My must read of the day is "The Hillary Papers," by Alana Goodman in the Washington Free Beacon:
Hillary Clinton’s blunt assessments were not confined to Monica Lewinsky. In a Dec. 3, 1993, diary entry, Blair recounted a conversation with the first lady about "Packwood"—a reference to then-Sen. Bob Packwood, an influential Republican on health care embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal.
"HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care," wrote Blair. "I told her I’d been bonding w. creeps; she said that was the story of her whole past year. Fabio incident—sweeping her up, sending her roses."
Sen. Bob Packwood (R., Ore.) was accused of making unwanted advances on numerous women. The Senate Ethics Committee investigated the claims and unanimously voted in favor of expelling Packwood from the Senate, handing down "the most severe penalty that could be leveled against a senator." It ultimately ended his political career.
But Clinton was more interested in passing health care than in criticizing Packwood. That’s pretty repugnant, especially coming from an "icon for feminists." Gender issues can seem like a political toss away. They’re not a top priority for most people, but when someone dismisses sexual harassment like this it reveals insights into their character, both personally and professionally.
But this is only one aspect of the article that should shape assessments of Clinton’s leadership.
According to the article, Clinton criticized intervening in the Bosnian war when it appeared as if President Clinton was leaning towards military action:
On April 21, 1993, during a speech at the opening reception for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., President Clinton drew parallels between the genocide in Bosnia and the Holocaust.
That same month, he met with top U.S. military officials, diplomats, and aid workers advocating for military action against the Serbian forces of Slobodan Milosevic.
At the time, however, Hillary Clinton was not on board with the use of deadly force. According to Blair’s April 29, 1993 account, the First Lady said she "was very much against any intervention—had been killing each other for 900 yrs."
Blair later spoke with President Clinton in mid-May and gave him "messages a la [Hillary’s] instructions: stop ruminating aloud re Bosnia."
The White House was under increasing pressure to address the atrocities in the Balkans. Yet the United States waited more than two years before taking military action.
Clinton is championed as the Democrat’s strong foreign policy candidate – she’s travelled so many miles! But this take on Bosnia was clearly the wrong call.
An argument could be made that Syria is a similar situation.
In fact, some people have argued that in Syria (and the Middle East) we should just "let them kill each other" and that a prolonged stalemate is what’s best.
The assumption is, if you ignore the crisis, the groups involved will continue to fight one another. That it will stay over there and between them. That’s highly unlikely, since we already known foreign jihadist are using Syria as a training ground.
Clinton seems to have made this kind of argument with the Bosnia war, apathetically brushing off genocide because "they’ve had wars before."
These revelations cannot be dismissed simply because they occurred two decades ago. Every decision Clinton makes appears to be political. Including the decisions she has yet to make.