What Romney Should Have Said About Libya

My esteem for Hillary Clinton's integrity went up several notches when she fell on her sword for the Obama Administration over the run-up to the Benghazi consulate attack.  Conventional wisdom seems to be that this pulled the teeth of any criticism of Obama on the security situation.  And indeed, Romney gave Obama a pass on this in the second debate and focused on the, er, "communication problems" he had with calling a terrorist attack a terrorist attack.

This led to Romney's lowest point in the debate, with the prez summoning much outrage and then getting an assist from the Candy Crowley.  Coming right at the end of the debate, it was a heavy hit against Romney.

What he should have said was this:

I was a business management consultant for much of my life in the private sector, so I know what a well-run organization looks like.  The leader of an effective organization fosters a culture where subordinates are trusted run their departments, but where serious problems are identified and communicated promptly up to the leadership.

The United States government is like any other organization, and President Obama is currently its leader.  The warnings coming from Benghazi were clearly a serious problem.  If they weren't communicated up to the White House national security staff, and then on to the President, then that is certainly evidence of a dysfunctional organization.  There's only one person responsible for dysfunction in an organization, and that is its leader.

It's not surprising that President Obama doesn't know how to foster a healthy organizational culture; after all, his career in politics has given him no experience in doing so.  But that doesn't change the fact that when an emergency arose, his organization failed to respond correctly to it.  We need a leader with management skills suited to running a serious government.  I am that leader; President Obama is not.

Take that, l'esprit d'escalier!