Trying to parse this out
Submitted by NWIA on Thu, 05/26/2016 - 12:39pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-dis...
My initial reaction to the Post's clear rebuke of Clinton's email use was anazement. How could the most doggedly determined Clintonian newspaper print something that nails her in such a straightforward manner?
My second reaction was that the strategy might just be to rebuke now, forgive tomorrow, and forget about it next week?
Whaddaya think?
Comments
Maybe because they know she'll walk?
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Probably. If it's only "unwise" and not illegal, they will
gradually come back to loving her. Meanwhile they are "balanced".
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Naw.
You cannot take an important security issue (and really, that is what this is about) the violation of serious security protocols, the willful ignoring of procedures, advice, and warnings, threaten your underlings to drop any mention of the server, face two, possibly more, secret military missions which were apparently blown because of a security leak, say in headlines and in a national newspaper's text, "WA DA FA?" and then pretend a few days later that it really doesn't matter.
The world may forgive a diaper wearing sexual predator and make him governor (after keeping him in the senate another term).It might even forgive a senator who brags about lying to get funds to build a bridge to nowhere. But when it comes to national security and the safety of our nation, those issues never go away.
I think we are seeing the early stages of campaign rot, and eventual death of Teem Hillary. (I love how her supporters teem and swarm onto formerly nice blogs and aim to screw them up. Except Kos was more than a willing participant.)
Two Leaks of Secret Missions?
I missed that. Where and when did that come out please?"
WOW! Answered My Own Question
It just gets worse and worse about HRC's "carelessness.
" A retired military advisor to the State Department has come out with claims that Clinton’s “sloppy communications with her senior staff” may have compromised counterterrorism operations in the Philippines." An article in lawnews begins with this. The article is short and well worth reading.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/ex-state-dept-advisor-says-clintons-slop...
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-terrorism-sloppy-communica...
I think the Law Newz article is the best. The Newsweek article seems to have been "updated" since it was first published.
I'm not very tech savvy. I don't know how to make the background blue for the quoted material, etc. Please excuse. I'll have to play with the tools and learn.
We don't forgive
But many others do. Please see Reagan, Ronald W. and Bush, George W. The election of GHW Bush and the reelection of GW Bush could not have happened if voters actually valued national security.
How much does anyone care?
I'm not seeing any signs that the Average Voter cares that much about this stuff.
It's all very well to point out that in principle security and transparency are important (interesting that this story has both of those angles), but no one can really say "See! Our agents in Syria were executed by ISIS because of her!"
If they're not going to toss Hillary in jail I have my doubts that there's much here that can derail Hillary... it gives Trump another thing to talk about, but he doesn't need it, with Hillary there's an embarrassment of riches, and Trump does not exactly fear embarrassment.
Who Really Cares
Most don't really care: consider the situation with Edward Snowden. Hell I don't even need to go that far: On several occasions during the past 35 years I have been the whistle blower in my little corner of the world, and I get blamed/shamed for exposing what's "behind the curtain".
Clinton is a GOD and you are evil for suggesting she be held to mere mortal standards.
First, please note that the article is an opinion piece.
So, just like the Nation which endorsed Sanders occasionally prints an anti-Sanders piece, sometimes you will get the truth about HRC in an HRC-or-bust publication.
On the bring side, the article is actually in the opinion section rather than being passed off as news which almost every major publication does now.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
What I find interesting is how the media had to pretend
to be collectively dumber than a box of rocks - like they never quite got the distinction between an email account and a server, and how having lots and lots of messages that involve national security, foreign countries and nationals, internal government discussions at the highest levels retained on a homebrew server also housing the Clinton Foundation stored in the Secretary's basement (unencrypted for the first two months!) and then moved to a completely unvetted private company later and with much of the content placed in the cloud, is any cause for concern. Just a big nothingburger, yawn. Even Rachel Maddow didn't care enough about her own integrity to report this with the same enthusiasm she did with Bridgeate although the ramifications are far larger.
Speaking of The Nation, their columnist Kevin Drum has won my personal prize for being the most clueless of the clueless or the rockiest rock in the box of rocks. I had to wonder if he ghost authored the unintentionally hilarious diary by Mark Lippman at TOP with the completely unironic title The State Department IG's Report Is Good News For Hillary Really! It's Being Misreported (that title is not a joke!) in which Lippman's premise is that in order to believe what he is about to write, it's critically important that you DO NOT read the report yourself, simply let him read it and interpret it for you, and then he goes on to completely mischaracterize the basic summary of the report and to grasp the last pitiful dying vine the Clinton campaign is clinging from - Colin Powell did it too! even though the report makes clear that the defined practices and expectations of the use of emails and their retention had changed drastically between the Bush and the Obama administrations.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Thanks, NWIA
WaPo article a good read. Thank you for sharing.
I look forward to this issue staying a BFD to the HRC campaign and to the nation. Saw HRC this morning, explaining that Powell did it too. But no, he didn't. He did not have a private server in his home. The fact that she's trying to wave her behavior off is as disgusting as it is disturbing. Another monumental lack of judgment.
Email is sexist.
Mail rhymes with male, so it is obviously misogynistic.
You are a bad man :-P
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
NO!
I agree with edj. Email is sexist. It should be called E-Correspondence.
And the mailman shall hereafter be called the "person person".
Nature is my religion; the earth is my temple.
W R O N G !
It be per-daughter. Sheesh, some peepholes.
I am familiar with a certain type of denial at work here
My wife is a Ph.D. psychologist and MENSA person unfamiliar with computer technology. She doesn't understand what a server is. She is not going to believe that there is a serious issue until there is an indictment. I don't know what proportion of the voting populace she represents, but I think it may be significant. Knowing what I know now, I don't see how it is possible for the FBI not to recommend indictment, but I will have to wait for that event before my wife understands the national security implications.