LITIGATING LIBYA is all that’s left for Team Romney after Mitt Romney clearly blew his moment to hang the Obama administration’s contagion of fumbling responses around the President’s campaign.
The only way you blow what you know is going to come up is by missing the foreshadowing of Secretary Clinton’s statement on taking “responsibility” for 60,000+ State Department employees, while stressing the security team’s decisions.
Did Team Romney actually believe Clinton wasn’t setting up President Obama, which played out beautifully last night for Obama?
McCay Coppins from Buzzfeed has the best analysis of Team Romney’s plan after their candidate missed his moment.
Within minutes of Mitt Romney fumbling an attempt to attack the president on the Libya debacle Tuesday night, Republicans and Romney aides took the post-debate spin room and pledged an aggressive prosecution of the administration’s handling of the attacks.
[…] The Republican choice to litigate Romney’s misstatement is in effect a decision to stay on offense, no matter what. With less than three weeks to go until polls close ““ and a final presidential debate that will focus entirely on foreign policy next week ““ the Romney campaign don’t want to risk losing all momentum by going on defense.
If Romney hadn’t fixated on a “terror” talking point, he might have been able to go to the substance of the issue on Libya that has stymied the Administration. The intelligence and how the foreshadowing of what happened, which was seen in earlier attacks before on 9/11/12, none of which were communicated to anyone, least of all the American people. And where has the press been on the building security challenges? Why did the Administration not share the dangers with the American public, which clearly existed long before Ambassador Stevens was killed?
How Team Romney missed this obvious line of questioning is stunning. But it originates with their bull-headed belief that everything revolves around “terror.”
The real issue with our government, no matter who is in charge, is the lack of transparency in telling the American people what the hell is going on in foreign lands and how what we’re doing is benefiting the U.S. and whether the treasure and blood we’re expending is worth it. Answer: It is not.
Because of this, no one expects foreign policy realism to dawn on either candidate, because Democrats and Republicans continue to be wedded to the worn out notion that we belonged in the middle of the Libya leadership mess in the first place.
The Syrian humanitarian crisis unmasks the world’s ineptitude at doing anything that isn’t easy and doable, which is why Libya was executed though NATO in the first place. Never mind that no one considered what’s next? It led to the assassination of Ambassador Stevens, which is a price we must be willing to pay when we do dangerous diplomacy on the cheap.
It’s one reason why the foreign policy debate next week could be the biggest farce of all. We’ll get the same “strong on defense” versus “weak weenie” because of Pentagon cuts that should have happened long ago. While no one will state flatly we have no business economically involving ourselves anywhere in the world unless American interests are at stake and we can mimic the SEAL Team 6 assault, quick and lethal, then out, no footprint left behind.