Exceedingly bad judgment is disqualifying

Bernie Sanders is right.  Paraphrasing, judgment is vastly more important than experience.  No where is this most certainly than the case than in the individual in the office of the President of the United States. 

By the nature of the office and its span of responsibility and control, no one person will have experience in every area in which the electorate expects and demands the president to make sound judgments.  Business, foreign policy, national security, healthcare, finance, taxation, diplomacy, domestic policy, natural disasters, science, education, environment, cybersecurity, legislation, law, agriculture, commerce, transportation, veterans, and countless other matters demand the president's best judgment.  It is obvious, despite what our current POTUS may claim, no one individual can be the duty expert in each and every one of these topic areas, let alone the subtopics.  So the judgment of the president, as he/she takes in the facts and arrives at conclusions must be unassailable.

Just as unassailable must be the president's judgment in people.  He/she must choose the best possible team.  He/she must be able to take in opposing recommendations from a wide variety of people, judge their credibility and the quality of their recommendations.  He/she must be an astute judge of the character of individuals.

As the commander-in-chief, the president must have unassailable judgment when deciding to put our Armed Forces in harm's way.

No matter how one looks at it, judgment is overwhelmingly more important than mere experience.  Experience alone does not provide the basis for good judgment.  Perhaps an over simplification, it could be argued that one could have vast quantities of experience composed of exceptionally bad judgment. 

When it comes down to it, Ms. Clinton's record is all too rife with too many examples of woefully bad to abysmal judgment.  As current news reports reflect and she acknowledged (and regardless of how the legal matters are addressed), it was unbelieveably bad judgment to deliberately set up and exclusively use an unsecure private service for her email while Secretary of State.  Pure and simple: the requirements of the job as Secretary of State includes receiving and transmitting classified information.  Remaining on this topic for a moment, her deliberate and specific claim in March 2015 that there was no classified information in her email is another example of monumentally bad judgment.  As we have recently learned, some of the information is so highly classified that the Department of State will not release even redacted copies.  It was her judgment to make that now is a fully debunked statement.  Further, her deliberate and knowing judgment to exclusively use an insecure, private server for email communications also exposed classified information to individuals not cleared/approved to have access to it.

Two other notable examples of her deficient judgment: personally and publicly supporting Anthony Weiner prior to his resignation and the deliberate decision to publicly claim having landed under fire in Bosnia (proven false). 

Bottom line, taken alone and separate from many other reasons not to support Ms. Clinton, her exceedingly bad judgment is wholly disqualifying.

  

Low level politics

While still believing there is cause for hope in 2016, in the face of the multiple and significant issues facing our nation, it is vexing to observe the abysmally low level to which our national politics are sinking.

On one side is a candidate who may very well be indicted on felony charges.  If the FBI presents charges to the Department of Justice and no indictment ensues, the damage will be immense.  If the individual is indicted, some ridiculously argue it would be permissible for the candidate to continue to campaign for office.  How telling of the state of American politics if such a scandal were to occur.  In the same party is a proudly self-described candidate raging to demolish our basic economy.  As the candidate is the most genuine and sincere of those in his party seeking the nomination, it is scary how many people turn out in support.

On the other side is a bombastic, disingenuous candidate who speaks in perpetually negative descriptions and criticisms of the opponents.  It is tremendously sad that this candidate leads in individual polling.  Others campaigning for this party's nomination range from the virtually unknown to the shrill to the complaining, with one perhaps filling a proper role.  Still, not unlike the other party, no stellar candidate stands out.

A criminal and a fool lead the polling for their respect parties.  This alone speaks to the abysmally low level of American politics.  Were it not the highest office in the land to which the aspire, it would make great comedic theater.

Still seeing 2016 as a year of promise, I hope the nation can put aside the criminals and idiots and rise to select a good person who will work with leaders from both parties to find compromise solutions to move our country forward, unify the citizenry (after nearly eight years of purposeful divisive rhetoric), and restore honor to the political class.   

Questions for Ms. Clinton prior to Iowa, New Hamsphire, and South Carolina

Shortly, after what seems to have been a decade long process, voters will begin making their choices as to who should be selected to carry their political party's banner into the national election for president.  As Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina approach, here are questions for Ms. Clinton. 

Question.  Why was it not a conflict of interest to accept funds from foreign governments when you were secretary of state?    

 

Question.  What actions did you take on behalf of the foreign governments that gave money to your foundation? 

 

Question:  How does your lying about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia differ from NBC's Brian Williams lying about being in a helicopter that came under fire?

Question:  How is directing one of your staff to remove classification and other markings from a document in order to send it via unsecure means not a violation of the law? 

Question:  How can you stand for the importance of an individual's character, when you supported Anthony Weiner?

