She pushed for intervening in Libya. Guess how that went? Directly armed multiple terrorist organizations.

This is not true.

The Libyan intervention is a good example of American cooperation and support for a NATO oriented, French led mission.

It had defined goals, a limited time frame, and at no point did the United States arm any terrorist organizations.

This is probably what you're referring to. However, as the article explains, it was Qatar that provided weapons to Libyan rebels and not the United States. The provision was not even made at the United States' behest.

The only connection to the United States is a negative one; we did not actively dissuade Qatar from taking their chosen course. However, it's hardly our job to regulate the behavior of every country in the world, wouldn't you say?

As for the overall justice of the Libyan intervention, it's an action which I support. At the time France was lobbying for our aid because Qaddafi's armies were closing in on Benghazi, and his sons were on television literally promising that rivers of blood would flow as a consequence of rebellion.

Their stated goal was to exterminate an entire city, and I support fighting to prevent that.

She has no concept of security (as evidenced by her email server)

No, not evidenced at all. No doubt you believe that she was traipsing around willy-nilly with confidential information, but that is untrue. James Comey himself acknowledged that she had directed her subordinates to only send her "non-paper" information on that account. Non-paper means reports which have been edited down to exclude the confidential material.

There's a lot to get into about the nuances in how confidential information is treated, but one of the things I find very telling, is that the State department server that Clinton would otherwise have used was actually hacked whereas her private server was not according to the FBI.

That means it was more secure, does it not?

yet goes around talking about covert action in Syria. Such action would result in war with Russia, without a doubt.

I am awed by your amazing predictive powers that allows you to so confidently exclaim that covert action in Syria would necessarily provoke war with Russia.

Actually, I'm not, because Americans are already engaged in covert action in Syria and war has not resulted.

But surely, Trump's plan to deploy 30,000 troops to Syria and 'take the oil' would have been well received by Assad.

She has a great habit of butting in and telling allies what they can and cannot do, ... gee, I wonder why countries like Turkey and the Philippines are giving the US the finger.

Telling Erdogan to knock it off when he keeps imprisoning journalists for no cause, lest he lose American support, is an action that I think is quite admirable.

The same for telling Duterte that we find his death-squads to be unacceptable.

Why should American's sacrifice our values at the altar of appeasing would be dictators?

Need I go into the duplicity in the DNC and the political maneuvering to ensure the playing field was as tilted as possible?

You probably should, since it didn't exist. A four million vote margin is not conjured from thin air. No doubt you'll cite some emails where DNC staffers spoke impolitely about Bernie Sanders' campaign as proof of some grand conspiracy.

Ignored, of course, will be the fact that those emails were only sent after March, when Sanders would have had to win more than 70% of the vote in every remaining state to even have a chance at the nomination.

There's also the fact that despite Reddit's impression, Hillary Clinton did better than Bernie Sanders in open primaries. Bernie Sanders only over-performed in closed-caucuses.

Counting only caucuses, Bernie Sanders won 11 of the 16 contests, 63 percent of the votes, and 64 percent of the delegates.

All told those caucuses had slightly more than 1 million participants.

On the other hand, Clinton won 24 of the 34 statewide primaries where more than 24 million votes were cast, of which she won 58% and received 58% of the allotted delegates.

A classic example is the Washington State situation, where there is both an open primary and a closed caucus, but only the caucus is binding.

Sanders won the closed caucus with something like 70% of the delegates and 70% of the 230,000 votes cast, but the far more participatory primary saw Hillary Clinton come away with 54% of the million votes cast.

In this instance, the system was rigged against her, wouldn't you say?

as well as constantly push Russia back into a corner

Russia's position is of their own design. In the last two decades they have invaded three seperate nations and taken land for themselves. Moldavia lost Transnistria, Georgia lost South Ossetia, and the Ukraine lost the Crimea.

Russian adventurism is a threat to European stability, and that continent has already seen the price of appeasement so why would you again advocate it?