Anti-American Violence: Obama's Test
The attacks against the American embassies, after the release of an anti-Islamic film, put the president in a delicate situation.
Can the flare-up of violence from Tunis to Khartoum bring Obama down? That’s what Mitt Romney hopes. The Republican is losing momentum in the polls and must do everything to try to weaken his opponent, particularly when it comes to his strengths, such as foreign policy. So he launched an attack against President Obama, accusing him of being weak and bending to the will of America’s enemies — in short, a Jimmy Carter repeat. Coming from the Republicans, this is the worst of insults. For them, the Democratic ex-president embodies an indecisive being, soft, irresponsible, who very poorly managed the crisis of the 52 Americans held hostage in Iran in 1979, which cost him his re-election in favor of Ronald Reagan.
This is nothing new. For months Mitt Romney has been hammering home the same theme: Obama is a president who spends his time apologizing to everybody and undermines the dominant position of America. He affirms that he, on the other hand, will be a real commander in chief and will not hesitate to be assertive and to defend the interests of the country. After all, his book is entitled No Apology.
Romney’s Hasty Declarations
But could Romney be the new Reagan? So far it doesn’t seem like it. As Cairo was beginning to move on September 11, he released, without waiting to see what would happen, an accusing statement: “It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
He released it the following day, while the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi in Libya had already resulted in four deaths, including the ambassador’s. In fact, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton had apologized to or expressed the smallest amount of sympathy for the attackers. Romney was responding to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, issued before the demonstrations, condemning the “misguided individuals,” the makers of the video against the prophet Muhammad, which had “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”
So his statement was not only incorrect, but the timing was very bad. This earned him a lot of criticism. The critics are talking, including those on his own side. He is being reproached for his amateurishness in the matter of foreign policy and for having exploited the crisis for opportunistic purposes while, normally, in the case of an attack against the country, Republicans and Democrats close ranks and show a united front.
“Difficult Days”
Mitt Romney cooled the critics down a bit in the following days, but the Republicans added on. “President Obama has clearly surpassed former President Jimmy Carter and his actions during the Iranian Embassy crisis, as the weakest and most ineffective person to ever occupy the White House,” claims Allen West, a representative from Florida, in the Huffington Post. “Apologizing for America, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies and slashing our military are the hallmarks of Mr. Obama's foreign policy,” writes Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president to George Bush, in the Wall Street Journal.
Will this be enough for Romney’s blunders to be forgotten and to assure him a victory in November? One thing is certain: In a matter of hours, the campaign changed entirely. Foreign policy, which until now was the least of Americans’ concerns, has changed to first priority and introduced a big dose of insecurity.
For Barack Obama, this is a test. After nearly two months of scrutiny, aside from the tensions with Israel and Iran, he finds himself with a crisis in the Middle East. The attacks against the embassies called into question the positions of Arab countries, especially Egypt. And if the riots increase, up to which point will American opinion become tougher? At the returning ceremony for the bodies of the four Americans, the president remarked that we are living in “difficult days.”
Can the flare-up of violence from Tunis to Khartoum bring Obama down? That’s what Mitt Romney hopes. The Republican is losing momentum in the polls and must do everything to try to weaken his opponent, particularly when it comes to his strengths, such as foreign policy. So he launched an attack against President Obama, accusing him of being weak and bending to the will of America’s enemies — in short, a Jimmy Carter repeat. Coming from the Republicans, this is the worst of insults. For them, the Democratic ex-president embodies an indecisive being, soft, irresponsible, who very poorly managed the crisis of the 52 Americans held hostage in Iran in 1979, which cost him his re-election in favor of Ronald Reagan.
This is nothing new. For months Mitt Romney has been hammering home the same theme: Obama is a president who spends his time apologizing to everybody and undermines the dominant position of America. He affirms that he, on the other hand, will be a real commander in chief and will not hesitate to be assertive and to defend the interests of the country. After all, his book is entitled No Apology.
Romney’s Hasty Declarations
But could Romney be the new Reagan? So far it doesn’t seem like it. As Cairo was beginning to move on September 11, he released, without waiting to see what would happen, an accusing statement: “It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
He released it the following day, while the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi in Libya had already resulted in four deaths, including the ambassador’s. In fact, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton had apologized to or expressed the smallest amount of sympathy for the attackers. Romney was responding to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, issued before the demonstrations, condemning the “misguided individuals,” the makers of the video against the prophet Muhammad, which had “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”
So his statement was not only incorrect, but the timing was very bad. This earned him a lot of criticism. The critics are talking, including those on his own side. He is being reproached for his amateurishness in the matter of foreign policy and for having exploited the crisis for opportunistic purposes while, normally, in the case of an attack against the country, Republicans and Democrats close ranks and show a united front.
“Difficult Days”
Mitt Romney cooled the critics down a bit in the following days, but the Republicans added on. “President Obama has clearly surpassed former President Jimmy Carter and his actions during the Iranian Embassy crisis, as the weakest and most ineffective person to ever occupy the White House,” claims Allen West, a representative from Florida, in the Huffington Post. “Apologizing for America, appeasing our enemies, abandoning our allies and slashing our military are the hallmarks of Mr. Obama's foreign policy,” writes Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president to George Bush, in the Wall Street Journal.
Will this be enough for Romney’s blunders to be forgotten and to assure him a victory in November? One thing is certain: In a matter of hours, the campaign changed entirely. Foreign policy, which until now was the least of Americans’ concerns, has changed to first priority and introduced a big dose of insecurity.
For Barack Obama, this is a test. After nearly two months of scrutiny, aside from the tensions with Israel and Iran, he finds himself with a crisis in the Middle East. The attacks against the embassies called into question the positions of Arab countries, especially Egypt. And if the riots increase, up to which point will American opinion become tougher? At the returning ceremony for the bodies of the four Americans, the president remarked that we are living in “difficult days.”