Obama Should Give Strong Comment on Libya Topic in 3rd Debate

Barack Obama should be able to respond to any questions or criticisms from Mitt Romney about the attack on the US Consulate in Libya.  I refer in particular to the speculation that Romney will try to go after Obama on this topic aggressively at Monday night's presidential debate on foreign policy.

I've been puzzled and disappointed that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have gotten away with all of their criticisms of Obama over the tragedy in Libya so far.  Yes, I understand why Romney would want to raise questions about the Administration's "evolving" account of what happened at the embassy.
What's harder to understand is why Obama and his administration has not responded more directly to these partisan attacks.

We will all learn, over time, considerably more about what led to the attack on the US Mission in Benghazi that left US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.  My guess is there are some good reasons and an array of factors that will help explain the different descriptions of the attack that have come from various Obama administration officials.  It appears likely the Administration could have handled aspects of communications better.

However, even with the sensitive circumstances surrounding this, I will find it inexcusable if President Obama does not handle this Libya subject without any problem on Monday night.  In fact, I hope and expect him to make comments that are more clear and direct and show a bit more leadership on this than he has shown until now.   Why?  Obama should have nothing to hide and nothing to stop him from being more direct and candid.  Even if he cannot disclose some large details and has to keep some of his comments more general, he can still sound more decisive and responsive.

The only thing that would prevent Obama from providing a good response would be if he and his administration had been engaged in a clear "cover-up" of what happened at the embassy.  I do not believe there was such a coverup.  (If there were, then Romney's criticisms would all seem "justified" later)  Right now, Romney has no evidence of a "coverup."  Instead, he's pieced things together in order to make charges and maximize his political benefits.  Romney, from the moment, he put out a press release in the earliest hours after the attack on the US Consulate until now, has behaved irresponsibly on this
topic.  He's come off as a guy who will do anything to benefit his candidacy - even in a matter involving national security.  I think many Americans share my view that Romney has shown very poor judgement on this and appeared to put his own interests ahead of everything else.

Yet, as we approach Monday night's debate, I've heard many speculate that Romney will really try to hammer away at Obama's poor handling of the Libya matter.  Obama is the President.  He knows a hell of a lot more than Romney about what's going on regarding the US embassy in Libya.  He knows far more about foreign policy, in general, than Romney.  Why should Obama not be the one to hit the topic of Libya out of the park?

If, by some chance, Romney "does significant damage" to Obama on this topic of Libya, I will not only be surprised and disappointed, but I will have new questions myself about the President's outlook and approach on this subject.

Obama has made some mistakes in his campaign for re-election, and, he may lose in November, but, as a sitting president, he should perform better than Romney at a foreign policy debate - including on the topic of Libya.  Period.