our problem is that there are too many and, if China went away as a creditor, it really wouldn't affect the United States.

Our interest rates are at historic lows. I mean, so, you know, China is not that important a factor for us at this point.

HOLMES: I want to squeeze one more in. Is the challenge with China not so much economic at the moment, but in the geopolitical sense, its support for nations like Iran, Syria, North Korea.

CHANG: Yeah. No, absolutely. You know, Iran, of course, is a problem, but Iran is really dangerous because it has Beijing's backing.

You know, the Chinese have been supplying nuclear weapons technology to the Iranians. They've been giving them diplomatic support at the U.N. security council and, of course, China supports the Iranian economy in so many different ways.

So, we need to have a conversation with Beijing about Iran because Iran by itself is not the threat that it looks like to be today.

HOLMES: Yes. Fascinating. Gordon Chang, columnist at Forbes.com and author, as well. Interesting stuff. We'll have you back, I'm sure. Thanks a lot. CHANG: Thank you.

HOLMES: All right, when the candidates take the stage tonight, the Kremlin will be paying some attention to the debate, as well. We're going to have a live report from Moscow when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: The terrorist attack in Libya, Iran's nuclear program, China, all of these things we've been talking about are going to be major issues when President Obama and Mitt Romney meet in that final debate tonight.

But what about U.S. relations with Russia? They've been a bit frosty lately, haven't they? How is the presidential race here playing out there?

Phil Black has the reaction from Russia following a tough year between Washington and Moscow.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Russia became an election issue when President Barack Obama was overheard saying this to its outgoing president.

OBAMA: It's my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.

BLACK: That promise of flexibility triggered this from his opponent.

ROMNEY: This is to Russia. This is without question our number one geopolitical foe.

BLACK: A view that didn't go over well in Russia.

ALEXEI PUSHKOV, CHAIR, RUSSIAN PARLIAMENT INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: I think that, yes, Mr. Romney may be a disaster.

BLACK: Alexei Puskkov chairs the Russian parliament's international affairs committee, a senior member of the governing United Russia Party. He is well connected with the Kremlin.

PUSHKOV: Mr. Romney is not someone who strikes me as a person of the 21st century in foreign policy.

BLACK: Pushkov believes Romney is wrong in saying Obama is soft on Russia because this has been a very difficult, sometimes confrontational year for the two countries.

It started last December. Russians took to the streets after disputed parliamentary elections. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also criticized the vote and Vladimir Putin, then Russian prime minister, accused her of encouraging the protests. PUSHKOV: Mr. Putin interpreted certain remarks made by Secretary of State Clinton as something which shows that the Americans are inclined towards regime change in Russia, too.

BLACK: Syria has proved the most emotional issue. U.S. officials have said Russia has blood on its hands for vetoing tough resolutions in the U.N. security council and for selling weapons to the Syrian regime.

Russia doesn't trust America's intentions.

PUSHKOV: We hear that the United States after human rights, democracy, freedom, and so on, and then we see that in the majority of cases it has to do with geopolitical interests.

BLACK: In September, the Kremlin ordered the closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development after 20 years work and billions of dollars on health, democracy, and human rights programs.

Moscow said the agency was trying to interfere in domestic politics and, only a few weeks later, Russia declared it won't renew an agreement with the United States, which has helped secure and destroy thousands of Cold War-era nuclear weapons in former Soviet countries.

All of this comes after the Obama administration's much-hyped policy of pushing the reset button with Russia.

So, despite a major effort by Barack Obama to improve relations with Russia, there is very little trust or friendship.

In Moscow, the fear is things could get even worse if Mitt Romney wins and lives up to the language he has been using during the campaign.

PUSHKOV: We'll be talking about a new Cold War if Romney is serious about what he is saying.

BLACK: But there are also people who believe Barack Obama should have been much tougher with Russia.

Commentator Konstantin Von Eggert is one of them, but he admits very new Russians agree with him.

KONSTANTIN VON EGGERT, RADIO COMMENTATOR: In this particular time of the so-called reset, he was perceived as someone who is negotiating with Russia from the position of weakness and that meant that Russian decision-makers and Putin himself thought they could push the button further.

BLACK: There is a list of sensitive issues the next U.S. president will have to address with Russia. His challenge will be preventing an already frosty relationship turning very cold.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: Phil Black joins me now from Moscow. Good to see you.

Phil, not very cheery stuff in that piece of yours. One of the things that came up, of course, was the issue that -- about Russia and the crisis in Syria.

How is that playing out in Russia as this presidential debate comes up in just a matter of a few hours?

BLACK: Well, Russia's opposition to all attempts at putting pressure on the Syrian regime is well known, well stated. They've vetoed a number of U.N. security council resolutions that would pressure the Syrian regime with sanctions, arms embargoes.

Mitt Romney, his policy is to go even further than that. He has talked about arming some of the Syrian rebels with big weapons that could shoot down jets and helicopters. Russia is opposed to that even more strongly.

The view here in Moscow is very much one where they feel strong opposition to what the United States is trying to do there.

