• With: Dan Henninger, Kim Strassel, Jason Riley, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Bret Stephens, Matthew Kaminski, Collin Levy

    RILEY: Sure.

    GIGOT: -- on these issues. That's a more complicated task than Biden, who is basically going to be all in, assaulting Romney.

    RILEY: I also think Biden is going to want to talk foreign policy, because I think the polls have shown that the president's doing good on that, not as well as he was. That gap has narrowed with the events in the Middle East. But still, we killed bin Laden and we're bringing troops home and so forth. So it will be interesting to see how Team Romney responds on foreign policy.

    O'GRADY: I don't know. I think if he tries to go too hard on foreign policy, he's in big trouble because of what happened in Benghazi. Ryan will use that against him and I think damage him very badly.

    GIGOT: But Ryan is a rookie on foreign policy. That's not his area of expertise. I've heard him on that subject and he sounds, I have to say, more callow than he does on the budget in some of these things. So it's going to be interesting to see if he's done a full emerges on that and does pretty well.

    Dan, briefly?

    HENNINGER: Well, I'd like to see them get into the battle over happened with the super committee and the deficit last year. Joe Biden said last week that Paul Ryan walked away from that committee. The details would be a lot of fun to listen to because they were both on the committee.

    GIGOT: And Ryan has a good answer to that, I can tell you --

    HENNINGER: Yes.

    GIGOT: -- about how the president sabotaged it.

    Much more to come in the second half hour, including a preview of the Supreme Court's new term. It's promising to be another blockbuster, with racial references, voting rights and gay marriage all potentially on the docket.

    And after this week's debate on the economy, foreign policy is set to make a campaign comeback, with Mitt Romney delivering a major speech on Monday and Republicans holding hearings in Washington on Wednesday on last month's deadly attacks in Libya.

    (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

    GIGOT: Welcome back to the "Journal Editorial Report." Coming up in this half hour: The Supreme Court is back in session, and it's promising to be another tumultuous term as the justices revisit the issue of racial preferences in college admissions.

    And could it be a potential pickup of Republicans in the bluest of blue states? We'll have the latest on the Senate race in Connecticut.

    But first, an update on the investigation into last month's deadly attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Congressional hearings are planned for next week, with members of the House Oversight Committee promising tough questions for the administration over allegations of lax security at the U.S. consulate leading up to that assault.

    Republicans Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz sent a letter to this week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claiming that, quote, "Multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that prior to September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington."

    The FBI arrived in Benghazi Wednesday, three weeks after the attack, but spent only about 12 hours there.

    We're back with Dan Henninger. Also joining the panel, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Matt Kaminski and foreign affairs columnist Bret Stephens.

    So Bret, foreign policy had been said to be a big asset for President Obama in this election campaign. Is that edge eroding with the news in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East?

    BRET STEPHENS, WALL STREET JOURNAL: I think it is, and I think it ought to be eroding. It's long past time that the president not get the credit that he claims to get for foreign policy achievements which don't exist.

    What happened in Libya -- I mean, there's a lot of focus now on the kind of bureaucratic blunders that were made both prior -- especially prior to the attack in not sufficiently securing our diplomatic security there...

    GIGOT: That's an important issue, is it not?

    STEPHENS: It's a bureaucratic issue. And let's face it...

    GIGOT: Well, wait a minute. Don't we -- don't we have to keep our...

    STEPHENS: Yes.

    GIGOT: ... our diplomatic missions secure?

    STEPHENS: Yes, we do, but it's not the largest issue. I think -- I think these congressmen will be making -- Darrell Issa will be making a mistake if they don't focus on the fact that this was President Obama's 3:00 AM call. The real blunder is what happened when they knew that our facility was under attack, they knew that our ambassador was missing, and their instinct was, Let's do nothing, let's ask for Libyan government...

    GIGOT: And why was that -- what does that instinct tell you about Obama foreign policy? What could they have done?

    STEPHENS: Well, we have a naval base in Sicily 450 miles away, OK? We could have called up supersonic jets to get over the site.

    GIGOT: But what would they have been able to do on the ground?

    STEPHENS: What they could -- what they could have done at least on the ground is have a show of force indicating that we were ready to prepare to deploy force. We had no idea whether this incident was going on for two hours, 12 hours, 24 -- 24 hours...

    GIGOT: But if you're going to save the guys on the ground, you had to be there on the ground, did you not? Didn't you have to be...

    STEPHENS: Look, the instinct here -- but Paul, the instinct here was, Let's not violate Libyan sovereignty. Let's consult with our Libyan partners. It wasn't, We have Americans who are in danger right now, let's take every action available at our disposal.

    And after the fact, then the instinct was, Let's agree essentially with the jihadists' premise that all this is about this video and it wasn't a pre-planned terrorist attack. That's where the fault of the administration lies!

    GIGOT: You know, the administration, Matt, is saying, Look, you guys are politicizing this. We had a letter from William Burns, a leading State Department official, who said that about our own editorial on this. Is there a danger for the Republicans of appearing to politicize what was a terrible setback for the U.S. State Department and U.S. foreign policy?

    KAMINSKI: Well, I think so far, they've been playing it pretty straight, unlike the administration. I mean (INAUDIBLE) themselves into this. I mean, they took on the storyline that it was the fault of the video.

    GIGOT: The video, yes.

    KAMINSKI: And they...