New York Times Editorial, "Mr. Romney Reinvents History": Warped

In an editorial entitled "Mr. Romney Reinvents History" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/the-hidden-subject-in-tampa.html), The New York Times claims that Romney and the Republicans are weak on foreign policy:

"While President Obama is vulnerable on some domestic issues, the Republicans have no purchase on foreign and security policy. In a television interview on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, could not name an area in which Mr. Obama had failed on foreign policy."

Oh my goodness! Obama has not failed on foreign policy? Consider:

• Obama escalated American ground involvement in Afghanistan at a cost of billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives, while providing the Taliban with a timetable for US withdrawal.
• Obama reached out to Iran and refused to back the Green Revolution demonstrators, who were then murdered, imprisoned and tortured.
• Obama has failed to cause Iran to terminate or even slow its nuclear weapons development program.
• Obama reached out to Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad and sent Senator John Kerry on multiple missions to placate this monster.
• Obama was exceptionally late in acknowledging Assad's murder of thousands of Syrian civilians.
• Obama is infamous for his open microphone gaffe, when he promised concessions to Russia's President Putin with nothing to show in return.
• Obama sold out Poland and the Czech Republic.
• Obama reneged on his promise to recognize the Armenian genocide.
• Obama has become best friends with Turkey's Erdogan, who is "famous" for imprisoning opposition journalists and military officers.
• Obama failed to contend with Chinese human rights abuses.
• Obama humiliated the Dalai Lama.

And the list continues ad infinitum.

The Times editorial continues:

"The one alliance on which there is real debate between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama is with Israel. But it is not, as Mr. Romney and his supporters want Americans to believe, about whether Mr. Obama is a supporter of Israel. Every modern president has been, including Mr. Obama. Apart from outsourcing his policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on settlements, it’s not clear what Mr. Romney would do differently."

Needless to say, the snotty editorial board of the Times fails to acknowledge that according to the Palestinians, Israeli settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/17/settlements-obstacle-to-peace/). The editorial board of couse also doesn't mention current Israeli Supreme Court orders to evacuate the Migron settlement (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=283119).

Obama supports Israel? As acknowledged by Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (see: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/25/warning_turbulence_ahead), "Barack Obama is no Israel-lover," and "if the president wins a second term, expect a major clash with Benjamin Netanyahu."

But more important, Romney has stated that if elected, he will visit Israel - something Obama has refused to do as president - and recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. At a time when Israel is facing an existential threat from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, Romney has demonstrated how he differs from Obama significantly in this regard.