Update: Conservative website HotAir has been on the job on this resignation craziness. Tonight another good article – some excerpts from “Hillary Don’t Go”:
“As the S-o-S, we all knew Hillary’s job was to ask questions. Now, we know the sorts of questions she’s asked. Which is why some think she must go. [snip]
Mr. Shafer is right that the leak is embarrassing, but he’s wrong about Secretary Clinton: Dismissing her is one of the worst things the President could do right now.
The secretaries of state of every other country in the world would ask, or should be asking, the same sorts of questions and seeking out the same sorts of information as Hillary if they were taking their jobs seriously…. [snip]
Domestic political reaction aside, it is extraordinarily short-sighted to set a precedent whereby leaks of honest and relevant intelligence gathering communiques by the secretary of state would get the S-o-S booted. 1.) It’s disruptive to American interests and organizational continuity, 2.) it rewards bad actors by punishing vigilant work, and 3.) it doesn’t really soothe any of the grumbling that may result among our international friends, foes, and frienemies (think of a family reunion, where everybody pretty much knows where they stand relative to one another, with or without each other’s private conversations about each other fully known.) The notion that the diplomatic community is honestly shocked-shocked! that the US doesn’t mince words about its intelligence gathering operation in private is naive. Our international peers do, or would do, the same kind of intelligence work as we’ve done if given the means and opportunity. And the Obama Administration is right to continue backing her. That Clinton is actively involved in seeking out and monitoring the states of minds of friends and foes alike means she’s doing her job. She shouldn’t be punished for it.
And not only is Hillary her job for the American people properly; it sounds like her department is not coming off too shabbily, either. [snip]
Stick around, Hill. We may disagree on the particulars, but where it matters, it looks like you’re doing your job as we’d have you do it.
Okay, we’ll bite. In our comments section there has been discussion about this because after last night it was pretty much unavoidable. Once Julian Assange called for Hillary Clinton to resign, and Matt Drudge plastered that call on his own front page, the topic has been bubbling. Was this latest WikiLeaks megaLeak an attempt to destroy the plucky blond lady?
Regular readers know we have been outlining the secret war of attacks by Barack Obama on Hillary Clinton (see, Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart), and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part II, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part III, and Obama At War With Hillary Clinton And General McChrystal (The New Shinseki), as well as open warfare in Going… Going… Gone) which has been up to now ignored or not seen by most. We resisted as much as we could to adding the latest WikiLeaks sturm und drange to our “war on Hillary” oeuvre but we’re weak and now we’ve bitten on the bait like a silver carp in a Mayberry lake.
We’re conflicted about all this because we would like Hillary to get as far away as possible from Barack Obama and we would not exactly mind a resignation. But in this Hall of Mirrors world of Mad Magazine style spy vs. spy there are a lot of angles and smoke and… mirrors. Yes, we’d like Hillary to get as far away as possible from Barack Obama but we scratch our heads and ask “Hasn’t she already distanced herself as much as the circumference of the globe will allow?”
Yup, it’s a Mad Magazine spy vs. spy world we are in. We want Hillary to resign, but not because Julian Assange and his ghouls want it nor their reasons for it. Hillary has once again demonstrated her resolve and duty to the country and defended the national interests so in a way perhaps this is a good reason to get out and call attention to her steadfastness in defense of country.
But then we turn and run smack into a mirror covered by smoke and wonder if it’s a good idea for Hillary to get out under fire? We turn around and walk into another mirror and wonder “yeah, if she gets out now it will send Michelle into a sleeve yanking frenzy and fear will permeate the dark and dirty OAF (that’s our descriptive anagram for OFA) caves.”
It’s a spy vs. spy world.
We’re not alone in head scratching about this entire WikiLeaks weirdness. At the DailyMail a conservative voice also thinks that Hillary is the target and it is because she threatens Obama’s reelection.
The Wikileaks scandal is not that it was leaked but it is a blatant attempt to eliminate Hillary Clinton as a threat to Barack Obama’s re-election.
That is the only conclusion that I can reach upon reading this from Time magazine:
Hillary Clinton, Julian Assange said, “should resign.” Speaking over Skype from an undisclosed location on Tuesday, the WikiLeaks founder was replying to a question by TIME managing editor Richard Stengel over the diplomatic-cable dump that Assange’s organization loosed on the world this past weekend. Stengel had said the U.S. Secretary of State was looking like “the fall guy” in the ensuing controversy, and had asked whether her firing or resignation was an outcome that Assange wanted. “I don’t think it would make much of a difference either way,” Assange said. “But she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up. Yes, she should resign over that.”
His target was Hillary Clinton.
This is a political assassination that deserves inquiry by the Republican House come January. Forget getting Julian Assange on publishing the leaks. Find out who leaked.
We know why.
By the way, who the hell is some Aussie punk to undermine our democracy?
