Does the Libyan terrorist attack mean Romney'd be a better CIC?

Commander in Chief-wise, Romney talks about almost nothing but the death of four Americans in Libya on Obama's watch and the followup.

First, in the context of America's entire foreign policy, economic and military and humanitarian, even with the death of four Americans including the Ambassador, even if the Obama administration bungled security for our diplomats there, it's a tiny part of our entire efforts/operations around the world. Romney is depending on voters being unable to comprehend this fact. He wants voters to ignore the death of Bin Ladin on Obama's watch and at his order. He wants voters to ignore the overall great success of Obama in foreign affairs and to only think about this one thing. He wants voters to ignore the fact that Romney has almost no foreign affairs experience himself, and what he has said and done has not been competent.

Above all he wants voters to forget the fact that the terrorist attack on 9/11 occurred on the last Republican presidency's watch, with nearly three thousand people murdered instead of four, and with that Republican presidency denying any responsibility whatsoever for that tragedy to this day, despite all the warnings coming to them from the intelligence community and from the previous attack on the Twin Towers, the attack on a US Navy warship, and the bombing of our embassy in Kenya with a loss of hundreds of lives.

I'm not impressed by the Obama administration's varied statements and actions before and after the Libyan tragedy, though I certainly didn't expect them to immediately name who did it--and in fact we still don't know exactly who did do it--it's a blip compared to the Republicans' permanent evasion of any responsibility whatsoever for 9/11--not to mention their incompetence at going after the person who did it and the country who harbored him.