Hillary Clinton has a reputation for being a bit more hawkish than the average Democrat. She voted for the war in Iraq (before opposing it), she advocated action in Syria, and she led the charge to take out Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. We know how all of that worked out.

Well, get ready for “Smart Power 2.0” if Clinton wins the White House. Responding to the Orlando massacre](https://patriotpost.us/articles/43166), Clinton made sure not to be outflanked by Donald Trump. “The threat is metastasizing,” she warned. “We saw this in Paris. And we saw it in Brussels. We face a twisted ideology and poisoned psychology that inspires the so-called lone wolves, radicalized individuals who may or may not have contact and direction from any formal organization. So, yes, efforts to defeat ISIS on the battlefield must succeed. But it will take more than that. We have to be just as adaptable and versatile as our enemies.” She promised to do more to stop “lone wolves,” which of course aren’t lone wolves at all but actors inspired by the same monstrous ideology: radical Islam.

Furthermore, she said, “In the Middle East, ISIS is attempting a genocide of religious and ethnic minorities. They are slaughtering Muslims who refuse to accept their medieval ways. They are beheading civilians, including executing LGBT people. They are murdering Americans and Europeans, enslaving, torturing and raping women and girls.”

And in other remarks, she mostly called it a spade: “Whether you call it radical jihadism, radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing. I’m happy to say either.” But, she continued — and you knew there would be a “but” — “what I won’t do, because I think it is dangerous for our efforts to defeat this threat, is to demonize and demagogue and, you know, declare war on an entire religion. That plays right into ISIS’ hands.” Who’s declaring war on an entire religion? That’s nothing but a strawman.

Besides, back in November, Clinton sang a different tune. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism,” she said then. “The obsession in some quarters with a clash of civilization or repeating the specific words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ isn’t just a distraction. It gives these criminals, these murderers, more standing than they deserve. It actually plays into their hands by alienating partners we need by our side.”

Forgive us if we still doubt the woman who gave us Benghazi will successfully counter the threat.