Romney’s Libya problem
Mitt Romney seems determined to make up for his first Libya error. Unfortunately, in last night’s presidential debate, he goofed again trying to undo the damage of the first mistake.
Let’s recap. Before the murder of the four Americans in Libya, the Cairo embassy issued a statement critical of those who make religiously offensive comments. The statement was made in response to the now infamous internet video that was offensive to Muslims. The embassy in Cairo was stormed by protesters a few hours later, though it is possible protesters were gathering sooner.
Then still later the attack in Benghazi occurred, and Romney quickly criticized the Obama administration for the embassy “apologizing” to the attackers for offending them, though it turned out that the “apology” actually preceded the incident. The statement was issued by a staffer at the embassy and had not been approved the the ambassador.
(Here is a timeline of events from Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/12/romney-says-us-embassy-statement-was-apology-was-i/
The day after the Benghazi attack, President Obama spoke in the Rose Garden and condemned the attacks, and he did briefly mention that “acts of terror” would not weaken American resolve, etc. etc. But at that time, the administration did seem to be attributing the attack to the anger produced by the internet video.
That position seemed implausible to me because the attackers obviously had high powered weapons that wouldn’t have been available to spontaneous rioters, but the internet video had sparked protests around the Muslim world, so many causes were possibilities.
The Obama administration has now acknowledged that the Benghazi attack was probably not a result of the internet video but was a planned attack. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton say there is an ongoing investigation into what happened.
In stepped Mr. Romney in last night’s debate, intent on showing that the president apologizes for America and our values and is an incompetent who is refusing to admit that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack, (as if anybody would be surprised that there are still terrorists in the world.) But the possibility, perhaps the probability, is that the attacks were planned not by international terrorists but by political groups within Libya seeking power. Time will tell.
So in the debate last night the president pointed out that he referred to acts of terror in his Rose Garden speech. Romney challenged the president, wanting to get the president’s statement firmly on the record. Romney pressed Obama, and Obama declined to answer further. “Proceed, Governor” he said slyly, allowing Mr. Romney to dig a deeper hole for himself.
Romney thought the president had lied and that he could prove it. Romney said, “ I want to make sure we get that for the record (the president’s assertion that he spoke of acts of terror) because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”
Moderator Candy Crowley then said that the president did say what he said he’d said in the Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi attack. Ouch. She also acknowledged that it did take two weeks for the president to say more clearly that the attack was planned and not the result of the internet video. But he had, in fact, made reference to “acts of terror.”
OK, so Crowley broke the debate rules by fact-checking on the fly, but so did both of the candidates by cross-examining each other. But Romney made the crucial mistake: Don’t ask a question you’re not certain you have the answer for. Romney thought he had a gotcha moment, but the gotcha was on him.
Spin doctors now try to say that Obama didn’t specifically refer to the murders in Benghazi as an act of terror but simply referred generally to “acts of terror.” A bit too nuanced, I think.
Romney undermined his credibility badly. It is arguable that the Cairo embassy statement was a kind of apology. And it is arguable that the Obama administration didn’t provide enough security to the Benghazi compound and didn’t respond to requests for more security.
But it’s hard to claim that the Cairo embassy statement, which occurred before the Benghazi attack, was an apology issued after the attack. And the simple fact is that Obama did referr to acts of terror in his Rose Garden speech, and it is not credible to say that this reference was completely irrelevant to the purpose and thrust of his speech.
I suspect that most people figure that any Americans in the middle east or Africa are more or less exposed to danger that comes with the territory, so they don’t blame the Obama administration for what happened. And most people probably don’t care all that much that Romney didn’t listen to the president’s Rose Garden speech.
But if people are paying any attention, they surely have to wonder about the competence of a presidential candidate who makes two important factual errors in political attacks about an event that shouldn’t be politicized in the first place.
update on Oct 18: I listened to the excerpt of the Rose Garden speech last night, and it sounded to me like the president said “act” not “acts” of terror. Minor point, but he did seem to be talking specifically about the Benghazi attack as an “act” (singular) of terror.
JR Beillenhouser
7 months agoRomney undermined his credibility? Obama knew about the attack the next day, but continued to insist that the attack was due to a youtube video. Not only that but his UN secretary went on the Sunday shows and said the same thing. Then Obama continued the lie at the UN and on the View. Only 14 days later did the truth come out.
Wow George, talk about blame the messenger.
The only one playing politics here is Obama. He didn’t want to have to explain that a terrorist attack occurred on his watch, and that he tried to downplay the threat. He didn’t ensure the embassy and it’s staffs safety, and is now trying to deflect from the truth.
Unfortunately for you, people who don’t have a political bent like you do, or are not water carriers for Obama like the editorial staff understand the severity of this lie. Even Crowley has come out and said that Obama misrepresented what occurred.
Downplay it all you want, blame Romney, but then take a good look at the polls. No one else is buying the lies.
“But if people are paying any attention, they surely have to wonder about the competence of a presidential candidate who makes two important factual errors in political attacks about an event that shouldn’t be politicized in the first place.”
I actually think they are going to wonder about the competence of a president caught in a lie, one that cost us four US lives. A president that knew of the political fallout of his poor decision making, and tried to hide it. Kinda Nixonian, isn’t it.
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agoGeorge, this is a super parody. the big 0 wanted this to be the result of the internet video and I think had Susan Rice deliberately go on FIVE, yes FIVE Sunday shows and say it was not a terrorist attack when the facts, as the big 0 has allowed them to seep out, show it to be a terrorist attack.
Then, jimmy ii himself goes on such tough venues as the View & Lettermen and repeats the lie. Finally, his speech to the UN mentions the video SIX times and terrosim nada… And then, you do this column saying Romney has a probloem…….
