National security matters

On October 17, Mitt Romney, in front of the world, stridently accused the President of the United States of omitting/ignoring the term “terrorism” in his initial response to the Benghazi attack. He was summarily corrected and chastised, and the main issue that seems to have emerged appears to be if the moderator in intervening to show that Romney was incorrect was acting in an “unfair manner.” To me, the sole issue is that Romney’s spectrum of conduct on the Libyan issue renders him unequivocally not qualified to be President.

His initial impetuous and blatantly self-serving action, in issuing a “statement” on what is national security matter, calls into focus and questions how as Commander in Chief he would respond in crisis situations of national security.

The father of Ambassador Stevens categorically stated the death of his son and staff should not be exploited for political ends. In addition to their sorrow and mourning, there is the paramount consideration that classified information on security measures affecting the 162 U.S. bases and diplomatic sources in foreign countries could be comprised.

Romney immediately responded in a speech stressing that the sole issue was a “cover up” which immediately was widely disseminated as a “talking point” and stridently advocated to literally, in effect, subvert the President’s Middle East policy. The campaign was championed most stridently by Dick Cheney who still insists the success of his Iraq War and ongoing search for WMDs.

Warren Bishop