Also, he is a hypocrite, of course, telling Time: “We’re a source-protection organization, so the last thing we would do is discuss possible sources. However, we do know that… the FBI, State Department and U.S. Army CID [Criminal Investigation Command] has been going around Boston visiting a number of people there.”
Boston? What possible leaker lives in Boston? Surely no Harvard man would be involved in this? A Yalie, maybe. A Columbia denizen in a heartbeat. But never a Harvard man!
As to Assange’s horror of spy vs. spy at the U.N., we have posted a serious rejoinder (via JournoLister Marc Ambinder), as well as a tongue in cheek reference to the many cultural touchstones which sully the U.N. with espionage. North By Northwest anyone?
Everyone is getting into the spy vs. spy aspects of this potential hit on Hillary Clinton. There is this comment at the Surber site:
“Interesting hypothesis Don, but if HRC resigns in a “noble” gesture of accepting responsibility and falls on her sword to protect her boss, she’ll end up looking better than Obama AND be free to run against him in a primary without looking disloyal.
Especially when the media jumps on her bandwagon and spins the narrative her way.
Frankly, the revelation that she’s playing dirty hardball behind the scenes may help her reputation more than hurt it.”
But there is this other comment reflecting the other mirror across from the mirror:
“I don’t think Assange specifically targeted HRC with these leaks, but I do think Obama supporters in the media are doing everything they can to gin up a controversy in order to boost sales while taking advantage of the fake diplomatic “crisis” they are creating to put a stake through any possible HRC challenge to Obama’s re-election bid in 2012. In Time’s interview of Assange, the controversial spin about HRC needing to resign starts with the news rag’s managing editor, Richard Stengel. He’s the one who threw out the loaded question about HRC, and for no good reason when you think about it. What does it matter whether Assange thinks HRC should resign? Why was the question even asked? It is not news; whether HRC should resign is an editorial matter for Time to take a position on. Why Time feels the need to target HRC is beyond me. She has already denied any interest in running against Obama in 2012. Does Time think she is lying? She wouldn’t do that, would she?”
Big Media targeting Hillary on behalf of Obama – Heavens to Betsy, Heavens to Murgatroid, even! It’s a Mad Magazine world as 90,000 Time magazine readers (probably a majority of Time writers too) want Assange named Time Man Of The Year! And there is this mirror on mirror on mirror spy vs. spy comment which made us laugh:
“Since I don’t have enough information to ‘follow the money’ to make sense of this I asked myself who this benefits, and that led me to Barky at first (weakens Hillary as primary opponent) and then to Hillary herself for the reasons you imply. I can’t decide, though, if she’d be capable of playing a game that deep….“
A self-confessed Hillary Hater at another website throws 2 cents into the pile:
“I’m betting we will see more of this coming up in the months ahead from the Obama faithful in an attempt to drive her out of office and ruin her chances of running against Obama in 2012 or a run in 2016.
I just don’t see her being forced out of anything tho. She won’t resign, that would be an acknowledgment of guilt. Personally, I can’t stand her but I don’t see anything wrong with her conduct. Of course we spy on other countries and their diplomats. This is a shock? I would have been disappointed to find that we weren’t doing this kind of intelligence work. If these ObamaBots are trying to make the utterly ignorant argument that other countries aren’t doing the same exact thing then they are incredibly naive.”
At McGuires “JustOneMinute” there is more speculation, dollops of Hillary Hate, and some cute mockery:
“Shafer completely sidesteps the only issue that is important to Hillary – how would her resignation affect Operation Enduring Viability for her 2016 (or 2012!) Presidential run? Hillary would love to jump in a lifeboat and abandon the SS
TitanicBarack, but she can’t leave as a failure and under a cloud. Unless she and Barack can engineer a face-sacing success that can be pointed to as the capstone of her foreign policy efforts (supplanting her heroism in Bosnia!), she has to stick around.
TO STATE THE OBVIOUS: Obama can’t fire her. But maybe Eric Holder could indict her? Would he offer her a civilian trial in NYC?”
A comment from an admitted Hillary Hater makes us wonder if everyone believes this WikiLeaks megaleak is an Obama “hit” on Hillary:
“I read Shafer’s piece/hit job on Hillary. I’m no fan of Hillary–I have a better opinion of pond scum. But I thought that Shafer was doing Obama’s work here–shove her out as a failure etc. What Shafer and the rest of the Obamabots should really be afraid of however is the oppo research that Hillary’s team is doing on Obama. She doesn’t give a flying fig for credit card data on UN officials–but if it is possible to dig up some dirt on The Won, her team will have it. Heckfire I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama’s college and law school transcripts were in Hillary’s desk drawer today.”
We wish that Hillary indeed did have that treasure trove of Obama information. But as anyone who has followed Big Media protection, JournoLister protection of Barack Obama, knows – nuclear secrets and the national safety are not as well protected as data which documents Barack Obama’s life.
Hey Julian! How about a WikiLeaks on all the missing Obama records? Now that is real spy vs. spy, Mad magazine territory.