GOP’s Libyan Hit on Obama Won’t Taint The President’s Foreign Policy Triumphs

Earl Ofari Hutchinson | 10/24/2012, 9:30 a.m.

GOP’s Libyan Hit on Obama Won’t Taint The President’s Foreign Policy Triumphs

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will hit President Obama during their foreign policy debate with the ancient political zinger: What did he know and when did he know it about Libya? The GOP’s attack line is that Obama botched the response to the terror attack on the American embassy in Libya in part to protect his claim that he destroyed Al-Qaeda, and in greater part to mask his alleged rudderless, muddled Middle East policy.

None of this holds water. Obama vigorously condemned the embassy attack as an act of terror. As any responsible president would do, he made no saber-rattling statements about the attack until all of the intelligence reports conclusively pointed to a systematic, planned attack and identified who the likely attackers were.

The final report found that the attack was not masterminded by Al-Qaeda, and indeed found no verifiable link to the group at all.

But the Libyan hit on Obama is only a part of a larger GOP strategy. That’s to try again to portray Obama as weak, vacillating and too conciliatory to America’s enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The GOP attack is not new. For three decades before the 2008 election, the GOP reveled in the monopoly that it had with the public as the tough guardian of America’s foreign policy and national security.

It touted America’s unchallenged military arsenal, its crushing military budget and the unabashed willingness to play the role of global policeman. Much of the public bought into this masterful deception of Democratic presidents as indecisive and always willing to compromise America’s security.

GOP presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., and especially George W. Bush in 2004 used this ploy against their Democratic opponents. GOP presidential rival John McCain was a big beneficiary of this tactic. During the 2008 presidential election, he consistently got far higher poll marks than then Democratic challenger Obama on his handling of foreign policy, national security and especially toughness in the war against terrorism.

It seemed easy at the time to make the charge that Obama was green on foreign policy and national security issues since he had no real experience in that arena. But appearances were grossly misleading.

Before his election, Obama had laid out detailed plans on how to deal with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Middle East policy matters, the European allies, Russian disarmament issues, and China’s growing economic and military threat.

In addition, Obama had to do two things to dispel the notion that he would fall apart the first time he was hit with a major foreign policy crisis. One pained many liberal and progressive supporters. And that pain came after Obama embraced some aspects of Bush’s foreign and national security policy positions which entailed reauthorizing virtually all the provisions of the Patriot Act, delaying the close of Guantanamo, pressing the war in Afghanistan, giving firm and vocal support of Israel and taking as tough a stance as possible on Iran’s looming nuclear capacity.