Foreign Affairs

After the second presidential debate of 2012, I wrote that President Obama "turned this coming Monday's foreign policy debate into a formality-cum-sideshow."  I take that back.  None of Mitt Romney's foreign blunders - not even his insult of the Brits before the Olympics (probably the only insult the British never loved) - compares to the severity of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya in September.  People on the ground and American intelligence seem to have concluded it was a planned terrorist attack and not a spontaneous incident that resulted from a demonstration over an American anti-Islamic movie within a week after it happened, even as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice (who most likely went by what she knew at the time) was saying otherwise.  Although Obama used the phrase "act of terror" in taking about the attack, which killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, Republicans insisted that he was speaking in general terms at the time and did not specifically refer to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror until two weeks after the fact.

I hate to say this, but the Republicans are right.  On September 12, 2012, the day after the attacks, Obama said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation." Note the plural person.  This was a a singular incident. How does that specifically refer to what happened the previous day?  For two weeks, Obama talked about acts of terror without saying that this act was an act of terror.  Even if it could be interpreted as a specific reference to the twin incidents of the Benghazi attack and the Cairo demonstration against the film, nothing happened in Cairo to make it anything more than a nuisance.

Of course, the Romney campaign jumped on this story without getting all the facts almost as soon as it happened, and Romney has nauseated  the families of the deceased Americans in turning into a political football.  But thanks to their media savvy and their relentless focus on Obama's haphazard choice of words, none of that matters. It should, but it doesn't; Obama is on the defensive on this issue, thanks to the fact that we're all still talking about it, and he has to provide a clear answer once and for all on the matter in the final debate. Oh, I know that diplomatic channels are complex  and that the White House can't get all of the facts as soon as something happens, and that it takes time to get all the facts straight.  But no one cares about all that; when something bad happens today, Americans want the facts yesterday.             

The good news is that Obama knows the question is coming up in the debate.  it will likely be the first question Bob Schieffer asks him.  He should have an answer ready . . . and a follow-up.