...U.S. intelligence agencies, by the U.S. military, by the U.S. State Department and diplomatic corps, by U.S. agents out in the field? By U.S. soldiers?
That's the deeper question that you are trying to evade. It's not just that almost anyone else in the U.S. government who did what Clinton did would have their security clearance yanked, would be fired, and might well find themselves in jail; it's that no one in government could trust the President, who might casually flip off their security concerns, who might put their lives in peril, who might casually destroy years of effort on a project, because she doesn't give a damn what she says, what she reveals, who she says it to, and who might be listening.
You forget that the President has to work with others--tens of thousands of others in multiple agencies. You forget that they all know the rules. You forget that they all know the penalties for violating security rules. And they all know why security is important.
What you seem to be okay with is a government in chaos, a government of profound distrust within itself, a government in which sloppy security procedures and even crimes and blackmail and backstabbing can run rampant, because the person at the top of the chain is perceived as not giving a damn about anything but her own power.
What does security of others mean to her? Nothing. So why should anybody else care? Some will still care, of course--and, like the lower level IG employees, who spoke out because Clinton had failed to appoint an IG for the State Department, and who warned Clinton about her insecure email server, they will be told to "never speak of it again."
You are talking about George W. Bush's government--a chaos of illegality and callousness and rule breaking and law breaking starting at the top.
I have no love for the "national security state," but, as long as we have one, I want there to be rules and laws that are important to all participants. I want it to be run the way Obama is running it, and the way John Kerry is running the State Department. With rules. Without scandals. With respect for laws like the FOIA and respect for sworn oaths about the handling of documents. With respect for the law.
I strongly disagree with some Obama actions and policies--and agree with others--but I have faith that, if a national security advisor comes to him with his "hair on fire" about a serious threat from Osama bin Ladin, Obama will not say, "never speak of this again," which is essentially what Bush, Cheney & Co. said to Richard Clarke. Further, I would not suspect Obama or Kerry of participating in 9/11, or permitting it to happen, as I do of Bush, Cheney & Co. Clinton is more like Bush-Cheney than she is like Obama or Kerry. She seems to have no principles and just does what she likes that is in her own interest. She gave no thought to the security of her email server and brushed all warnings aside, and then told lies about it. It's what she wanted to do, for her own purposes. Many suspect that those purposes were the corrupt use of the U.S. State Department to extract large donations to the Clinton Foundation, from entities like the Saudis who wanted war planes with which to bomb and acquire Yemen. But even if her purpose wasn't so venal, the point of her character is that she didn't think of others, she didn't think of consequences, and she didn't care about rules or laws. She acted like a law unto herself.
The presidency is rather kinglike or queenlike, but it is not yet completely lawless, which we came very close to with Bush-Cheney. Clinton, in this email server scandal, tends toward lawless, and may have committed crimes. The issue is not, would she need a security clearance as president; the issue is, would she scoff at others needing to have one, as she did by exchanging national security documents with Sydney Blumenthal, a private citizen, whom Obama had banned from the State Department, who had no security clearance? If she scoffs at authority (Obama), how can she exercise authority wisely? If she won't follow the rules, when her duty requires her to, how can she be a good leader and lay down good rules for others?
Clinton's actions in Honduras and Libya mean that I can never vote for her. The consequences of her decisions there were just too horrible. But good government is also important, whatever you think of government policy. Crimes against good government lead to other, worse crimes. Bush-Cheney started with a scofflaw attitude toward good government and were soon "shock and awe" bombing Iraq and torturing prisoners, and setting the example for U.S. soldiers to torture prisoners, and a giving billion dollar war contract to Cheney's company. They became a law unto themselves.
= new reply since forum marked as read
For Chuck!
