News of how misinformation about the film attacking the religion of Islam was spreading must have reached the American Embassy in Cairo. (See the post below for that narrative.) Some six hours before any demonstrations began, and in the absence of the ambassador herself, someone there put out this statement:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
While the attack in Libya was happening, Mitt Romney issued a statement accusing the Obama administration of "sympathizing with those who waged the attacks," apparently based on this Embassy statement, made hours before the attacks began. Even when this timeline became fully known, candidate Romney in person (photo above) once again accused President Obama of apologizing to the attackers.
The reaction to Romney's accusations were swift and harsh: that they are manifestly untrue, and that they are so badly timed that if anyone took Romney seriously they would be a serious undermining of his supposed country while it was under attack. Foreign policy specialists in both parties expressed shock that he would inject politics so blatantly into a national tragedy and foreign policy crisis, when Americans traditionally come together behind their President.
Political reporters were nearly unanimous in characterizing Romney's remarks as foolish and desperate. Even Mark Halperin, often a Romney apologist, said "his doubling down on criticism of the President for the statement coming out of Cairo is likely to be seen as one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign."
But President Obama said it best, in an interview he did that had been previously scheduled. While declining to comment on Romney's response, he added: "There's a broader lesson to be learned here," he told "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft at the White House. " Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."
Some conservatives were among those who roundly criticized Romney's statements. Daniel Larison called it "shameless opportunism" and observed: "The extraordinary thing is that Romney may have been losing yesterday, but he wasn’t being widely ridiculed and attacked for having practically disqualified himself from consideration. When senior Republican foreign policy professionals start referring to this as his “Lehman moment,” likening it to McCain’s mid-September meltdown in response to the financial crisis, we can see that Romney’s latest attempt to seize on an international event has done significant and possibly irreparable damage to his campaign."
But by evening much of the Rabid Right blathersphere was lining up behind Romney's critique, which may be the political calculation. But for most Americans, it's likely to be a different story. Such obvious contempt for the Commander in Chief at that moment does not usually go down well. Romney has already demonstrated that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that he'll lie and repeat his lies endlessly, although some might excuse this on domestic political subjects. But not in a volatile national security situation, when lives are at stake, when war and peace are at stake, and the way the President handles a dangerous international situation has major implications.
James Fallows on Romney in the Atlantic: "In short, when faced with a 3 a.m. test, he reacted immediately, rather than having the instinct to wait. And after he waited, he mistook this as a moment for partisanship rather than for at least the appearance of statesmanlike national unity...Think of this temperament and these instincts in a command role, and with stakes much higher than they were today."
Before this, Romney clearly didn't have the policies that would make him a good choice for President. Now it's clear that he doesn't have the character or the political skills to be President. As many were saying today, he is unfit for the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment