Look, I think that’s a reductive generalisation that you’d see in a tabloid. It’s not useful in serious debate.
You’d have to look at each military-related decision and consider what knowledge she had at that time and also consider that she’ll have known things that the public didn’t (and still don’t).
And, besides, it’s irrelevant when the alternative is Donald Trump. Nothing could be worse for America than him being elected. It would send a message that America has no problem with:
- Arguments based on emotions and not facts
Think about the state of the world right now: it desperately needs the brightness and best to be at every helm.
Hillary, a former lawyer, is far closer to that than Trump. Trump isn’t even a dot in the distance.