What kind of diplomat would Mitt Romney be?

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney makes comments on the killing of U.S. embassy officials in Benghazi, Libya, while speaking in Jacksonville, Fla., Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012. / AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

This post originally appeared on Slate.

(CBS News) Usually when the presidential campaign conversation revolves around tone, timing, and how a certain story is "playing," we've reached a discouraging place. The policy is more important than the politics, so let's not get caught up in the theatrics. In the case of the violence in Egypt and Libya, the underlying policy is still more important, but the theatrics are not entirely trivial. In international affairs, what, when, and how you say something is important. That fact is at the heart of both Romney's complaint about the U.S. embassy's response to violence in Egypt and the critique of Romney's response.

Here's what happened: as protests erupted in Egypt, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement "condemn(ing) the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims." The statement was issued in response to an anti-Muslim movie allegedly inflaming the rioters. The mission was then attacked. The embassy condemned the violence and reiterated its earlier statement. Romney issued a press release saying he was "outraged by the attacks" and the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi, Libya where violence had also erupted and where later, three more would be reported dead, including the ambassador. Romney went on to say that it was "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."

What is a voter to make of Gov. Romney's response to these dramatic events, which also included a press conference where he stood by his initial reaction? If diplomacy is a balance between seizing the moment and knowing when doing so will hurt your larger cause, has Romney shown himself to be a successful leader? Romney believes that U.S. policy has been too concerned with the feelings of our enemies and rivals around the world. Here you had an embassy trying to forestall riots by showing empathy. Romney thinks that is weak and dangerous, which is why the embassy's statement did nothing. This mindset is so dangerous he had to speak right away and not exercise the political challenger's usual restraint embodied in Sen. Arthur Vandenberg's phrase that "politics are supposed to stop at the water's edge." The thinking in the Romney camp is that there is no better time than the present to point out what you think is a catastrophic flaw.

In short, Romney wanted to dispense with custom to get his point across. It's ridiculous to maintain niceties when there are vital issues at stake. Sometimes not maintaining the old customs shows just how serious you are. When Romney insulted the British by saying they weren't so well prepared for the Olympics, he defended himself by saying he was merely giving straight talk to an ally. The conditions were significant enough that politesse wasn't warranted. Before the Libya story broke, President Obama was being criticized for not meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In that case, Romney thought the president--who can talk to Netanyahu whenever he wants--was not maintaining the niceties of a personal tete-a-tete required when such a crucial U.S. ally would be in the country.

In this instance, the Republican candidate obviously wasn't out of line in thinking the initial embassy statement was too soft. The State Department thought so too and issued a statement saying that the embassy statement hadn't been vetted and that violence is never warranted. But since the State Department was already on the case, did Romney really need to speak out? The original wrong had been corrected, all that was to be gained by rushing out to a microphone was political advantage.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with Romney trying to take political advantage. This is a campagin, after all. In fact, good for Gov. Romney. This campaign could use a vigorous fight over foreign policy. So far, the campaign has been almost totally devoid of a discussion of foreign policy, an issue area where a president has arguably more power than the economy. Proof of this lack of emphasis is that Romney picked a vice president with almost no foreign-policy experience. The Romney camp probably rightly calculated that Paul Ryan's inexperience on this front wouldn't be that big a liability. Foreign policy hasn't been a front-burner in this campaign, so Romney knew people wouldn't giggle when he claimed Ryan was uniquely qualified to step in as president.

But was this the exact moment to dispel the campaign's lack of foreign-policy focus? That takes us back to Romney's audition for the role of diplomat. Do people have a better understanding of his views about Obama's foreign-policy weaknesses because he moved swiftly? Or did he bury his policy argument by breaking with custom and failing to understand the context for his remarks? He surely knew that anything he said would be interpreted in a political context. Was he right that his point was so winning that it could survive the inevitable criticism it would bring? Was it so winning that it was worth putting it out there quickly when events might change and make him look uninformed? Was it worth setting a new rapid response standard for speaking out forcefully on developments in the world? The answer to these questions will tell us not just if Romney can weather this moment politically, but whether he will be able to get the balance right when he's faced with just these kinds of challenges as president.

