In most cases, yes, they were obviously worse than alternatives. China is the only arguable exception, though I think they have been emboldened by our failures elsewhere.
Yes there was: do nothing. Another option: don't try to smuggle weapons to Syrian rebels through Libya.
No. It was relatively stable. Obama even bragged about it being stable. He was warned that this stability could collapse if we left.
And those warnings were completely correct.
I'm not saying we should have backed Mubarik. But we chose to back the Muslim Brotherhood specifically, and that was a mistake. An easily avoidable one, too.
We're a "big bad" regardless of what we do. That's not what's holding Putin back.
No, it isn't. They're violating missile test bans. They're kidnapping our military personnel and holding them for ransom. They're giving every indication that they won't actually abide by the nuclear deal. We're getting shafted.
And our complete lack of any support, even simply rhetorical support, for the green revolution is really inexcusable.
This is what's called avoiding disasters?
You're kidding yourself. They are no less hostile.
No. It might possibly delay them getting nuclear arms, but it does nothing to decrease the likelihood. Given how much money they're getting out of the deal, the chances are going up, not down.
That's not terribly impressive. Or important.
They're more active out of necessity because we're failing. That's not really an achievement. And they're not doing so hot either. They're handling this "refugee" crisis completely wrong, for example.
The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, and we essentially abandoned the country. Twelve years later, Al Qaeda struck the US from bases in Afghanistan. Twelve years before we paid the biggest price for that mistake.
Do not imagine that you now have the full reckoning of Obama's mistakes.
If you're arguing about how the public will perceive things (rather than how things actually are), well, Hillary voted for the Iraq war, so this isn't really much of a defense of her.
