|
16A019 The "Why" of Chappaqua by Jim Davies, 5/24/2016 
It's no big deal, says Hillary; and Barack agrees. Even Bernie agrees; early on in his bid for the Dem Nom he made it clear he wasn't going to make a meal out of her mis-step while Secretary of State. Trump, however, who will be her actual opponent between now and November, disagrees. He's said she did some really bad things.
What Mrs Clinton did, on being appointed SoS, was to receive a briefing on how the job is administered, including a reminder about keeping secrets secret, and about how the State Department's communication system works, and she solemnly signed a promise to abide by those rules. She then went out and slipped five grand to a whizz kid in her new Department called Bryan Pagliano, to fix her up with a private server at home.
Those are the facts. There's disagreement as above about whether or not they are important, but that's what took place. Oddly, I've not been able to find out the stated reasons she took that strange action, save that she found it "convenient." It seems journalists are no longer interested in asking the key question, Why?
So let's speculate. I can imagine three possibilities.
1. She found the standard government email system so cumbersome that she decided to install her own more nimble one, the more efficiently to perform her job.
2. She found the standard government email system so riddled with holes as to be leaking like a sieve, and decided that such a sensitive job as hers required something more secure.
3. She decided to set up her own fiefdom as SoS, and carry out her job without supervision by her boss or knowledge of her actions by her staff, except as she decided to tell them.
Now, if either #1 or #2 applied (and either is quite credible) then Hillary Clinton would have had no reason not to tell her boss and get his agreement. She would have received a reply such as this one - handwritten, on paper:
Trouble is, that note is as bogus as a $3 bill; for I cobbled the forgery together myself. No such genuine permit has yet been produced. Therefore, neither #1 or #2 above applies.
Therefore, #3 applies. This lady severed her communication system from the State Department because she intended to run America's foreign policy on her own.
Absent oversight or even peer-review, that solo performance went badly wrong. Libya changed under her guidance from a nasty dictatorship ("We came, we saw, he died") into a war zone with rival factions fighting each other, sometimes with help from the US taxpayer thanks to Hillary, and on one occasion turning on her ambassador and killing him. The country now serves as a training ground for ISIS volunteers. Putin, it now seems likely, knew of her intentions sooner than Obama did, thanks to some efficient hacking in Moscow of her Chappaqua server. She's been a disaster - even if the outcome is not yet as bad as the the last time one person decided foreign policy, aided only by a few fellow-conspirators, in 1941. Didn't end well. Even Mad-Dog Kerry, while creating shambles in Syria, did his job with a fair amount of supervision and visibility.
The outrage, though, is not that her private war ended badly, but that it was waged in the first place - and more yet: foreign policy ought not to be carried out at all by some group or individual claiming to represent all 300 million of us and playing favorites, which is what foreign policy is about. In the coming zero government society there will of course be none, except 300 million separate expressions of "friendship and honest commerce with all." There won't be a State Department, because there won't be a State. Government is a terrible idea no matter what its form or scope, so we're working to end its existence.
So the news that one person was, all on her own, deciding how 300 million of us will relate to other heavily armed governments in the world, is seriously alarming and even worse than having that job done by a collection of bureaucrats and politicians. She was operating a personal Department for one major function of government. And now she wants to be elected Top Dog (er, would that be Top Bitch?) so on that clear precedent, that would mean her administration would be hard to distinguish from a raw dictatorship.
You don't vote, I trust, but that need not stop us encouraging those who do from making sure that this megalomaniac never again crosses the White House threshold except as a visitor under close guard.
|
|
