He notes the damage done to Hillary’s image by the WikiLeaks revelations. Those leaked cables—those undiplomatic diplomatic documents—show what he calls “a chatty and at times petty State Department offering strikingly candid assessments of the relative strengths and weaknesses of various world leaders.”
That is putting it most diplomatically. These leaks are devastating.
As former Speaker Newt Gingrich says, they show an administration wholly incapable of protecting classified documents. Why, Newt asks, does a low-level Army private have access to a quarter million classified documents? Who gave this grunt a security clearance? Former UN Ambassador John Bolton chimes in: This WikiLeaks scandal shows an administration so weak, so disorganized, that it does not understand the first thing about national security.
Indeed. How can Hillary Clinton continue to get kudos from anyone? Grace? Diplomacy? The leaks show that she tried to find out if Argentina’s lady president was on drugs. Why do we need to know that? Argentina’s people deserve our respect. Their leaders don’t. And trying to find out such sensitive information is crazy. It could only lead—as it has led—to a huge embarrassment.
We have to recall Watergate. Why did Nixon’s people do it in the first place? And why did Nixon attempt to cover up?
Hillary’s traveling the world was a problem even before these leaks. Recall her horrible gaffe in Ottawa last spring. She visited our loyal ally and berated Prime Minister Harper’s Conservative party government for not including abortion in its maternal care initiative for Africa. This from the woman who as First Lady said “abortion is wrong” (Newsweek, October 31, 1994).
It would have been just as undiplomatic if Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had gone to Canada and attacked the Liberal government in 2005 for its support of the forced abortion-condoning UNFPA. Of course, Sec. Rice should have objected to that Canadian policy, but if she had—and perhaps she did—it should have been done privately.