Already the difference is very sharp, but the fear is that, if Mitt Romney wins, the differences -- the aggression on that particular point could become even stronger.

HOLMES: It's been such a frosty year. We just marked, of course, the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the nuclear standoff between the U.S. and the Soviet Union as it was then.

You know, how serious are the concerns about this frosty relationship where you are?

BLACK: No one is predicting a crisis as intense as the Cuban Missile Crisis was, certainly not imminently, but there is a fear here.

The belief here is that, at the moment, in Presidents Putin and Obama, there are two leaders who, despite their countries sharply conflicting assessments and interests, are committed to at least trying to work together, to smooth over some of those differences and work constructively where possible, particularly where their interests do coincide.

The fear here, though, is that if President Obama is replaced by President Romney, who is more prepared to confront less willing to listen, then that relationship will degrade sharply.

It will very quickly begin to affect interests in areas where these two countries at the moment believe very strongly they should be working together, like trying to avoid deadlock in the security council, like reigning in Iran's nuclear ambitions and Russia is playing a big part in helping the U.S. plan its pull-out of Afghanistan, as well.

All of that, it is feared, would suffer very quickly, Michael.

HOLMES: Important relationship, too. OK. Good to see you, Phil. Appreciate that. Phil Black, there in Moscow.

Now, earlier in the program, we heard what Democrats want to get across in the debate tonight. Next up, we'll get the Republican side with Congressman Jason Chaffetz.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: As we've been telling you, just hours away now from the final presidential debate, less than six and a half hours actually, and you can see there President Obama reviewing some notes while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney took a break to hit the beach on Sunday.

Utah Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz is already in place at the site of the debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. Good to see you, Congressman. Thanks for being with us.

Foreign policy may not be what Mitt Romney may want to talk about tonight. I want you to listen to what one journalist is saying about your man's predicament and get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN LIZZA, "THE NEW YORKER": Mitt Romney, every second you're talking about foreign policy is wasted, which might mean that Romney tries to break out of that and tries to bring home some of the foreign policy issues to domestic economic issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Is that a bit harsh, or is that what Mitt Romney needs to do? Get on to the topic of the economy and not deal too much with the intricacies of Syria?

REPRESENTATIVE JASON CHAFFETZ (R), UTAH: Well, I think it's a little off-base. Certainly, Governor Romney is running to be the commander-in-chief and, doing so, you have to show a confidence as it relates to world affairs.

I also think that the United States is ready for a change. It knows it's off track. It wants to make that change.

And to the extent that Mitt Romney can project himself as the next commander-in-chief, as the president of the United States, then I think the people are willing to make that choice.

But certainly, there's a direct tie between our economic strength, our military strength and our position in the world.

HOLMES: You know, I'm curious. You know, we just were talking with Phil Black in Moscow and we've had discussions with others, as well, during the program.

You know, obviously, the voters are the ones here in the United States that Mitt Romney is trying to appeal to. Are you concerned about his reputation overseas? It wasn't a particularly successful overseas trip he did when he seemed to offend Londoners over the Olympics and Moscow very worried about a Romney presidency. Do you think that matters?

CHAFFETZ: I think that the idea that Russia is worried about a Romney presidency probably plays well here in the United States. The idea of leading from behind is not something that I think resonates with the American people.

I think we've had literally tens of hundreds of thousands of people recently serving overseas. They want a commander-in-chief who is in command of the issues, who is going to take charge, who's actually going to lead out.

But I think also a Romney presidency will be good for the world because I think it will be crystal clear where Governor Romney stands. There won't be this ambiguity that is oftentimes plaguing the Obama administration.

HOLMES: When it comes to Libya and, of course, Benghazi is obviously going to come up in the debate, do you think it's a stretch to say, as some have, that President Obama's foreign policy is unraveling across Libya when, you know, the vast majority of the country appears to embrace the U.S. as it rallies in support of the United States the day after the attack in Benghazi?

And I spent time with the rebels last year during the revolution last year and they were very fond of the U.S.

CHAFFETZ: What doesn't make sense to a lot of Americans is the idea that the president has been touting that terrorism, the terrorists, al Qaeda, and offshoots of that are on their heels, they're on the run when they're able to execute an attack like what happened in Benghazi just doesn't make sense.

Terrorism is out there. It's very real. You can't just discount it and take a victory lap and say, well, you know, we killed Osama bin Laden. Therefore, terrorists are on the run everywhere.

That idea of this victory lap that the president took does not resonate, and certainly we enjoy support from many Libyans. It may even be most Libyans, but we have to understand that our compound in Benghazi was attacked twice. We had two bombings prior.

What I have a problem with is the president didn't solve that. We didn't add more resources there. We didn't fortify the physical facilities there.

That's what people don't understand. They ask -- the people on the ground asked for more resources. Not only were those denied, they were reduced, and that came after the June 6th bombing of our facility there. That doesn't make sense.

HOLMES: Yes. Congressman, thanks so much. Congressman Jason Chaffetz there from Boca Raton.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

HOLMES: Enjoy the debate. We'll talk again, I'm sure.

