Legitimate Criticism

By ANDREW ROSENTHAL

Stung by the furious response to Mitt Romney’s attack on President Obama over the killings in Libya, some right-wing commentators have defended Mr. Romney’s right to challenge Mr. Obama on foreign policy. Just for instance, Jennifer Rubin wrote in The Washington Post that “Obama has no right to insist he is beyond criticism.” She added: “If [the media] are going to insist that holding a president accountable for his national security is out of bounds, then perhaps journalism is now farce.”

Of course Mr. Obama is not beyond criticism. Of course Mr. Romney has the right to hold the president accountable for his national security. But this story isn’t about that. It’s about the fact that he made something up. He accused the Obama administration of sympathizing with those who waged the attacks, when it did no such thing.

It was the embassy in Cairo, not the White House, that issued a statement condemning “efforts to offend believers of all religions.” And the embassy sent out that statement before the killings in Libya, not after, in a clear attempt to defuse tensions.

If Mr. Romney had criticized the president by drawing a plausible connection between his foreign policies and the riots in Egypt and Libya, that would have been legitimate. But he did not. I think that’s because there is no connection.

Yesterday, Jon Huntsman seemed to have Mr. Romney in mind when he said “This is above all a reminder that politics should end at the water’s edge.”

The “water’s edge” axiom doesn’t mean that foreign policy is out of bounds. It means you shouldn’t swan around the globe damaging a sitting president’s relationships with foreign leaders—as Mr. Romney did when he traveled to Israel, donors in tow, and accused the president, indirectly but unmistakably, of trying to “undermine” Israel.