Romney's weakness

[Neil D]

Once upon a time there was a silver-tongued president. His foreign policy must have been seen by enemies of the United States as weak and feckless, because these enemies became emboldened. Mideast terrorists staged a brutal, bloody attack in which innocent Americans were killed. The president's response could be seen as a display of shameful weakness rather than steely resolve.

I'm referring, of course, to Ronald Reagan and the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which claimed 241 American lives - and led Reagan to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon.

It's useful to keep this antecedent in mind as opportunistic critics embarrass themselves looking for ways to bash President Obama over the spreading anti-U.S. violence in Egypt, Libya and now Yemen.

I mean Mitt Romney. Really. U.S. diplomatic posts are attacked abroad, and your first reaction is to issue a statement blasting the president? J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other officials are killed in a commando-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and your instinct is to seek not safety for other Americans at risk, not justice for the coldblooded killers, but political advantage for yourself?

Romney's rushed statement Tuesday night calling the Obama administration's response to the violence "disgraceful" was a new low in a campaign already scraping bottom.

And Romney's subsequent decision to double down on the attack, even as Americans mourned and officials began investigating what now looks like a well-planned terrorist attack … well, I guess this whole performance says a lot about what kind of man Romney is.

The most charitable explanation is that he's in a panic over polls that show Obama opening a lead. If this is not the case, then Romney's ignorance of foreign policy is more profound - and potentially dangerous - than anyone could have suspected.

It's one thing to pander on domestic issues. When Romney takes every conceivable position on health-care reform, when he promises tax cuts for all and sacrifice for none, when he conjures millions of jobs out of thin air - such reckless promises are written off as campaign rhetoric.

But international affairs are different. There is general consensus that at times of crisis, the United States must speak with one voice. Most Republicans, even some of Obama's most adamant foes, respected this tradition.

More important is the fact that words spoken in the heat of international crisis can have life-or-death impact.

Romney's tougher-than-thou bluster about the Middle East is no laughing matter, especially his attempt to appear to be more supportive of Israel than Obama is.

Since Obama has been as supportive of Israel as any U.S. president, Romney has contorted himself into dangerous positions - practically threatening an attack on Iran's nuclear program and saying he "can't imagine" any circumstance in which he would be unable to meet with an Israeli prime minister.

Romney's belief, apparently, is that such language sounds tough - that the harder he thumps his chest, the stronger he seems.

You have to wonder if he could ever summon the prudence and wisdom to pull back, as Reagan did, when circumstances indicate.

You have to wonder if he realizes that his shoot-from-the-lip attacks, far from projecting strength, sound frantic and weak.

You have to wonder if he knows there are moments when the guiding principle has to be "America first."

Not "me first."

[bonnie]

What a joke

Once upon a time there was a silver-tongued president. His foreign policy must have been seen by enemies of the United States as weak and feckless, because these enemies became emboldened. Mideast terrorists staged a brutal, bloody attack in which innocent Americans were killed. The president's response could be seen as a display of shameful weakness rather than steely resolve.

I'm referring, of course, to Ronald Reagan and the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which claimed 241 American lives - and led Reagan to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon.

[OzarkWoman]

[Neil D]

As usual, rebuttals are about insignificant points, but the main thrust of the message is missed....

Quote:

I mean Mitt Romney. Really. U.S. diplomatic posts are attacked abroad, and your first reaction is to issue a statement blasting the president? J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other officials are killed in a commando-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and your instinct is to seek not safety for other Americans at risk, not justice for the coldblooded killers, but political advantage for yourself?

Romney's rushed statement Tuesday night calling the Obama administration's response to the violence "disgraceful" was a new low in a campaign already scraping bottom.

What is your response, Republican conservative to Mitts response on US Diplomatic posts being attacked abroad..? His is to make political points against Obama, not defend the US....Is this the man you want in office? ambitious at any cost?

[bonnie]

As usual, rebuttals are about insignificant points, but the main thrust of the message is missed....

Your statement is seen by some as insignificent.

As to this portion you think is so significent ,have you tried going back and checking what Obama and other democrats had to say on Iraq while many families were mourning their dead?

I mean Mitt Romney. Really. U.S. diplomatic posts are attacked abroad, and your first reaction is to issue a statement blasting the president? J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other officials are killed in a commando-style assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and your instinct is to seek not safety for other Americans at risk, not justice for the coldblooded killers, but political advantage for yourself?

Romney's rushed statement Tuesday night calling the Obama administration's response to the violence "disgraceful" was a new low in a campaign already scraping bottom.

And Romney's subsequent decision to double down on the attack, even as Americans mourned and officials began investigating what now looks like a well-planned terrorist attack … well, I guess this whole performance says a lot about what kind of man Romney is.

[bonnie]

What is your response, Obama to make political points against Bush not defend the US....Is this the man you want in office? ambitious at any cost?

There are more of these if you decide to claim this is not true

Flashback: Obama Blamed Bush’s Foreign Policy For American Deaths In 2008

In many speeches and interviews leading up to his presidency, then-Senator Barack Obama regularly used the death toll resulting from America’s Middle East engagements as a campaign talking point. Why does that matter? Because the president’s campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt accused Romney of making a “political attack” as America was “confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya.”

Consider Obama’s past Op Ed for the New York Times:

“I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died”

Senator Barack Obama

July 14, 2008

And his speech on Iraq in March of 2008 :

“Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded.”

Candidate Obama even brought the death toll up in the 2008 presidential debates:

Wednesday was a different story, however. The President severely criticized Mitt Romney for attacking the Obama administration’s response to the attacks. The media was right behind.

Pundits called Romney’s criticism of the President in the aftermath of the attack “craven” and a “Lehman moment,” alluding to Senator John McCain’s fumbled handling of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell berated a Romney spokesperson over the politicizing of American deaths, asking bluntly: ”Does it seem to be injecting politics into a national tragedy?”

FoxNews has hit back, writing on their website:

“This was an effort — not entirely conscious — to make it illegitimate for Romney to criticize the president’s foreign policy at a moment when foreign policy has suddenly taken center stage. But that’s exactly when such a debate should take place — because it’s when the public will actually pay attention.”

The point, particularly given the Presidents own double standard, is a good one.

[Neil D]

[Neil D]

What is your response, Obama to make political points against Bush not defend the US....Is this the man you want in office? ambitious at any cost?

There are more of these if you decide to claim this is not true

[bonnie]

Bonnie, you ain't clear...you are so angry that you cant' get your point accross very well...I assume you are trying to point out that it is Obama who tried to make political points against Bush and whose ambition was to get into office at any cost...

[bonnie]

Just so you know,In MN Garrison Keillor ranks right down there with Al Franken.The liberal portion of MN is enthused about many less than steller or intelligent people as long as they are liberal.

Popular bumper sticker during election,"Vote for Al Franken,He is a crook but he is our crook"

This on the cars of democrats BTW