Mitt Romney launched a broad attack on Barack Obama's foreign policy Monday, saying the incumbent had failed to "shape history" in the Middle East. But did the Republican go beyond taking pop-shots? The Economist's Lexington columnist thinks not.
"Carping opposition politicians have a right to criticise... but then must offer a credible answer to the counter-question: well, what are you going to do about it?"
According to Lexington, "Mr Romney's speech failed that test several times."
As expected, he argued that Obama has played too conciliatory a role and let America's foreign muscle go to fat, inviting threats on the country. "But have the threats faced by America 'grown so much worse' in four years?" asks Lexington. "Do American voters feel that?" Many "are more focussed on the fact that Mr Obama has ended the war in Iraq and is bringing home troops from Afghanistan soon."
He concludes "Mr Romney chides Mr Obama for putting his faith in empty, though ringing oratory. Today’s foreign-policy address was no more than that, alas."