Via Commentary's Noah Rothman, I see The New York Times is up with a feature on Florida senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio's new television ad airing in New Hampshire and Iowa. In the middle of describing the ad, the article contains this gem:

Fact Check

Mr. Rubio's contention that Mr. Obama has been "humiliated by Putin, Iran and Islamic jihadists" would surely draw objections from many, not least the president himself, who says that his nuclear deal will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that the United States-led military effort is hitting the Islamic State "harder than ever."

Does the New York Times understand that "fact check" is a phrase that has meaning? Because simply noting that Obama would, rather unsurprisingly, disagree with criticisms leveled against him does not constitute a factual refutation.

I know Obama is adored by the media, but shortly after the worst terror attack on American soil since 9/11, having the New York Times insulate him from criticism by insisting he's attacking ISIS "harder than ever" -- whatever that means -- is frankly embarrassing. And it unintentionally underscores Rubio's critique of Obama's foreign policy being feckless.