You are really all over the lot and seem to have lost your point: in a supposed defense of Hillary’s record you failed to defend anything she did.
She was the lead actor in our intervention in Libya. Do you support what she did or not?
Do you agree with her statement about Khadafy?
Do you agree with her Russia reset button?
Clinton was also the primary architect of our intervention in Syria and she was the one who pushed for sending arms to the rebels at the start of the rebellion against Assad. Her main criticism of Obama was that he did not send in enough weapons fast enough and did not jump in to organize a fighting force. She wanted more intervention. Once the war she stoked got going, she was unable to achieve a diplomatic solution with Russia to put a stop to it.
It was her escalation of the Syrian conflict that got the civil war going. Obama made plenty of mistakes later to keep it going, but much of the blame has to be placed on her. We should also blame her for sending weapons to jihadis that ended up in the hands of ISIS.
Her interventionist policies, her total misread of the Arab Spring, her lies about Libya, and her diplomatic failures are a matter of record. You have not defended her at all on any specific point. Nor have you defended the broader policy she champions of more direct US interventions in the Mideast. You seem terribly confused: trying to defend Clinton to the hilt while also opposing the interventionist policy she stands for. Try again if you want , but next time please stay on point or at least avoid spewing out irrelevant off-topic generalities.