[Even though this diary is not funny, and thus has that in common with DKos 4/1 joke posts, it is NOT an April Fool's post.]
Normally, I find Christopher Hitchens to be a bloated, right wing apologist gas bag. But I have always admitted that he is kind of drunk-at-the-end-of-the-bar smart, and though I don't think he's a good writer, he is, well, glib.
Yesterday on Slate he issued a jeremiad saying that the truth behind Hillary's Bosnia sniper lies was much worse than the lies themselves. To shorten his turgid prose, he said that Bill wanted to rescue Bosnia from Serbian depredations shortly after his election, but that Hillary objected to an involvement there because she felt it would create a roadblock to her health care reform plans.
Here's the gist of it from Hitchens, quoting from Sally Bedell Smith's book, For Love of Politics:
"Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people."
Hitchens goes on to cite other evidence of Hillary's determination to roadblock the rescue of Bosnia from ethnic cleansing. The whole article is here:
http://www.slate.com/...
Anyone have any comments on this? Is it just more anti-Clinton propaganda from a master of it? I have to admit I was appalled at how long it took for Clinton to act against Milosevic, but also blamed NATO allies for their apparent refusal to act. But of course, they needed leadership on the issue.