Topics: 2012 Elections, Libya, Libya embassy attack, Mitt Romney, Politics News 
 
 Yesterday, the Romney campaign accused President Obama of “sympathizing” with violent mobs that attacked American embassies in Cairo and Benghazi, Libya. In Benghazi, where the mob was armed and the attack possibly planned in advance, four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, were killed. Romney’s accusation was based on a statement released not by the White House but by the embassy in Cairo, and that statement was designed to quell the protests before they became dangerous, which they did, shortly thereafter. This morning, when the scope of the tragedy was clearer, Romney personally affirmed that he believes the administration “sympathized” with the mob in Egypt. “I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values,” he said, in order to evoke his oft-repeated lie about the president “apologizing” for America. 
 
 Romney’s response has been widely denounced as beyond the pale, for combining dishonesty, breathtaking insensitivity (the statement was released on Sept. 11 while the violence was still underway), and obscenely cynical political opportunism in one neat package. The outrage has come not just from Democrats and the left, but also from members of the objective press and a few (many anonymous) representatives of the right and the Republican Party. 
 
 It may be true, as Joan Walsh says, that Romney will never be president. But, unfortunately, I think people predicting (or hoping) that Romney’s shameless performance over the last day will end up hurting his campaign are themselves jumping the gun. This wasn’t McCain suspending his campaign, the moment a few commentators have compared it to. That was so bizarre it caught the attention of even uninterested voters, and it was a fiasco that lasted for days — days immediately preceding a debate. Romney’s shamelessness added up to a morning’s worth of bad headlines, honestly, even if the stink lingers for a while. ||||| (CBS News) In response to Mitt Romney's criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of recent violence in Egypt and Libya, President Obama told CBS News on Wednesday that Romney "seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later." 
 
 "There's a broader lesson to be learned here," Mr. Obama told "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft at the White House. "And I -- you know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make 'em." 
 
 Asked if Romney's attacks were irresponsible, the president replied, "I'll let the American people judge that." 
 
 Romney's campaign released a statement on Tuesday night -- Sept. 11 -- asserting "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 criticism was in response to a statement put out by the U.S. embassy in Egypt, not the Obama administration. In addition, the embassy statement was released in an apparent effort to head off any possible violence. At the time, there were no attacks to condemn. 
 
 
 
 On Wednesday morning, Romney stood by the statement despite criticism that he was injecting politics into a national tragedy, telling reporters the president is acting "in apology for our values." 
 
 
 
 "I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions," Romney said. The claim came despite the fact that the administration had actually distanced itself from the embassy's statement, something Romney acknowledged during the press conference. 
 
 
 
 "It's never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values," Romney added. 
 
 
 
 Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain in McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News Wednesday that Romney's "comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake." 
 
 
 
 "There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points," he said. "And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they're a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points." 
 
 
 
 In a statement to CBS News, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said, "Governor Romney's ill-advised and politically-motivated statement last night concerning the tragedy in Benghazi is deeply regrettable." 
 
 
 
 "Our nation should stand as one in condemning the lawless attacks on American diplomatic personnel and in doing everything possible to see that such attacks are not repeated," she added. 
 
 
 
 Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, were killed after an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi tied to the production of an amateur anti-Islam film. (That attack appears to have been independent of the Cairo violence, but both appear to have been related to the production of the film.) Romney's initial statement was released before the killings, but his comments standing by it came afterward. 
 
 ||||| One can question the timing and tone of Mitt Romney’s statement last night. One can note he wasn't as fluent and clear as he might have been at his press conference this morning. Still, the fact remains that the events of September 11, 2012, represent a big moment for the country. Romney is right to sense this, and to seize on this moment as an occasion to explain the difference between his foreign policy and President Obama’s. He’s right to reject the counsel of the mainstream media, which is to keep quiet and give President Obama a pass. 
 
 Mark Halperin tweeted this morning, “Unless Mitt has gamed crisis out in some manner completely invisible to Gang of 500, doubling down=most craven + ill-advised move of ‘12.” Halperin couldn't be more wrong. Romney is right to bring home the weakness of the Obama administration, exemplified in the disgraceful statement issued yesterday, September 11, by the American embassy in Cairo—a statement, I believe, that would have to have been cleared by the State Department. 
 
 I'd add this: Romney deserves credit for emphasizing today that the events in Cairo and Benghazi remind us of the need for American leadership. He refused to cater to what must be a widespread (and understandable, if short-sighted) ‘let's just get out of that crazy part of the world’ sentiment among the public. He spoke in the tradition of conservative internationalism. 
 
 So, so far, I believe, pretty much so good. The question is, what comes next?
– Mitt Romney's criticism of President Obama after the violence in Libya and Egypt continues to spin off into a political story of its own. Now Obama himself weighs in, telling CBS News that Romney spoke too soon when he accused the White House of sympathizing with the protesters: "There's a broader lesson to be learned here," he says. "Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make 'em." Bill Kristol defends Romney from the right, however, writing in the Weekly Standard that Romney correctly sensed that the anti-US protests illustrate the need for strong American leadership abroad. Whether it helps or hurts his campaign depends on what happens next. "If Romney can prove both strong and thoughtful on foreign policy over the next few days, it could be an inflection point in the presidential campaign." At Salon, Alex Pareene finds Romney's attack "shameless" but says it's not "horrible politics." Click for that.