U.S. appeared to miss the signals that would have hinted at the violent attack in Benghazi. How, on the anniversary of 9/11, could the building be so vulnerable even as officials knew a video that could incite violence was spreading across the Internet? Libya was known to have many armed militant groups, some of which are tied to Salafi extremists or jihadis who fought in Iraq and elsewhere. Administration officials have been reluctant to say much about the failure as the FBI and Department of Justice begin investigations.
I wonder if this will take more of a center stage in the US elections than the economy? If it does, who's advantage is it? Obama by nature of the incumbency has more foreign policy experience but it's typically the GOP that is seen as "tougher". Should be interesting to see how this is politicized.
Yea it is really strange because in reality it is hard to argue that Obama hasn't been fairly "tough": he has increased the use of drone strikes, surged troops in Afghanistan, hasn't closed Guantanamo, and was finally able to kill Osama. The right keeps portraying him as weak, but it is hard to imagine what more he could have done. Incidentally parts of the left are upset with Obama for not doing more to limit the aggressiveness of our foreign policy. I do think though that Romney can only win by keeping everything focused on jobs and the economy.
He's got to be the most aggressive Nobel Peace Prize winner in history, right? Considering the drone strikes and the Afghan "surge". Obama could have nuked the entire middle east and conservatives would call him passive though. I do think you're right about Romney, if its about the economy he has a far better chance. He's not proven himself terribly savvy when talking about or trying to capitalize upon foreign policy events.