Beyond Benghazi

Mitt Romney’s responses to the fatal attacks in Benghazi were predictably appalling in both their timing and their content. In his desperation to be president he has become a two-dimensional man: one dimension toadies to the Republican Party’s major donors and immoderate base; the other attacks President Obama with unfiltered ferocity. After being pummeled by the neo-conservatives for not mentioning Afghanistan, Iraq or our troops in his convention speech, Romney was quick to get his saber out yesterday, and his first target was the president:

“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.”

The accusation is untrue, its timing disgraceful, coming before the facts were clear and on the heels of the deaths of four American diplomats. That was a time to come together.

In his effort to extricate himself, Romney dug deeper: "It's a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. It’s never too early for the U.S. government to condemn attacks on Americans and defend our values.” Which is what the administration did.

And what are those values? This is a question few address lest they be accused of disloyalty. But for me this election is about values, about what kind of a country we want America to be. I believe our values of compassion and community, of standing up to bullies and for human rights, of protecting the earth and looking out for each other, are in greater danger of being derailed by what is happening here than what is happening elsewhere.