WaPo Editorial: Romney’s attacks ‘a discredit to his campaign’

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Neocon Washington Post, a natural ally of the Romney campaign, nonetheless is harsh in its criticism.
Mr. Romney’s rhetoric on embassy attacks is a discredit to his campaign:

J.CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, was
a skilled and courageous diplomat who repeatedly placed himself at risk
in order to support the cause of a democratic Libya. His death, along
with those of three other Americans, during an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi
on Tuesday is a tragedy that should prompt bipartisan support for
renewed U.S. aid to Libyans who are struggling to stabilize the country.
That it instead provoked a series of crude political attacks on
President Obama by GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is a discredit
to his campaign.

Mr. Romney’s first rhetorical assault came Tuesday night in
response to a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was also
besieged by demonstrators Tuesday. His statement claimed that the
administration’s first response was “to sympathize with those who waged
the attacks.” In fact the embassy statement was issued before the
protests began; referring to an ugly anti-Islam film that was the focus
of demonstrators, it condemned “those who abuse the universal right of
free speech to hurt the religious belief of others.”

Mr. Romney did not then know the extent of the Benghazi incident —
his statement referred only to “the death of an American consulate
worker.” So it was stunning to see the GOP nominee renew his verbal offensive
Wednesday morning, when the country was still absorbing the news of the
first death in service of a U.S. ambassador since 1988, as well as the
loss of three other Americans. Though reports were still sketchy, it
appeared that a militant jihadist group, Ansar al-Sharia, took advantage
of the Benghazi protest to stage an armed assault that overwhelmed the
Libyan security force at the consulate.

At a news conference, Mr.
Romney claimed that the administration had delivered “an apology for
America’s values.” In fact, it had done no such thing: Religious
tolerance, as much as freedom of speech, is a core American value. The
movie that provoked the protests, which mocks the prophet Mohammed and
portrays Muslims as immoral and violent, is a despicable piece of
bigotry; it was striking that Mr. Romney had nothing to say about such
hatred directed at a major religious faith.

Mr. Obama struck the right tone
on Wednesday, saying that “we reject all efforts to denigrate the
religious beliefs of others” but that “there is absolutely no
justification for this type of senseless violence.” Lauding Mr.
Stevens’s service, the president promised “justice” for “this terrible
act” while also committing the administration to continue cooperating
with Libya’s democratic government — which apologized for the attack.

* * *

As for Mr. Romney, he would do well to consider the example of
Republican former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, who issued a
statement Wednesday lamenting “the tragic loss of life at our
consulate,” praising Mr. Stevens as “a wonderful officer and a terrific
diplomat” and offering “thoughts and prayers” to “all the loved ones of
the fallen.” That was the appropriate response.