My experience in decision-making has shown that patterns are tough to break. In the military we study an opponent looking for gaps, flaws, or weaknesses that can be exploited. Successful leaders at all levels in all disciplines conduct this kind of analysis.
It is quite clear, using that kind of analysis, that Hillary Clinton can best be described as an architect of failure when it comes to national security and international relations. The potential consequences of her flawed decision-making would be destructive to the nation if she were commander in chief.
The second presidential debate made that assessment even clearer when, in an exchange on Syria, Clinton denied being secretary of state when President Obama drew his red line against Syrian use of chemical weapons against civilians. Clinton's continued obfuscation, deception and shading of the truth went beyond the pale. "I was gone," she claimed. No, Madam Secretary, you were not gone. You were responsible for our government's foreign relations during that time.
Let's briefly review her qualifications to be commander in chief and focus on key international decisions considered to be, by her supporters, a strength. Clinton's policy decisions have affected thousands: decisions that resulted in the loss of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines; decisions that have cost this country trillions of dollars; decisions that have destabilized the Middle East and decisions that demonstrate her decision-making quality (a quality that is sadly lacking).
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
