I didn't watch last night's foreign policy debate. But, from the reviews I've read, it sounds like I didn't need to.

Me, two weeks ago:

On a boring note, the foreign policy section of the VP debate suggests that the foreign policy debate between Obama and Romney is going to amount to the moderator saying “So, you two basically agree on everything?” And Romney saying “Yes, but I’m going to do all that while waving my fists in the air, and shouting ‘America, Heck Yeah!’ “

Some other people, last night:

But it was more striking as a matter of substance that on virtually no issue did Romney make an actual criticism, of any sort, of Obama's policy or record. Including topics where he used to disagree, like the timeline for withdrawal for Afghanistan! Instead it was, "I agree, but you could have done it better."

And:

Again, I'm not a foreign policy expert, but isn't Romney just saying he'll continue Obama's policies in a more leadery way?
— Michael Grunwald (@MikeGrunwald)

And:

It felt to me like Mitt Romney struggled a lot tonight. His problem was simple: he wanted to draw a clear distinction with Obama on foreign policy, but he just couldn't because he didn't want to seem overly bellicose. As a result, he opened up very few serious, substantive areas of disagreement.
...
Romney sounded like a cheerleader for the White House in this exchange. He didn't even hint that Obama had mismanaged anything or done anything wrong.
...
On Syria, Romney basically approved of Obama's policies. On Libya, ditto, and he didn't even try to do any political point scoring over Benghazi. (Either Candy Crowley scared him off or else he reads this blog.) He didn't really have a different policy to offer on Egypt. Or Pakistan. Or drones. Or even Iran, though he tried.

So, score one for me.