David Brooks, "Where Obama Shines": The Stupidest Brooks Opinion Piece . . . Ever

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Where Obama Shines" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/brooks-where-obama-shines.html), David Brooks would have us believe that Obama has been a "good foreign policy president" as evidenced by the fact that "Romney is having a great deal of trouble identifying profound disagreements."

However, as acknowledged by Brooks:

"An inexcusable blunder by Obama was to announce the withdrawal date from Afghanistan at the same time he announced the surge into Afghanistan. That may have kept the Democratic base happy, but it sent thousands of soldiers and Marines on a mission that was doomed to fail."

Or in other words, Obama sent hundreds of American soldiers to their deaths in Afghanistan for no reason whatsoever, and concurrently bled the US economy white, but inasmuch as Romney doesn't have the good sense or courage to take issue with this blunder, this is evidence of foreign policy success.

Brooks continues:

"Obama has moved more aggressively both to defeat enemies and to champion democracy."

Yet, Brooks also acknowledges:

"Early in his term, he responded poorly to the street marches in Tehran."

Or stated otherwise, Obama threw the demonstrators in Tehran under the bus in the vain hope of placating the ayatollahs. But Brooks forgets to note that Obama was subsequently ineffectual in preventing Iran from proceeding with its nuclear weapons development program.

Brooks also fails to mention Syria, where Obama sent Senator John Kerry to court the country's bloodthirsty psychotic president, Bashar al-Assad. Obama refused to criticize Assad until long after the Syrian populace had revolted against this maniacal tyrant.

And what happened to Obama's promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide? Instead, Obama today claims that Turkey's Prime Minister Erdoğan, famous for imprisoning opposition journalists, is one of his best overseas friends.

And of course there was Libya, where Obama gained his reputation for "leading from behind."

More?:

• Obama's demonization of Israel at the onset of his presidency;
• the alienation of long-standing allies such as Poland and the Czech Republic;
• return of the Winston Churchill bust to the UK;
• promised concessions to Russia's Putin (remember the open microphone gaffe with Medvedev) with nothing to show in return;
• the snubbing of India;
• indifference to human rights abuses in China.

I can sadly continue with this list ad infinitum.

Does all of the above constitute foreign policy success or evidence of fence-sitting, poor decision making, weak bargaining capabilities and appeasement? Obama is a good foreign policy president? Sorry, David, but you're talking road apples.