Liberal media today are over the Romney’s attack on Obama’s foreign policy (Romney foreign policy attack was disgraceful). Are they right calling Romney’s speech unethical? May be. If Romney’s only motivation for the speech was an attempt to gain a bit more popularity and score in the electoral politics, that would be correct. On the opposite, if he wanted to stop and reflect on the ways how the policy change would save peoples’ lives, both Americans and Libyans, he would be acting much more ethical than the Obama’s Administration that hasty resorted to the military actions, gathering destroyers near the Libyan shores.
Unfortunately, Romney completely missed the point and the root-cause of the crisis. Yeah, indeed, “The world needs American leadership, The Middle East needs American leadership”, as Romney said. Interesting, when did he ask the World and the Middle East what they really want?
Wasn’t Obama Administration’s policy of “Leading from behind” bad enough, that the U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who began working in Libya during the revolt against Muammar Gadhafi, and who “risked his life to stop a tyrant and gave his life trying to build a better Libya”, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, was probably killed by those for whom he organized diplomatical coverup for training, arms and intelligence supply during the over-throwing Gadhafi operation?
And now should we believe in the propaganda support organized be Stevens’ colleagues who created posters for Benghazi demonstrants written in fluent English and by calligraphical Latin alphabet?
And the only alternative to that the American political elites see is going back to the policy of open interventions all over the world, isn’t?