Worse if you consider the damage he did to the US reputation. Better if you consider that his actions woke up some naive conservatives to the true nature of the republican party insiders.

It's politics. Sometimes we will agree and sometimes we won't agree.

Right. Same script, different actors.

Sorry. You are right. I take it back.

Caution: Saying this is eerily familiar to those who use WWJS regularly.

I think you are wrong on many levels with this except "Its the republicans turn..."

O will do as he is told.
If he strays, he wil get 'Perot-ed' by the puppeteers.
It's the Republican's turn to f#^k all of us.

Hil hasn't earned the punishment that Cheney and GWB and O have, but if she had the power there is no doubt that she would.

I am not knowledgeable about the details of the interventions Hillary called for (e.g. arming moderates to fight Islamists), but I'm generally against foreign entanglements. Once we start there's an endless supply of dragons to slay.
If I were involved in the details of foreign policy, though, I'd probably want to do humanitarian missions to protect refugees, which leads to further entanglements-- no easy answer.

Fivedollargold's grandmother would do a better job even though she's been dead for half a century. Either of his cats would do a better job. His lawn would do a better job. That guy on a moped he passed last spring would do a way better job. The moped guy at least, appeared to have a sense of direction.

And George W. Bush was a -50.

I find it funny how the MSM is trying to compare the Hildabeast to Cheney and even GWB when it comes to foreign policy. It my guess that they are trying to annoint their 2016 candidate. I doubt O's egO is going to allow his pathetic record to be fodder for her trumped up accomplishments for her 2016 campaign run.

Good analogy!

On a scale of -100 to 100 on foreign policy, with zero being a net no effect, Obama is somewhere between -100 and -90. Hillary Clinton would be around -75. Bill Clinton was around a -20.