Alex Altman suggests that Romney could win the Middle East debate:

If the Arab spring turns into an “Arab winter,” as Romney put it, and tumult spreads across the region, a backlash could certainly build against Obama’s handling of the uprising, leaving Romney to profit politically.

Greg Scoblete objects:

Undoubtedly, the administration has slipped up in its handling of the Arab Spring; it’s a momentous, historic event that caught the U.S. largely off guard. But this leads to the absurd assumption implicit in the criticism of the administration: that the U.S. federal government can deftly finesse the direction of Middle East politics in the 21st century. Particularly for those who profess a love of “limited government” it seems rather farcical to claim that the same incompetent government that can’t be trusted to balance the budget can reach across the ocean and create a Middle East more to its liking.

It’s more evidence of Republican incoherence: the government can’t be trusted to intervene in Texas because it is too far away and the feds are incompetent. But Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Why don’t we control them directly from Washington? Larison piles on:

The most common criticism of the Obama administration’s response to these uprisings has been that it has been “too slow” to lend support to protesters. That has been one of the frequent charges from the Romney campaign and from other leading Republican hawks. However, if these uprisings are gradually leading to a so-called “Arab winter,” a reluctance to back protest movements won’t be perceived as a liability. Despite their best efforts to have things both ways, Republicans cannot coherently attack Obama for being insufficiently supportive of protests and overly supportive of majoritarian Islamist movements.

But they’ll try anything.

By the way, to read all Dish coverage of this week’s crisis in one convenient place, go to the “Embassy Attacks In Libya and Egypt” thread page.