Tell us Mitt: Who will you send to die and why?

As we await the foreign policy debate between The President and Cowboy Mitt, in which Mittens is sure to attack over the administrations perceived "weakness" in its' response to the embassy attacks, let's get the chronology straight. 

UPDATE: 

The 14 minute movie trailer of The Innocence of Muhammad, the film that may or may not have played a part in inciting protests when it was shown on Egyptian television that culminated in the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the murders of the U.S. Ambassador and three others has disappeared from public display. The film not only depicts Muhammad, which is strictly taboo in Islam, but characterizes him as a womanizer, child molester and murderer. Reportedly, the producer, a mysterious fellow known as Sam Bacile, stated in a telephone interview that this film is intended to demonstrate that Islamic religion is a "cancer". It has been "promoted" by Terry Jones, the Florida pastor whose burning of the Quarans previously sparked deadly riots around the world. 

 

The chronology begins now:

On September 11, 2012 at 6:00 a.m. (EST) the Embassy in Cairo, in an attempt to calm a roiling situation, issued the following statement, “(T)he Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

This statement was neither cleared nor authorized by the anyone at the State Department or the White House.

Six hours later, on Tuesday afternoon, protesters stormed the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department computer expert Sean Smith, and security officers Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEAL commandos were killed. (Mr. Doherty, not incidentally, was the officer who Romney immediately invoked as someone he had met and whose passing he personally lamented until Mr. Doherty's mother insisted he stop.)

At 6:30 p.m., (EST) someone in the Embassy tweeted the following:  “This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy”.

At 10:00 p.m., (before the killings in Cairo were reported) Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, issued the first administration response regarding the attack in Benghazi. “I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today,” Clinton said, confirming the death of a consulate diplomat. “Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

At 10:24 p.m. (EST) Mitt Romney issued the following statement, “I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. 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.” (Emphasis supplied).

Not quite, Mitt. 

1. The Embassy statement was released before the attacks and was not the first response, unless you count the tweet - which actually does condemn the attack, since it referred to “our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”

2. An embassy statement does not reflect “administration” policy.  Administration policy comes from the State Department spokesman, the Secretary of State or the White House. So it was incorrect to refer to the “Obama administration” — as Romney’s foreign policy advisers are no doubt aware.

 Nonetheless, Romney continued the following morning with this, “I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions."

Wrong. The Clinton statement of the previous evening clearly condemned the attacks and the White House had distanced itself from the Embassy statement.

Over the next several days, Romney and his surrogates continued this assault,  misstating facts and distorting positions, insisting that the Obama administration is consistently apologetic and weak when confronted with foreign crisis.  While he does so, Romney has incurred criticism from within his own party at his overt and craven political opportunism during a time of crisis.

Romney's campaign is in deep trouble and he knows it. Stinging from criticism over his failure to mention Afghanistan in his nominating speech, Romney hopes to turn this foreign policy crisis to his advantage by any means necessary - and that includes the most cynical manipulations and distortions imaginable. Again and again, he demonstrates that he lacks the cool and grace under pressure demonstrated by the President, whose principal response to his opponent to date has been to remark on Romney's tendency to "shoot first and aim later."

In doing so, Romney is finally revealing something of the foreign policy he intends to espouse if elected - and it is increasingly apparent that his way leads us back decades to the world of cold war and confrontation.  He has nominated Russia as the number one threat to our national security - and when pressed, included China in that exclusive group. He has insisted that we "abandoned Iraq". (Does anybody really want to go back there?)

He gives not one iota of credit to the Obama administration for its' successes which include restoring some measure of respect and confidence in the United States after the Bush years in which the U.S. played "cowboy" to the world and rode rough shod over whomever we chose.

He has criticized military budget cuts of $680 billion - a truly miniscule amount - on the grounds that it weakens us militarily, despite the fact that it has the approval of the Joint Chiefs and the only real impact it will have is to cause some tightening of bank credit to the munitions manufacturers - in other words, it's bad for business - and that's what Mitt knows and there's the rub. 

Most recently, he lamented that from the days of FDR and until this administration, this country has always had the ability to fight wars on two fronts and vowed to restore us to those glory days. Why?

It is increasingly apparent that the behind the scenes foreign policy advice he is receiving is from the same war hawk neo-cons who led Bush and this nation into catastrophic foreign excursions that, when coupled with tax cuts, undermined our economy.

Listen up, Mitt! The American people are tired of war. The specter of a return of this bellicose, blustering approach to foreign policy will not rally troops to save the sinking Romney ship.  Instead, it may signal the death knell of the Romney campaign; on the distant shores of a discredited and poorly conceived approach to foreign policy.