David Ignatius, "In ‘Hard Choices,’ Hillary Clinton is seen as hesitant to take big risks": Kissing the Considerable Ass of America's Next President?

How much more credibility can David Ignatius lose? In a previous Washington Post opinion piece, Ignatius claimed that Israel would be building 700 new settlements, when in fact 700 new housing units had been approved in a long existing offshoot of Jerusalem (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/david-ignatius-why-mideast-peace.html). Today in a WaPo opinion piece entitled "In ‘Hard Choices,’ Hillary Clinton is seen as hesitant to take big risks" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-hard-choices-hillary-clinton-opens-up-about-world-leaders-and-what-she-got-right/2014/06/09/b4ecc0d2-efeb-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html?hpid=z3), Ignatius by and large gushes over Hillary Clinton's new autobiography. Ignatius begins:

"'Hard Choices' begins and ends in the empty voice of a campaign speech. But in between, it contains a clear and at times riveting account of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s four years as secretary of state.

This is a careful book, written tactically to burnish friendships and avoid making enemies. Perhaps that’s inevitable for an autobiographer who is considering running for president, but there are times when the reader feels he is being 'spun' rather than enlightened."

Hmm, why would Hillary possibly want to "spin" us?

Ignatius concludes that "the book should reinforce the case of those who believe Clinton is well prepared to be president."

A simple query for Ignatius? Does he truly believe that this "autobiography" was written by Hillary? If so, he's more of a naif than I ever imagined.

More to the point, where in the book do we learn of Hillary's crowning achievement - or any achievement for that matter - as secretary of state?

Although I read Madeleine Albright's "Madam Secretary" and "Memo to the President Elect," I don't have time for Hillary's self-serving campaign narrative.