Doing the Benghazi
Shuffle
As informed voters
know, Mitt Romney is no foreign policy guru.
His European trip this summer was a gaffe-fest which, while providing
entertaining reading here at home, irritated citizens and leaders of several allied
nations. Rumor has it that Romney was
stung so badly in last week's debate by his Benghazi blunder, that he is now actually
checking news sources outside of the Fox bubble, cramming for this week's
foreign policy debate. Expect another
round of major policy reversals.
In the Daily
Republic article, Romney sees Libya from
his kitchen, I wrote "Gov. Mitt Romney, either confused about the details
and timeline or not caring and simply wishing to score cheap political points,
blasted President Barack Obama, saying, "An apology for America's values is
never the right course.' "By Wednesday, major newswires had explained the
timeline clearly and as facts were compared with statements, both Republican
and Democratic Party leaders condemned Romney's appalling lack of
judgment." Well, Republican strategists
have successfully buried Romney's "appalling lack of judgment" under a mountain
of editorials condemning President Obama for the terrorist attack in Benghazi,
including one by this paper. I asked last
week: "Does it make sense for congressional Republicans to cut U.S. embassy
funding by $500 million annually and then complain about inadequate security in
Benghazi?" Apparently it's "Yes," if you
can convince voters the attack was Obama's fault and distract them from
Romney's blunders and malarkey.
When
Republicans voted to slash $1.2 billion from State Department operations in
2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that reducing the State
Department budget would be "detrimental to America's national security." Mitt blusters
he will increase the Defense spending $2 trillion, but you can expect deep
State Department cuts with Romney/Ryan budgets.
It is truly naà ¯ve to believe the
State Department and preventing wars are not essential factors determining our
security.
Question: Should
U.S. embassy deaths be used as a football, kicked around to score cheap political
points? In the Libya column, I said,
"Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador killed by terrorists, grew up right next
door to us, in Davis. You have to wonder how his family feels about this crass
politicization of his death." Well, now
we know. Chris Stevens' father said it was
"abhorrent" that his son's death has been politicized. "It does not belong
in the campaign arena." Barbara
Doherty, mother of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack also asked Mitt Romney to
stop mentioning her son's name while campaigning. "I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his
political agenda."
Now, l et's
see where Benghazi fits into the Big Picture; here's a list of U.S. Embassy
attacks under the last five presidents:
Ronald Reagan: 1983, Beirut and Kuwait.
1984, Beirut and Bogota. 1986, Jakarta.
1987, Rome. George H.W. Bush: 1989, Bogota, Panama,
Bolivia, and Santiago. 1990, Tel
Aviv. Bill Clinton: 1993, Lima. 1995, Moscow.
1998, Beirut, Kenya, Tanzania. George
W. Bush: 2002, Calcutta, Pakistan, and Indonesia. 2003, Pakistan. 2004, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. 2006, Pakistan and Syria. 2007, Athens.
2008, Yemen and Serbia. President
Obama: 2010, Pakistan. 2012, Cairo and Benghazi. Terrorists don't really care which political
party is in power and obviously no previous president had the god-like,
omnipotent qualities Republicans are now demanding of President Obama. Republican strategists don't want you to dig
too deep into this matter; just accept their spin at face value. But now you know, so let's move beyond their
artificial distraction and discuss Romney's bogus budget math, bipolar policy swings,
the blatant lies that permeate his campaign, and real issues affecting Americans.
