Dear Editor:

Our sympathies are with the families of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and the other three Americans who lost their lives during last week’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

At such a grave moment, Mitt Romney could have helped console and unite a nation in grief, as politicians of both parties did after the 9-11 attacks. Instead, he launched a premature and entirely false attack on the president, accusing him of “sympathizing” with the murderers and apologizing for American values. Romney’s comments were based on a statement the president never made. He issued his hasty condemnation of the president before the deaths of our diplomats had even been announced and broke with a tradition of unity at the time of national tragedies. There has been bipartisan criticism of Romney’s hasty judgment and politicization of this tragic event.

Of course, this heated rhetoric from the Republicans is nothing new. They do not believe in measured diplomacy as a way to solve international problems. Some are even criticizing our role in the Arab Spring that toppled a number of cruel despots, because these despots oppressed Islamic militants, as well as all the rest of their citizens. I guess democracy around the world is not a Republican value.

Our task now is to consider carefully which of our candidates has shown the studied temperament to be our commander in chief.  I personally applaud President Obama’s rejection of the denigration of all religious beliefs and his statement that “we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

What other conclusion could there be?

Becky Herman

This story was posted on September 26, 2012.