Question:  Since you did not demand immediate military assistance be dispatched to help our people during the attacks in Benghazi, why should we believe you will direct immediate military action to protect Americans from future attacks overseas?  

Question:  Regarding the loss of American life in Benghazi in September 2012, which of your direct actions before, during, and shortly after the tragedy did make a difference?

Question:  This is a multiple part question regarding your voting record in the Senate: How many votes were called during your time in the Senate?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote YEA?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote NAY?  Of the called votes, how many times did you vote PRESENT?  Of the called votes, how many times were you absent?  

Question:  How can you purport to be an advocate for women's rights and equality, when you remain in the marriage to a serial philanderer and adulterer?  

Question:  What is your specific view on the sanctity of marriage vows? 

Question:  What are the meaning and requirements of the oath of office for the presidency? 

Question:  Since there is a two term limit for the office of President, why shouldn't there be a two term limit for the members of Congress? 

Unfortunately, it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that any of these questions will be asked.  And it is certainty that if asked, Ms. Clinton would not truthfully answer.  But one can dream.

13 Hours

With the release of the movie 13 Hours, much commentary and many opinions are also coming out.

One is by Goldman and Miller, "Former CIA chief in Benghazi challenges the story line of the new movie ‘13 Hours’." Washington Post, Jan 15 2016 on the Washington Post website.  In this piece, a central figure in the movie, the local CIA station chief, denies the manner in which he is portrayed in the film, including his action directing the operators to stand down, rather than immediately go to the consulate compound to assist when it was under attack.

It is not possible to state with certainty what would have occurred if the shooters had deployed to the consulate compound as soon as possible, rather than after considerable delay as depicted in the film.  

However, when it comes to deciding whose version of events to believe, the operators whose story is told in the film or "Bob" the local CIA station chief who gave his version semi-anonymously to Goldman and Miller, it is pretty much straight up.  I believe the shooters.

Obviously "Bob" is not motivated to confirm his depicted actions.  Most would not want to publicly admit their failings, particularly in such a high visibility event.  The shooters, on the other hand, would have a very difficult time concocting and maintaining such a tale if it weren't accurate.  Moreover, as a veteran I am more inclined to go with the story told by multiple shooters who acted heroically.  These men are far more likely in my experience to be straightforward and honest about the events that resulted in the deaths of their two comrades, as well as the ambassador and another American.

Each viewer will decide whether believe the story the film tells.  And whether to subsequently accept or reject the contradictory reports that have already begin to come out.

I believe the film.

Horrendous judgment

According to an Associated Press 20 November 2015 report, "Two high-ranking officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs were demoted Friday in response to allegations that they manipulated the agency's hiring system for their own gain.  The VA said in a statement that Diana Rubens and Kimberly Graves were demoted from senior executives — the highest rank for career employees — to general workers within the Veterans Benefits Administration."

It is contemptible that Rubens and Graves are able to retain their employment and (implicitly) pension eligibility.  Particularly galling about the matter is that if a member of the Armed Forces committed the same actions, he/she would undoubtedly be tried by court martial -- most likely at a general court martial -- and when found guilty, sentenced to reduction, jail time, forfeiture of pay, and discharge.

People entrusted with the responsibility of serving our Armed Forces veterans and who deliberately, consciously, and with greed of forethought manipulated "the system," have been held less accountable than those they purportedly serve.  A horrendous error in judgment by someone in the VA, another in an all too long litany of examples of bad judgment.

Rubens and Graves were not low, or even mid level employees.  They were members of the senior executive service.  They obtained benefit by fraud, a felonious act.  As senior employees, the responsibility for their actions must be at the highest levels.  But such is apparently not the case in the VA (or the IRS for that matter).

Again, if an active duty member of our Armed Forces was caught "manipulating the system," actually defrauding the government, as were Rubens and Graves, a general court martial would doubtless find him/her guilty and hand down a sentence including reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and allowances, confinement, and punitive discharge.  But two senior executive service members were simply demoted and permitted to retain pension eligibility.

The judgment of someone in the VA who meted out the so called punishment is seriously flawed. 

   

2016 - a year for hope

As 2016 begins, one can certainly understand why most of the country is depressed.  

