Fred Hiatt, "The defense of inaction in Syria": Read This Opinion Piece!

Also read "New Book, 'Clinton Cash,' Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation"


You will recall that yesterday I wrote:

"Heck, before campaigning as a woman, Hillary first needs to figure out how to behave like a human being. Forget the bullshit sniper fire in Bosnia. Ignore Benghazi and 'What difference at this point does it make?' Overlook 'Don't let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs.' And put the 30,000 emails she recently deleted on a back burner. Instead, concentrate for just a moment on a Newsweek article of today's date entitled "Hillary Clinton's Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran" by Rory Ross."

Or stated otherwise, Hillary has a humongous problem involving cash donations to the Clinton Foundation, and more to the point, she should not be running for president of the United States.

Well today, I have two must-reads for you: a New York Times article entitled "New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation" by Amy Chozick, and a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The defense of inaction in Syria," by Fred Hiatt.

First, a few words about the Times article. "Clinton Cash" will not be available in bookstores until May 5, but the Times has already gotten hold of a copy, and Times reporter Chozick labels the book "the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy." Chozick further tells us:

"The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

. . . .

'Clinton Cash' is potentially more unsettling [than other recent books about the Clintons], both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

. . . .

And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job."

"Another conservative hit job"? Good luck. It will prove extremely difficult to dismiss investigative reporting by the Times and WaPo as conservative hit jobs, and ultimately the Democrats, nearing election day in 2016, could find themselves without a candidate.

Which brings me to Hiatt's opinion piece concerning Obama's indifference to a humanitarian disaster in Syria. WaPo editorial page editor Hiatt writes:

"I don’t mean that Obama is the first president to stand by as atrocities unfold. He is not. Just as Obama has watched passively as Syria has unraveled, with hundreds of thousands killed and more than 11 million — half the nation — displaced, so President Bill Clinton did nothing to stop genocide in Rwanda, and President George W. Bush failed to stop the depredations in the Darfur region of Sudan.

But Clinton expressed remorse for his inaction in Rwanda. Americans in churches and synagogues demanded that Bush take steps to 'save Darfur.' The political will was lacking, but there was at least a sense of unease, even shame, that the United States would stand aside as so many innocents were slaughtered.

Syria’s four-year-long descent into hell, amply foretold and arguably the most preventable of the three calamities, has prompted little such soul-searching."

What does any of this have to do with Hillary? Simple. You will recall Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying of Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad on "Face the Nation" in March 2011:

"There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer."

Maybe these words will also come back to haunt Hillary, unless absolutely nothing sticks to this Teflon lady.

Regarding Obama's inaction involving Syria, Hiatt writes:

"Obama has had multiple opportunities to take actions that might have prevented the crimes against humanity that continue today."

But if Obama had taken action, he would have ruffled the feathers of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, who is Assad's primary benefactor. This, in turn, would have stood in the way of a nuclear agreement with Tehran, which in turn would have cost Obama his "legacy."

But this does not excuse Hillary's indifference as Obama's secretary of state to the abominations occurring in Syria.

Is $2.5 billion, the amount to be spent by Hillary to become president, sufficient to frighten away better qualified Democratic candidates and hoodwink the American electorate? Stay tuned . . .