When Hillary Clinton gives speeches these days for a six-figure fee it is on her terms. She can pontificate on whatever she likes with nary a tough question or a skeptical listener. But she just left the State Department and her involvement with the issues now exploding on our TV and computer screens deserve scrutiny.
Don’t you think she should be asked some tough questions? Here are a few:
Should the United States have used military force when Syria allegedly first used chemical weapons? When it used chemical weapons allegedly to kill and injury thousands? [The left-wing base may not be pleased with her answer; If it is, she's in trouble on national security issues.]
Why didn’t you insist the United States act more forcefully after 50,000 civilians died? 75,000? 100,000? Do you feel any moral culpability for failing to act sooner in Syria?
When did jihadis move into Syria? Should we have acted to assist the rebels before that?
Does the United States have national security interests at issue in Syria?
Did the inability to negotiate a status of forces agreement in Iraq embolden Iran and/or unleash sectarian violence?
How did you lose track of the growing al-Qaeda presence in North Africa, and specifically in Libya?
What was your Egypt strategy? Why were so many confused about what it was?
Was it a mistake to waste so much capital on the “peace process”?
Was reset with Russia a mistake? Was it a mistake to abandon allies (Czech Republic, Poland) on missile defense sites?
What did you do to help women in Iran? In Afghanistan?
In Iraq, you accused the Bush administration of failing to provide fighting men and women with the best equipment (body armor, in that case). Did the Obama administration do the same with the sequester cuts?
Was your vote on the Iraq war a mistake?
Hillary Clinton rarely gets asked such tough but straight-forward questions. And when she does, she normally filibusters and fends off follow-up’s. In a campaign she may find that harder to do. Her perennial problem has always been that her centrist instincts don’t line up with Democratic base on foreign policy and her record is one of ineptitude and/or passivity. That’s a problem for a future commander in chief, as the Obama administration has amply demonstrated.