Jackass of the Year 2013

Hillary Clinton: "What Difference Does It Make?"

Courtesy of Politico

Well, Ms. Clinton has broken through the glass floor (except for perhaps any Dem female Wisconsin state senators in my 2011 group "award"). Let me point out, first of all, I do not doubt her work ethic and general intelligence. I will say that I think foreign policy has been a convoluted mess under the Obama Administration (for example, the strange silence over the violently suppressed Green Revolution in Iran, the incoherent straddling over the Arab Spring in Egypt, etc.) Obviously, Barack Obama is ultimately responsible for the success or failure in foreign policy, and one doesn't really know to what extent credit or blame can be attributed to Ms. Clinton's efforts; whereas much attention has been focused on changing the tone from Bush's more assertive diplomacy, it's hard to point out substantive progress, particularly given embarrassing disclosures of the CIA tapping the conversations of allied leaders, like German Chancellor Merkel. Obama has largely followed or even escalated Bush's policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, and drone bombings. The Administration intervened, without Congressional authorization, in Libya and has threatened to do the same in Syria. In fact,we now have new challenges as China has unilaterally extended new zones along its Pacific Coast. Granted, some of these details surfaced after Clinton's departure, but Clinton was well aware of Chinese claims, and it's embarrassing that Canada entered into a trade agreement with the EU before we have. My general impression is that foreign policy under Ms. Clinton has been more reactive and seat-of-the-pants than proactive.

The Benghazi story is well-known; in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 anniversary tragedy, it was clear that Benghazi was unstable, unstable enough for Britain to withdraw diplomats from the region after their being targeted. It's clear that the consulate wanted more security and the requests were rejected. (I really don't want to hear Statists argue the fault is not enough funding; the point is even if you assume limited resources and redeployment issues, you need to put the safety of your diplomats first; I've seen a lot of excuses about how little could have been done given logistics, but it begs the question of why we didn't withdraw earlier like Britain.) A couple of controversies: when and what did Ms. Clinton know and what did she do about it; then there was the intentionally misleading attempt of the administration to spin the terrorist attack as a protest gone rogue over an Internet video.

What I expect from any leader is to accept responsibility and to refrain from finger-pointing (say, to staff). Let us be clear: Ms. Clinton is capable of dealing with multiple concurrent issues, and any competent manager must set priorities. Assuming even a modicum of due diligence on Libya, she had to know the Benghazi region was unstable. She had managers reporting to her, and I would expect a proactive manager would review security arrangements and demand to be alerted over deteriorating conditions and employee concerns, which was clearly the case in Benghazi.

What did I expect from Ms. Clinton at the hearing? The truth, not excuses: e.g., saying that the buck stopped with subordinates; she had other priorities. I wanted her to take responsibility for the strategy and admit to mistakes of judgment, that she had given short shrift to security considerations, that Ms. Rice's comments on Sunday talk soup were speculative, wrong, and ill-advised. I wanted to hear her come up with lessons learned and policy reforms to ensure safety of diplomatic personnel. I do know I didn't listen to all of her testimony, and it may be she touched on these things. But her response to Sen. Johnson (R-WI) below is unacceptably out of line, and the mock outrage, defensive "what difference does it make", i.e., 4 men are dead and none of this is going to bring them back, is the most clueless public soundbite since Bush's "heck of a job, Brownie" in the aftermath of Katrina.

To me, Ms. Clinton's behavior was unacceptable and materially disqualifies her from seeking higher office. She had weeks to prepare for her testimony, and her histrionic, staged outrage was pathetic and demonstrates her lack of character and integrity. There were many subsequent incidents of other Democrats behaving badly this year, but Ms. Clinton's behavior was difficult to trump.