More from Slate:

Thomas Jefferson Defends America With a Moose
The RNC's Phony "Ground Game" Video
The Right Response to the Libya and Egypt Attacks

[qnique]

Seems like Romney is chomping at the bit to look relevant and smart on foreign policy. But you wouldn't think this guy was a seasoned world traveler with the disastrous trip where he made blunder after blunder with our ouw own allies. Now, he wants to make Obama's multiple foreign policy scenarios in the Middle East look bad. The way I see it, it's mostly chaos after deep change in all these countries that just went through wars of our doing or regime changes in Libya and Egypt. Romney was better off not saying a word until the whole situation was investigated thoroughly. Right about now, the facts would have been out in the open as it is. It really makes me wonder if Romney had anything to do with the attacks. I really wouldn't put it past this guy.

[JSwisshelm]

If Romney was President right now, we would be bombing Iran.

[TimeToEvolve]

Hide the women and children if another inept Republicon ever gets in again as President. We got hit last time because of the Republicons.

[Jared72]

Evolver - Can you say Killeen??? Don't think we need to wait for the Republicans for that. Your man, has given them the green light we he said we (America) was sorry???

[TRV2009]

Fourth, Romney lacks solid foreign policy credentials due to bungling his overseas trip and making laughable statements on foreign policy. Moreover, if he wants to advocate his new foreign policy versus Obama's foreign policy, he must pass the following tests:

(1) Does he advocate any new policy which is different from any of Obama's current policies? The answer is "no" as far as I know.

(2) Even though he has not published any article or book to advocate his foreign policy in the past, then at least he should have demonstrated correct foreign policy during his trip overseas and in his statements regarding foreign policy. The fact is that his statements and overseas trips have been blunders, as mentioned in my analysis above.

[Jared72]

TRV2009 - where you looking for an AMEN with this dissertation? Your preaching to the choir here. Your congregation left!

I know no matter what is said your mind is made up. But honestly, if you guys really believe this is Romney's fiasco, you guys are drinking more than Kool-AID, OH Yeah!!!!

In the end, at least Romney took the step and said something. Obama is too busy in the back shaking in his boots about what is Muslim brethren are doing. He actually allows Hillary to give the first "official" statements.
I guess we know how wears the pants in the White House!

Really, its not that fact that Romney said something out of line. Its the fact, that he was the first to say something...Almost 10 hours after the outbreak begun.

"We waited on the facts".... Really?? Its more like he stood behind the podium shaking. How bout that HOPE & CHANGE...That's right we have no more change!

[TRV2009]

Third, Romney does not understand catalysts which ignite anti-America demonstrations: pastors such as Terry Jones in Florida and media such as the Israeli Jew Sam Bacile's "The Real Life of Muhammad," an anti-Islam movie allegedly funded with donations from nearly 100 Jews.
Making ridiculous statements without doing enough homework and, on the other extreme, hesitating -without waiting for facts from new developments- is not the way the President of the United States should handle foreign policy.

[TRV2009]

Second, Romney's statement:
They clearly - they clearly sent mixed messages to the world and the statement that came from the administration and the embassy is the administration. The statement that came from the administration was - was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a - a severe miscalculation.

Based on the time line, there was no statement from any official in the Obama Administration which was akin to apology. Romney's statement is completely misleading to voters. This is a nonsense political slogan which only highlights his foreign policy inexperience; indeed his incompetence in foreign policy was already demonstrated by his statement that Russia is "without question our number one geopolitical foe."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/mitt-romn...

"This is without question our number one geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed," said Romney.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on MSNBC that he was not impressed when former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said Russia was the country's top geostrategic threat. "C'mon, Mitt, think," he said. "That isn't the case." Powell added that some of Romney's foreign policy advisers are " quite far to the right" and their recommendations should "get a second thought." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/colin-powell-questions-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-comes-out-in-support-of-gay-marriage/2012/05/23/gJQApcbLlU_blog.html

"Romney repeated his consideration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital in an interview in the city with CNN, while saying he would "want to work out with the government" of Israel the timing of moving the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

With the Israelis and Palestinians both claiming Jerusalem as their capital, the U.S. has treated the issue as one to be worked out in negotiations over an Arab-Israeli peace that paves the way for a Palestinian state."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-29/romney-says-he-d-back-unilateral-israeli-strike-on-iran

Romney's statement reflects his knowledge about US foreign policy. Does he know that Palestinian State is the strategic balance in the Middle East? Does he know that his statement contrasts with our current policy: " the U.S. has treated the issue as one to be worked out in negotiations over an Arab-Israeli peace that paves the way for a Palestinian state." ?

