Michael Crowley at Swampland points out that conservative magazine The Weekly Standard just published an editorial praising President Obama for his foreign policy:

By far the most important decision taken by any world leader in this entire episode—the decision that made all the difference—was President Obama’s decision that the United States and the world could not stand by and see the people of Benghazi massacred...Furthermore, the president deserves credit because his decision was unpopular and politically risky. The foreign policy establishment was almost unanimously opposed, and an assortment of wise men spent months predicting certain failure. In Congress a significant number of Republicans joined with the likes of Dennis Kucinich in opposing the military operation, to the point of voting not to authorize funding in June—a shameful moment for a party that under three consecutive presidents had stood for a robust and active U.S. role in the world. Some Republican presidential candidates, either out of opportunism or conviction, joined in opposition.

Again, let me emphasize how rare this is. The Weekly Standard would not usually give President Obama credit for tying his own shoes when he gets up in the morning, but today they're giving him credit for regime change in Libya. President Obama's most successful endeavor in his first term is the reshaping of American foreign policy into something smart, modular, and canny. Even sensible Republicans—those not actively trying to woo the rubes in Iowa, I mean—have to admire that. I would argue that if President Obama's economic policy more closely resembled his foreign policy, we'd probably be in better shape right now.