Is foreign policy really Obama's strength? Or is it running a brilliant campaign?

Our embassies across the world are under attack.  For the first time in 30 years, a U.S. Ambassador has been killed.  (The last U.S. Ambassador to be killed was in 1979).  American flags are being burned.  Embassies are closing.  Anti-American sentiment is raging across the globe.

Is Obama's foreign diplomacy working?  Is foreign policy really his strength?

Image from dailymail.co.uk

The White House Administration is adamant that we need to be patient before drawing any conclusions about the nature of the attacks.  They continue to say that the unrest around the world and specifically the attacks in Libya were simply the "result of an anti-Islam video."

The White House has repeatedly condemned the video and apologized for its content.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the film is "disgusting and reprehensible" and a "cynical attempt to offend people for their religious beliefs."

Last Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "There was no actionable intelligence that could in any way have been acted upon to prevent these attacks."  Carney went on to say, "We have no information to suggest it was a pre-planned attack."

Things are starting to get a little sticky.

Today CNN reported that months before the attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens had voiced his concerns for his safety and that he knew that he was on an al Qaeda hit list.

CNN also reported that "three days before the deadly attack, a local security official met with American diplomats in the city and warned them about deteriorating security.  James Mabrouk, a member of the brigade told CNN that the "security situation wasn't good.  The situation is frightening, it scares us."

That was three days before the attack.

So let me get this straight, for months our ambassador feared for his life, a security guard warns about the lack of security and yet the "protesters"/attackers were still able to carry out their objectives?

Was anything done to beef up security?  To protect American interests?  To protect American lives?

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said, "As we did with all of our missions overseas, in advance of September 11, as we do every year, we did evaluate the threat stream and determined that the security at Benghazi was appropriate for what we knew."

It is disheartening then to learn that as the New York Times reported, the "protests" began at 10 PM with rocket-propelled grenades and by 10:15 the attackers had gained entrance to the main building."

The New York Times report continued, "Reports are that American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remain unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well-trained and heavily armed, it appears they had some level of advanced planning."

Hmm.

The White House would like us to believe that a few angry people who heard something about a little, obscure YouTube video, just randomly appeared with rocket-propelled grenades and were able to break down our "adequate" security and take over an embassy in a matter of minutes?  And just by coincidence, it happened on the anniversary of 9/11?

Please.

Should it surprise anyone that the Washington Post reported today, that a senior U.S. intelligence official is now telling lawmakers that "The U.S. ambassador and three other Americans killed last week in Libya died in the course of a terrorist attack."

Ouch.  What was the White House's response?

Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counter Terrorism Center simply corroborated the Administration's stance and said, "initial conclusions do not point to a planned assault.  Instead, the facts indicate that this was an opportunistic attack."

Image from dailymail.co.uk

Why not tell it like it is?  Is there really harm in calling it terrorism?

Based on the White House's response, yes.

I guess it makes sense.  All of this unrest and foreign policy breakdown reflect poorly on the president.

Will they still be able to say Obama's strength is foreign policy?  Can they still brand him the "healer" of extreme Muslim relations if it is obvious that these extremist still hate us.  Can they still avoid Bush's term, "War on Terror,"if it is obvious that this war is still raging?

Will it be harder to sell Obama's campaign theme that "America is safer now that Osama is dead" if our embassies are being easily overtaken by Islamic fundamentalists, American flags have been replaced by al Qaeda flags, our buildings are burning and an Ambassador has been brutally murdered?

This doesn't feel safer to me.  This doesn't feel like progress.

Image from nbcnews.com

In all fairness, maybe the White House did not know these specifics.  Maybe they didn't have all the details, but for an administration that is keenly aware of every single thing that rival Mitt Romney has ever said and everything he has ever done, it is a little hard to believe that they were somehow unaware of this global crisis.

What is our president doing today?  He continues to annihilate Mitt Romney for a secretly taped video where Romney is heard discussing the 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes and why they would never vote for Mitt Romney.

I am of the belief that a president should not be rewarded for a "brilliant" campaign, but rather be rewarded for the job he has done as president.

America deserves better than what this president has offered.

Go Mitt.