The patriotic wisdom for any politician: Never say any thing which contrasts with the current President's foreign policy.

One more Romney fact: "This is without question our number one geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed," said Romney. Americans need an explanation from Mr Romney. Can any readers who graduated from the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth or National Defense University explains in more details ?
Romney's trip to Poland will be more interesting. Wait to see the Russian's reaction; a connection, "This is without question our number one geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very and very troubling indeed," and Poland's historical fact.?
First, Romney 's praising Polish economy is right diplomatic manner.
Second, people may connect his statement "This is without question our number one geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors. The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed," with Romney's trip to Poland as a political symbol of the Cold War today.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

[TRV2009]

Here is another of Romney's statement:

"The embassy is the administration," Romney said. "The statement that came from the administration was a statement that was akin to apology."

Here is my analysis:

(1) There is no "apology" from any person in the Obama Administration. Therefore, Romney's statement is not justified and not appropriate. It is misleading and in fact harmful to Romney. People may view Romney's response as opportunistic or perhaps reflecting a lack of political experience.

(2) There is no official in the Obama Administration's statement of sympathizing with those who waged the attack as Romney and

(3)The Obama's Administration's statement contains no hint of sympathy for those who waged the attack, contrary to what Romney implied.

" 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." as Romney said. Actually Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee initiated in tweets, "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.".

It appears that the statements of Romney and the GOP are politically motivated. The slam is a "lose-lose" political strategy.

"The embassy is the administration," Romney said. "The statement that came from the administration was a statement that was akin to apology."

[TRV2009]

TUESDAY, SEPT. 11

6:17 a.m. Embassy in Cairo releases a statement that read in part: "The 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. . . . 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."

1:41 p.m. Associated Press alert: "Egyptian Islamist protesters angry over film scale US Embassy wall in Cairo and tear down flag."

7:43 p.m. Associated Press alert: "Libyan security official says 1 American shot dead, another wounded in attack on US consulate."

10:09 p.m. Mitt Romney's campaign releases a statement from Romney, embargoed until midnight in an apparent effort to avoid criticizing President Obama on the Sept. 11 anniversary. "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."

10:23 p.m. Associated Press alert: "Clinton says State Department officer killed in attack on US consulate in Libya."

10:24 p.m. Romney campaign lifts the embargo.

11:04 p.m. ABC News posts an article that says "An administration official tells ABC News that 'no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn't reflect the views of the US government."

WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 12

12:01 a.m. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, tweets, "Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic."

12:09 a.m. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt responds to Romney's statement: "We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America is confronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya, Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack."

6:03 a.m. AP news alert: "Libyan officials: US ambassador and 3 other Americans killed in attack on Benghazi consulate."

7:21 a.m. White House issues statement from Obama, which read in part: "I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers."

10:17 a.m. Romney issues comments on camera before an event in Jacksonville, Fla. "It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values," Romney said. "Apology for America's values is never the right course."

10:43 a.m. Obama goes to the Rose Garden to issue a statement. He takes no questions, and doesn't mention Romney.

Afternoon In interview with CBS, Obama said, "There's a broader lesson to be learned here: Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that — it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts and that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

MATT VISER

[TRV2009]

Comments About Romney's Statement on Foreign Policy

First, the "time line" and my analysis are two factors to evaluate Romney's critical statement:

Romney went on to say that "it was 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."

Here is the time line:

9/10/12. Florida Rev. Terry Jones releases a YouTube announcing he'll screen Bacile's anti-Islam trailer as part of turning the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America.

Florida pastor Terry Jones said he supports and is promoting a film criticizing Islam that has sparked worldwide outrage from Muslims, including violent protests in Libya where a U.S. ambassador was killed in a firebomb attack on the embassy Tuesday.

The Gainesville-area pastor, known for his virulent opposition to Islam, issued a statement on his website defending the film "Innocence of Muslims," directed by Sam Bacile of California, who describes himself as an Israeli Jew.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-12/news/os-terry-jones-movie-embassy-bombing-20120912_1_florida-pastor-islam-protests

Here is the fact from

A timeline of events surrounding attacks on US facilities in Mideast ...
http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/09/12/timeline-events-surrounding-attacks-facilities-mideast/i8D8R8WEuUKW6Y63X2mOOI/story.html

[daylin505]

Hmmm... "What kind of diplomat would Romney make?"

Well, if we use Nancy Pelosi's philosophy we would have to elect him to find out.....ROFLMAO