An odd measurement, but rational thought has never been a necessary asset for those who idolize our former cookie-baker-in-chief.
A more measurable examination of her rate of success might involve the evaluation of the foreign policies that she and Obama have put in place over the last few years.
And I defy anyone to figure that mess out.
We still have a presence in Afghanistan so that we can bomb terrorists in Pakistan. We're in Iraq because ... well, that conflict ended long ago, so who knows? We're now sided with Libyans and are killing Libyans because they (the latter ones) are harming the former ones. As they (the latter) have been doing for decades. And we're now NOT siding with the Syrians who are being harmed each day by their Libyan-like government because ... well, Hillary will get back to us on that one.
Does anyone understand any of this?
The Washington Post sure doesn't:
Shameful U.S. inaction on Syria’s massacresHey, let's start a war with Syria too!
For the past five weeks, growing numbers of Syrians have been gathering in cities and towns across the country to demand political freedom — and the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad have been responding by opening fire on them. According to Syrian human rights groups, more than 220 people had been killed by Friday. And Friday may have been the worst day yet: According to Western news organizations, which mostly have had to gather information from outside the country, at least 75 people were gunned down in places that included the suburbs of Damascus, the city of Homs and a village near the southern town of Daraa, where the protests began.
The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive.
As a moral matter, the stance of the United States is shameful. To stand by passively while hundreds of people seeking freedom are gunned down by their government makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights. In recent months President Obama has pledged repeatedly that he would support the aspiration of Arabs for greater freedom. In Syria, he has not kept his word. [link]
I don't follow the Washington Post closely enough to know what position the editorialists there maintain when it comes to our Libyan war. I can only assume, if the slaughter of innocents is now a "vital American national interest," that they are big on bombing the stuffing out of government forces there. That would be consistent.
Consistent. A concept that is foreign to the Obama/Hillary regime.
But let's not give these two any ideas. For Côte d'Ivoire beckons. As does Swaziland (wherever that is). And Chechnya. And Baltimore, for that matter. There's so much violence in the world. And so many Predator drones.
Are we to be the world's policeman?
For an answer to that question we turn to Barack Obama, the Harvard/Yale educated ... peace candidate ...