Courtesy of Creative Commons

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been criticized for his premature disapproval of the Obama administration's reaction to the attacks in Egypt and Libya; possibly more damaging to the former governor's presidential ambitions are the questions that have surfaced concerning his foreign policy.

Many have attacked the presidential hopeful for his statement Wednesday - and from both sides of the political spectrum.

"Republicans have been critical as well, but more because it is a blunder that will hurt Romney's political prospects than any concern for misrepresenting the administration or violating norms of bipartisan support for a president in time of crisis,” UC Berkeley political science expert Bruce Cain wrote in an email. 

“If indeed the administration had been truly culpable in some way, Republicans would have joined Romney, but given that Romney's criticism was so far off the mark, it reinforces their fear that he is a one trick (i.e. the economy) candidate when at least two or three tricks are needed,” Cain continued. “This is sure to send ripples of panic through the Republican ranks. It is a critical time for Romney: he could fall behind for the duration if this is not offset or corrected in some way."

Peggy Noonan, political columnist for The Wall Street Journal, also remarked Romney “didn’t do himself any favors” with his Libya response. An open conservative herself, she said that the Republican candidate has essentially relinquished foreign policy to his Democratic opponent for the election.

“The Romney campaign's foreign policy approach ultimately suffers the same basic flaw as its domestic policy approach: in trying to be all things to all people, it ultimately satisfies no one,” The Atlantic writer Jamer Joyner opined. “The net result is that no one really knows what a Romney foreign policy would look like. Increasingly, I'm not sure that even Romney knows.”

Reach Staff Reporter Karla Robinson here.