All right, let's get a quick update on the markets. It was down last time I looked. Let's see where it is now. Still down. 35 points or so on the day, one-quarter of 1 percent.

Investors still a little on edge after the Dow dropped more than 200 points on Friday.

The big thing to look out for is some important earnings reports coming out. We'll be hearing from Apple, Facebook, Amazon, all of those before the week is out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Welcome back.

The host state of tonight's third and final presidential debate is the target for a new round of political ads highlighting the importance of Israel in this election. Iran, front and center. Have a look at that billboard there. And TV ads shot in Israel with Israeli Jews praising President Obama. Sara Sidner joins us now from our Jerusalem bureau with more on what's at stake.

You know, is this any different than what we've seen in past U.S. presidential elections in terms of the importance and focus on Israel, or is it much of the same? There's a little bit more at stake this time around, isn't it?

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It seems to be more of the focus. And certainly when you talk to people here in Israel -- we've been to several political gatherings, even if you talk to people in the grocery store and you ask them about the U.S. presidential election, everyone has something to say and everyone has a favorite.

Inevitably, the word that keeps coming up in these conversations is Iran. A lot of people here concerned about what's going to happen in Iran. And that has a lot to do with the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has brought Iran up. He's made sure that Israelis know a lot about it. He's made sure that the United States is clear on his position when it comes to Iran, and made sure the world knows that Israel is not happy with what has happened so far with the dealings with Iran and thinks much -- there is much more to do.

The other thing that comes up and that is a concern for Israelis is the relationship that appears to be unsteady between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama. One that seems to be quite chilly. A lot of people worry that that's going to somehow spill into U.S.-Israel policy and there is concern there. So much concern that in a special session of the conessit , the parliamentarians put that on the agenda, something to talk about.

But as you will know, certainly this issue of whether or not the president and prime minister get along will be brought up by Mitt Romney during these debates. And, of course, you will also hear Mr. Obama likely talking about his record, his policy, on helping to protect Israel, if it's anything like what they've been saying during the campaign trail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Our commitment to Israel security must not waiver and neither must our pursuit of peace. The Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: And then, of course, Romney had a comeback for that. And we've heard this several times. Here's what he's had to say on the campaign trail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The president explicitly stated that his goal was to put daylight between the United States and Israel. And he succeeded. This is a dangerous situation that has set back the hope of peace in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: So, there you have it. And this debate is going to be happening, the last one in the United States, between these two men who want to -- one wants to stay in the presidency and the other wants to take over and be in the White House as the leader of the United States. You certainly will not see people staying up, I don't think, until 4:00 in the morning to watch that, but you will definitely hear a lot about it the day after. People are watching the U.S. presidential debates here. They are concerned about who is going to be in the White House.

But, in general, overall, when you get to the nitty gritty of it all, if you ask people about the U.S.-Israel relationship, they say no matter who is in that position, no matter who becomes the president, the relationship will still be strong.

HOLMES: And, Sara, just very quickly, the polling on Israeli- Americans who will be voting. What's it saying?

SIDNER: Basically when Israelis are asked about who they think would better protect Israel, have better policies for Israel, two to one they say Romney. So this state -- this country very heavily in favor of the Republican candidate at this point.

Michael.

HOLMES: Sara, good to see you. Sara Sidner there in Jerusalem in the evening.

Well, a cycling star falls from grace. Boy, did he. The International Cycling Union strips Lance Armstrong of his Tour de France title, but that may only be the beginning of his problems. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HOLMES: Lance Armstrong no longer a Tour de France winner. The president of the International Cycling Union says Armstrong, quote, "has no place in cycling." He was today stripped of his seven tour victories and banned from the sport. This, of course, in the wake of a U.S. Anti Doping Agency report accusing Armstrong of leading a sophisticated doping program over many years. Our Alex Thomas is in London.

It may seem shocking to some, but not really unexpected, was it?

ALEX THOMAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Not unexpected, Michael, to those that have always doubted professional road race cycling was able to steer clear of illegal drug taking. And certainly that was the findings of that United States Anti Doping Agency verdict some months ago now when the recent evidence came out, the explicit detail of exactly how Lance Armstrong had doped, according to them, and how he cohered and bullied others into it shocked many around the world. And finally now, world cycling's governing body, the UCI, and their president, Pat McQuaid, who many had said was toothless in the face of this cheating, have finally come out and agreed with the USADA reports and have confirmed Lance Armstrong is banned for life and all his seven record Tour de France titles have been stripped from him. McQuaid went as far as saying that there's no place for Armstrong in cycling and he was sorry that his predecessors have failed to get to grips with the drug's cheats in cycling.

It's not the end of the story for Armstrong, though, Michael. Already we're getting reports that an American insurance company might take legal action within days over having to cover one of his multi- million dollar bonus payments of all those Tour de France wins. Another sponsor, Oakley, have joined Nike and others in dropping Armstrong as well. So really the cyclist's reputation is in tatters.

HOLMES: Yes, an inglorious end. Alex, thanks so much. Alex Thomas there in London.

Well, the foreign policy debate is a hot topic if you're checking out Twitter. And one tweet caught our attention in particular. We'll tell you about it later.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)