In Defense of Hillary Clinton Against the WikiLeaks, and Why She Should Resign
By: Jim Byrd
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead–Benjamin Franklin
In the days following the WikiLeaks release of illicitly appropriated documents from the State Department, Hillary Clinton, who is portrayed in the documents as the antagonist of righteousness, has been subjected to a plethora of calls to resign. Julian Assange, proprietor of the malignant WikiLeaks, is leading the charge for her resignation. Assange said to Time Magazine, “It’s very important to remember the law is not what, not simply what, powerful people would want others to believe it is. The law is not what a general says it is. The law is not what Hillary Clinton says it is. She should resign.”
Even Venezuela’s kooky dictator, Hugo Chavez, chimed in with his two cÃ©ntimos worth: â€œThe empire stands nakedâ€¦ Mrs. Clinton should resign. Itâ€™s the least you can do. Resign, along with those other delinquents working in the State Department. Somebody should study Mrs. Clintonâ€™s mental stability. Whatever was left of its mask has finally dropped away.â€
Clinton’s crimes: She directed diplomats at American embassies to gather intelligence. She directed U.S. diplomats to spy on high ranking diplomats at the U.N., to gather biographical data including names, addresses, frequent flier numbers, credit card numbers, iris scans, fingerprints–generally all available biometric information. She did this through written directives simply signed, “CLINTON.”
Do you really appreciate your unalienable rights? To what lengths should this county go to protect your unalienable rights?
I am not a Democrat, never have been; never liked Hillary Clinton, still don’t. But in one regard, she deserves respect for at least trying to protect America’s interests. I find the current Democratic Party at best despicable, and at worst anti-American, with an agenda that is antithetical to what this country was founded upon. But after reading the WikiLeaks regarding the State Department and Hillary Clinton, bravo for her. Bravo for Hillary Clinton. What the WikiLeaks revealed was that she has done what should be expected from the Secretary of State regarding national security. Hopefully there were more justifiably devious exploits she employed that were not captured on paper, and hopefully they will never emerge from their cryptic resting place.
War and national security is a dirty business; dirty business is necessary to win a war, to protect national security. War is a dirty business, and America has experienced the evil and degenerating conditions of fighting and winning against enemies who hate America and wish her destruction. And regarding those sacred unalienable rights, be grateful and obligated to those willing to engage in the dirty and sometimes immoral business of keeping the horror of war from being waged within our borders. It is the naive and unsophisticated naysayers who demand that our national security efforts be put under a microscope, readily available to peruse. Their ignorance, their mindless illiterate view of the world in which we live, and the consequences of remotely adhering to their ideas of a forthright and open State Department, would have cost this country and your unalienable rights long ago. And it is the political correctness, openness, liberalism, and multiculturalism within our very borders, and the weakness it breeds, and the politicians and judges that it produces, that are far more dangerous threats to your unalienable rights than all the enemies and terrorists the world can produce. Again, bravo, Hillary Clinton, bravo!
Unfortunately, the pugnacious and necessary action taken by Hillary Clinton regarding America’s national security is overwhelmed by the reckless, naive, and irresponsible paper trail of her commendable actions–actions that are available the 6.8 billion people populating Earth either through internet access or newspapers to read at their leisure. Clinton’s taking any and all action in the name of national security is still commendable, but her impotent and impoverished corpus as Secretary of State cannot be augmented by ambitious effort. As Secretary of State, she has failed to produce quantitative results, and she represents Obama’s bizarre and nonsensical foreign policy–which to her bane, is counterproductive to this country’s national security. This WikiLeaks debacle underscores the wholesale incompetence of the Obama administration, the failures of each of his appointed cabinet members, and that Clinton and her State Department is just another tumbling domino.
On Obama’s watch, and Clinton’s State Department, Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old Private First Class, had unconditional access to SIPRNet, the classified computer network of the Department of Defense, and was able to access the State Department’s internal database of classified files. Manning used a $10 1.6 gigabyte flash-drive to download 250,000 of the State Department’s classified documents. There was never a warning of a security breach because the protection of the State’s classified files is safeguarded by the most unsophisticated and jejune firewall designable. Clinton’s unsophisticated firewall. For this, and her incompetence as Secretary of State, she should resign. As far as matters of national security, an A+ in effort and an F in results will always be trumped by an F in effort and an A+ in results.
WikiLeaks has globally disseminated copious copies of classified chronicles from the State Department. These are the facts, and the documents contain the facts. Facts are a quirky thing, because facts do not always equal truth. All facts need perspective and context to manifest the truth. What the illicitly obtained facts, WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange do not present to the intended targets, is context and perspective. What Assange and his abettors around the world–and within the United States–do not comprehend, is that diplomacy, if done properly, is a science and an art form. In diplomacy it is often not what is said, but how it is said and in what context, something that is absent in the WikiLeaks documents. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange do not possess a smoking gun.
