Return to story
The terrorist attack in Benghazi, like the orchestrated mob behavior in Cairo and elsewhere, came with the unraveling of the management of our foreign affairs. President Obama did take decisive action in the recent crisis, leaving Washington for political junkets to Nevada and Colorado to raise campaign funds and be an entertainer on TV shows.
Sympathetic pundits tried to describe recent events during his administration as paralleling those during Jimmy Carter's when our embassy in Iran was sacked and American citizens were held captive for 444 days. But the only parallel was the mismanagement of national security affairs by presidents who were untrained, unskilled, unfit, and unprepared for high office.
With the upcoming election, regardless of political affiliation, we need to consider whether in 2008 we expected to get a glib, charming pop entertainer as president or an effective, able leader who would guarantee security at home and abroad. The current leadership has flubbed every challenge and shown weakness in almost every task, except when smiling for a camera or using a teleprompter.
Will Obama's performance improve if he is re-elected? As former Ambassador John Bolton pointed out recently, our current president has been too busy running for re-election to be involved in his responsibilities. Obama has given us a four-year record of accelerated national debt, higher than all of Europe, a dramatic rise in domestic unemployment, and weakened international security. His notions of redistribution of wealth, along with his errors of judgment, demand replacement by a more able successor.
By every reasonable measure, Mitt Romney has the needed and demonstrated managerial skills, knowledge of finance, abilities to govern, and expertise that President Obama has never acquired.
David A. Ellis