The two leading candidates for their political party's nomination for president are sorely disappointing, to the point of unfitness for office.  The stock market is in dismal straights.  China is pursuing hegemony in the Pacific rim.  The ludicrous "deal" with Iran, even as it defiantly launches missiles in opposition to UN sanctions.  Another likely nuclear weapon test by the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) in defiance of UN sanctions.  More American combat casualties in wars for which POTUS unilaterally declared an end.  Costs for Obamacare continue to rise.  Rising costs for Medicare B coverage.  No Cost of Living increase for Social Security.  Countless regulations being issued by the federal government.  Weak to nonexistent improvement to the economy.  Rising numbers of our fellow countrymen not in the labor force.  Purposefully stilted media coverage.  Outrageous denial of free speech on college campuses.  Terrorist attacks and arrests in our homeland.  The explosion of national debt under Obama.  Reversal of progress in race relations during the Obama terms.  Resurgent Russian pursuit of power.  Lack of civil discourse.  A dysfunctional congress.  Unconstitutional actions by the president.  The politically driven decision to open all military roles to women.  Riots in the streets.  Police being gunned down.  Exorbitant salaries paid to professional athletes.  Christian values being repudiated by elected officials and activist judges.  Continued funding for planned parenthood.  LGBT demands being forced on others.  Flying the American flag being denied in some communities.  Islamic lessons being taught in our schools.  Rightful anger at deaths from gun violence in Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC not being voiced by elected officials.  POTUS holding forth on deaths due to gun violence, while not doing the same for the thousands killed by drunk driving.  And the list continues.

It is understandable to be depressed about the state of our country and the world.

But 2016 can and should be a year for hope.  The hope is embodied in the national elections.  We, the people, have the opportunity to dramatically change the trajectory the liberals in the White House and Congress have charted.  Returning conservatives -- the right conservatives -- to these institutions offers hope for correcting that which has ailed the country.  Stop the hemorrhaging of federal funding.  Make the tough choices to eliminate wasteful spending.  Return enforcement of individual liberty by eliminating the destructive federal regulations dumped on the American people.  Make the military what it is by eliminating what it isn't: a social science laboratory for progressive views.  Regain our place as the international leader on the world stage.  Get the federal government out of state matters.  Ramp down the welfare state, returning people to the workforce.  Enact term limits for congress.  Totally revise the federal tax code.  Responsibly pass laws to pay down the debt, while concurrently requiring spending to remain below revenue.  Get the federal government out of public education.  And the list continues.

There is much reason for hope in 2016.

  

      

No way out

There is no way out.

Much has been and will be said about Ms. Clinton's deliberately setting up a private unsecured server for exclusive use for all of her e-mail communications, official U. S. government and private.  As the new year begins, it has been reported that well over 1,000 of the thus far related e-mails contain classified material, up to and including Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information.

Compare this to Ms. Clinton's March 10 2015 statement, "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I'm certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

From her subsequent comments, it seems Ms. Clinton now attempts to argue that classified information was "not marked" as such at the time she received and transmitted it.  Further, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that she will claim never to have "sent" classified information, per her above statement. However, two proven points are  indisputable.  Classified information was transmitted to and from Ms. Clinton via e-mail on an unsecured private server.  Those two points alone disqualify her from consideration for the presidency simply based on her abysmal judgment.  And there is no way out.

There are limited plausible explanations for her actions.  First and most damaging is that Ms. Clinton knowingly and deliberately (even arrogantly) received and transmitted e-mail communications known by her at the time to contain classified information from an unsecured server, thus by her judgment knowingly failing to protect that information and violating federal laws.  Second and equally disqualifying is that she demonstrated grossly  unsatisfactory judgment by deliberately setting up the unsecured private server that received and transmitted e-mail communications containing classified information, thus failing to protect that information and violating federal laws.

Separate from failing to protect classified information, Ms. Clinton's judgment is rightfully called into question under either explanation.  Her actions demonstrate such undeniably unsatisfactory judgment as to render her unqualified for the highest elected office in the land.  Step back and think about the manifestations of her judgment:  deliberately setting up a private, unsecured server in her private residence; deliberately and exclusively using said unsecured server for the conduct of official government business; and receiving and transmitting classified information via e-mail processed over the server.

Boiling down the matter to its most basic element, receiving and transmitting classified information she knew to be classified is a monumental failure of judgement, warranting punishment.  Alternatively, receiving and transmitting classified information then claiming it was not classified is a colossal failure of judgement, warranting punishment.  By her own acknowledgment, she was "certainly well-aware of the classification requirements."  One would believe so, since she was a former U. S. senator and was the sitting secretary of state.  It is simply absurd for her to expect the American people to believe that, quoting her, "no classified material" would be received and/or transmitted by her exclusive e-mail arrangement.  As secretary of state, it is routine for classified information to be included in her official communications.  And there were and are secured e-mail systems for use by employees of the state department.  If her judgment is so infallible  as she would have us believe, then surely she would have detected the classified information.  And if any doubt existed about whether information was classified, Ms. Clinton did not express it nor act on it.  In fact, quite to the contrary.

It is unknown at this time what the investigation will produce, just as it is unknown what action (if any) the department of justice will take when provided the results of the investigation.  What is known, however, is that there is no way out.  Ms. Clinton can not reasonably or otherwise justify her abysmal, multiple failures in judgment.  With such a history of unsatisfactory judgment, this is not a person that our country should permit to run for, let alone elect as president.