What Julian Assange presented was his objective: to embarrass the United States, put our military and soldiers in preventable danger, put the lives of various allies in danger, and to destroy the fragile arrangements keeping balance in the wildly chaotic world of diverse morality, power, covetous, mistrustful, dominating, and genocidal nations.
Unites States Attorney General, and sectarian saber-rattler, Eric Holder, said the following about the WikiLeaks debacle: “To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law, who put at risk the assets and the people I have described, they will be held responsible; they will be held accountable. This is not saber-rattling.”
Where were Eric Holder and Obama when earlier this year WikiLeaks distributed, twice, documents that identified Afghanistan informants aiding the United States at their personal peril, and video of Iraqi collateral deaths, including two Reuters’s photographers killed by a U.S. Apache helicopter. It is an absolute tragedy, and a sometimes preventable tragedy, when collateral damage happens, and it will, during a war. Not to diminish the horror of civilian deaths, but, like the WikiLeaks recent document dump, there is no context accompanying the video. Involvement in war at the battle, scene level, has the assumptive risk of death. War is vile, war is dirty, war is hell, war is death, and sometimes that death is indiscriminate. This is where Eric Holder was: the Obama administration was not embarrassed, the State Department was not embarrassed, Holder was directed to act. That is where Eric Holder was when lives and our military were put at risk by WikiLeaks the first two times.
Below is a random selection of four of the expected repugnant comments supporting WikiLeaks and Julian Assange from the Leftist media around the country, such as Daily Kos, Huffington Post, et al.:
â€¢ â€œA liberal, democratic state such as the United States with freely-elected representatives and a free media should have CONSENT in “liberating” such documents.â€
â€¢ â€œI think that Wikileaks is a good source for the hidden “truth” and all it implies. From the few leaks I have read so far, USA citizens should be ashamed of their hiddin [sic] greedy government.â€
â€¢ â€œAll people everywhere rejoice that the time for secrets is over. Those with dark agendas will have light shined on them. Hooray !!!!!!!!!!â€
The fourth and morally and intellectually illiterate opinion was published in the Christian Science Monitor in an article written by Sheldon Richman. Richman parades around as an erudite libertarian, but he is actually a not so well concealed anarchist, and if implemented, his bizarre libertarian policies would have dismantled this county from inception:
“Many are condemning Bradley Manning for allegedly providing WikiLeaks with sensitive reports about US foreign policy. But a government that can make war while keeping essential information about its justification and conduct secret is neither open nor fit for free people.”
“I say hero. When a government secretly engages in such consequential activities as aggressive wars justified by at best questionable and at worst fabricated intelligence, covert bombings and assassinations, and diplomatic maneuvering designed to support such global meddling, the people in whose name that government acts–and who could suffer retaliation–have a right to know.”
“Or is â€œgovernment of the people, by the people, for the peopleâ€ so much pabulum to keep us contentedly ignorant?”
“WikiLeaks critics will say that foreign policy cannot be conducted in public. As stated, that assertion is false. It is only an imperial foreign policy that cannot be conducted in public.”
The first two paragraphs demonstrate his moral illiteracy; no explanation needed, as the consequences are axiomatic. The last two paragraphs demonstrate his intellectual illiteracy, and the puerile foreign policies espoused by libertarianism in the treacherous world in which we exist. He seems to allude that a quote by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address is a foundational principle of the this country’s original design, and there can be no reasonable explanation as to his opinion that only non-imperialistic foreign policy can be conducted openly in public. He does not have the evidence to support this claim, as it logically and plausibly does not exist.
Make no mistake about it, Julian Assange is a terrorist. Can Julian Assange be indicted, extradited to the U.S., then prosecuted under the Espionage Act as a foreigner? What he did qualifies as espionage under the act. What he did qualifies as terrorism. What the New York Times did by printing the material was aiding and abetting treason, terrorism, and espionage. Assange did not steal the documents, Manning did. But Assange is just as culpable, and so is the New York Times.
In one of the documents leaked by Julian Assange, he outs a secret black ops unit of the American military, Task Force 373, working with a NATO coalition, that targets Taliban and Al-Qaeda figures in Afghanistan. They work off a 2,000 person kill or capture list known as Jpeli. They hunt their prey, and destroy it.
Julian Assange has exposed the lives of America’s military personnel, Afghanistan informants, and other valuable assets of the United States. He has leaked classified State Department documents involving other countries around the globe. There is a time for diplomacy, there is a time for taking the effort of tracking someone accused of espionage, there is a time for formal indictments, there is a time for a lengthy extradition process, there is a time for a lengthy trial, and there is a time for action when our national security is at risk.
The point of mentioning Task Force 373 is why this question is not being asked, assuming the current WikiLeaks fiasco never happened: What ever happened to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks? They have been eerily silent since dumping documents and video several months ago.
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.