Johnathon Busby
7 months agoWe all expect half-truths from politicians; they all leave slime trails where they walk. But Willard lied, so flatly that there were facts immediately in front of the commentator, who had the courage to call him out on his lie.
Now, his apologists will spend the next two weeks trying to tell us “what he really meant”, but given he’s an etch a sketch (his own campaign admission), no way of knowing what he really meant, on that or anything else.
That, and his fictional “binders full of women”. Also, that Willard wanted to run on a bad economy, yet now finds himself forced to discuss other issues because the economy is no longer where Bush and the GOP left it.
William R. Nelson
7 months agoJR Beillenhouser
7 months agoMust be getting desperate in Obamaville…
Johnathon’s post is indicative of a losing campaign. I agree that Romney didn’t do the best job raising his point, but that may work out well for him anyway, because everyone is talking about this. And in the debate Monday, he will be ready. Obama has nothing to refute him, because he did deflect that a terrorist attack was due to a demonstration about a video, and went on tv and said it over and over again.
As far as the economy, Obama himself said that at this point, even without the stimulus, we would be at about 5.5%. He is the cause of the bad economy at this point. The economy will never improve under him, because his policies shut down hiring.
Nice try.
Mark Robertson
7 months agoRomney’s Libya problem? Right. Tell me another one. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agoearth to Johnathon… you must have missed this in the news….
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-really-call-consulate-attack-in-libya-act-terror/
Mark Hastert
7 months ago”No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,”
Those are the exact words the President spoke in the Rose Garden a day after the Bengazi attack when addressing the press on the issue. All the denial in the world won’t change the video or the transcripts of what was said. The Neocon cowboys are always quick to a snap (and frequently wrong) judgement. Governor Romney and his allies are trying to use a tragedy to make political hay and it truly is, in the words of the President, offensive.
BTW, for those who were speculating on the pre-election state of the Misery Index, it’s down.
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agothe big 0 protectors need a better story…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/17/review-obama-hasnt-implicitly-acknowledged-terrori/
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agosome more on Benghazi-gate….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/more-evidence-of-deception/2012/10/17/2a4a26c6-1870-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html
Phil Cardarella
7 months agoHere is the bottom-line Romney problem: Neither he nor his running mate have as much foreign policy experience as a high schooler who has been on a People to People trip — unless you count Mitt shipping money to the Caymans and jobs to China, where he admired factories with dorms surrounded by barbed wire.
Worse, they have no feel for diplomacy. To Mitt, the Benghazi incident was a political moment of opportunity — and he jumped in with both feet in his mouth. Apparently his idea of being President is to posture. Especially in foreign policy matters, a President cannot just say everything he knows or suspects whenever it is convenient politically.
As for openness? Yeah, right! from the guy who is still hiding his tax returns, lest the voters “misunderstand” the damands and burdens of wealth.
Four Americans died — as did ten Lybians defending them. You will note that the President is concerned with identifying the criminals and punishing them — while Mitt is only focused on what was or wasn’t said by whom, when.
Which is more important?
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agoYou might want to get a different story line philly on the Caymen Islands…
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-also-has-investments-chinese-com/
Steven Fetter
66223
7 months agoWell, if you buy into the President calling it a terrorist attack on day 1, then the following people may be somewhat more uncomfortable then Mitt Romney with their public statements:
President Obama, Day 2 through day 14
Sec of State Clinton
Ambassador Rice
Press Sec Jay Carney
Robert Gibbs
David Axelrod
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agoAll I know, is that our community organizer’s only foreign policy experience was living in Indonesia…. I don’t recall all these concerns being raised 4 years ago, but I am sure the libs were gushing with warnings about what a President with no foreign policy experience would mean. Who knew it meant endless bowing, failed “resets” and Iran being closer to atomic weapons. I guess that must have been more of that Hope and Change crap, right???
JR Beillenhouser
7 months agoSo my choice comes down to a person with no experience but who seems to have an understanding of how the world works, or someone who had not experience when he started either, but now has 4 years of inept decision making.
Hmm…. hard choice.
Phil Cardarella
7 months agoOne of the reasons that Obama chose Joe Biden was because of his extensive foreign policy experience.
Actually, Obama’s foreign policies have been quite successful. No American troops have been sent into new wars — and lots have been brough home. That is a pretty good start. The life expectancy of anyone who becomes No. 2 or 3 in Al Qaida is now measurable in hours, not decades.
The loss of Amb. Stevens was a terrible tragedy — but the fact that Amb. Stevens felt he could safely travel as he did was a credit both to him and the policies he represented. Yes, there are a lot of folks out there who still hate us — but that hatred did not start with Obama.
Think W.
JR Beillenhouser
7 months agoYeah Biden is brilliant and W was the antichrist.
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agoYou don’t really believe the big 0’s foreign policy has been “quite successful” do you phil? You are just keeping-up your membership stats in the donkey party aren’t you? Or do you measure success by the number of bows????
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agoOK, we don’t know if it was a terrorist attack, but we for damm sure know it is not “optimal”. Is this more “quite successful” leadership from the big 0??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219867/Barack-Obama-Benghazi-If-Americans-killed-OPTIMAL-Obamas-extraordinary-response-security-fiasco-Benghazi-massacre.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DToby%2BHarnden%2BIn%2BWashington
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months agoYup, Biden is sooooooooooooooooooooo smart on foreign policy, isn’t he???
http://freebeacon.com/biden-how-many-of-you-know-someone-who-served-in-iraq-or-iran/
Mark Hastert
7 months agoNothing more entertaining than Romney’s face when the the looked at the president after Obama told him to “proceed”. You could tell in that instant that he knew he’d stepped in poo. Now his supported are trying to make a poo pie. If the poo fits, wear it. LOL!
You can’t change the video, you can’t change the transcript, and you’ never change your minds.