Tonight millions of Americans will tune in to watch the two leading presidential candidates debate over who will murder more foreigners:
Mr Obama will be aiming to stress his commander-in-chief credentials as the man who killed Osama Bin Laden and ended the Iraq war, analysts say, while trying to portray Mr Romney as lacking the experience to steer the nation through a crisis.
Polling suggests Mr Obama has a small advantage in voter perceptions about which candidate is best prepared to handle US foreign policy in a chaotic world.
For his part, Mr Romney is expected to push his campaign’s position that US foreign policy is “unravelling before our very eyes”.
At a confrontational second debate in New York last week, Mr Romney said the 11 September attack on the US consulate in Benghazi – which killed four Americans including the US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens – and wider anti-American violence in the Middle East were symptomatic of that decline.
The Republican candidate accused Mr Obama of initially downplaying the role of radical Islamists in the Benghazi attack – in order to protect a successful anti-terrorist track record.
Obama certainly has the Osama card but Romney has the Benghazi card and the fact that Obama snuffed Netanyahu, which will score big points with the neoconservatives who worship Israel. In the end everybody but the presidential candidates and war mongers will lose. Both candidates support the same violent interventionist policies and are merely debating over who can promise the most violence. Neither candidate will bring the troops home, close America’s foreign military bases, or cease assassinating people with drones.
Needless to say I’m not going to watch the debates. I have no interest in watching a couple of sociopaths argue over who can create more dead bodies outside of America’s borders.