Mitt Romney, the Lucky Luke of US Foreign Policy
Published in Liberation
(France) on 13 September 2012
by Fabrice Rousselot (link to original)
(France) on 13 September 2012
by Fabrice Rousselot (link to original)
Translated from
by Lindsey Cambridge.
Edited by Peter L. McGuire.
When it comes to foreign policy, Mitt Romney is a bit like Lucky Luke. He shoots faster than his shadow.
Even Barack Obama, who hasn’t read the comic book, remarked about Romney’s tendency to “shoot first and aim later.”
In July, barely after his arrival in London, he had suggested that the English were not necessarily ready to organize the Olympic Games, triggering a vast storm in the Kingdom.
But this time, it’s a little more serious. When the United States learned Wednesday morning about the death of its ambassador in Libya, after an attack against the consulate in Benghazi, the Republican candidate found himself being accused of having reacted a little too quickly and of trying to politicize the affair.
The controversy began when Romney decided on Tuesday night to denounce a statement from the American Embassy in Egypt that called for religious tolerance. At that time, several hundred protesters were gathering in Egypt and Libya against the film “Innocence of Muslims,” that criticizes the prophet Mohammed.
Romney then accuses Obama, per the intermediary of the embassy’s statement, of “apologizing for American values and appeasing Islamic extremists.”
The problem is that we learned Wednesday morning about the death of the American ambassador and three U.S. nationals in Benghazi during an attack in which the connection with the protests is not yet clear.
Suddenly, the intervention of Romney appears at once a little hasty and a little unfortunate. Several Democrats accuse him of wanting to politicize this affair at all costs, while America has just lost a diplomat.
More shameful still, the Republicans themselves are uncomfortable in the face of Romney’s declaration. “I would probably have waited 12 or 24 hours and put out a more comprehensive statement,” remarked the Republican New York Representative, Peter King. “When something tragic happens and a quick statement is made, it can be interpreted as political.”
All of this doesn’t prevent Romney from continuing to condemn “the lack of clarity” of Obama’s policies in the Middle East. But still, while the crisis continues and spreads to Yemen, some members of his campaign have advised the ex-governor of Massachusetts to be a little more prudent in his future interventions.
Even Barack Obama, who hasn’t read the comic book, remarked about Romney’s tendency to “shoot first and aim later.”
In July, barely after his arrival in London, he had suggested that the English were not necessarily ready to organize the Olympic Games, triggering a vast storm in the Kingdom.
But this time, it’s a little more serious. When the United States learned Wednesday morning about the death of its ambassador in Libya, after an attack against the consulate in Benghazi, the Republican candidate found himself being accused of having reacted a little too quickly and of trying to politicize the affair.
The controversy began when Romney decided on Tuesday night to denounce a statement from the American Embassy in Egypt that called for religious tolerance. At that time, several hundred protesters were gathering in Egypt and Libya against the film “Innocence of Muslims,” that criticizes the prophet Mohammed.
Romney then accuses Obama, per the intermediary of the embassy’s statement, of “apologizing for American values and appeasing Islamic extremists.”
The problem is that we learned Wednesday morning about the death of the American ambassador and three U.S. nationals in Benghazi during an attack in which the connection with the protests is not yet clear.
Suddenly, the intervention of Romney appears at once a little hasty and a little unfortunate. Several Democrats accuse him of wanting to politicize this affair at all costs, while America has just lost a diplomat.
More shameful still, the Republicans themselves are uncomfortable in the face of Romney’s declaration. “I would probably have waited 12 or 24 hours and put out a more comprehensive statement,” remarked the Republican New York Representative, Peter King. “When something tragic happens and a quick statement is made, it can be interpreted as political.”
All of this doesn’t prevent Romney from continuing to condemn “the lack of clarity” of Obama’s policies in the Middle East. But still, while the crisis continues and spreads to Yemen, some members of his campaign have advised the ex-governor of Massachusetts to be a little more prudent in his future interventions.
Next article![]( "Even Republican 'Allies' Turn on Mitt Romney")
