Gbaji wrote:
I am talking about my concerns with Hilary, not my concerns with the State Dept. in General.
Using a system without any of the recommended security is a choice which demonstrates poor judgement and or lack of technical knowledge.
Telling someone to send to just **** it and send classified documents through that insecure, non-classified system shows this as well
Having it standard practice not to properly mark documents with their classification label, leading to people putting things through systems not intended for that classification level is also a serious problem that should be fixed, but it is endemic to the State Department, according to the report. I don't pin as much of the blame here on Hillary, as a whole clown car of people contributed to that **** up.
My point is, that someone's personal actions and choices the things of concern in evaluating someone's competence for a role. I don't see why you keep throwing out "well there were other problems at the state department that show there were tons of incompetent people, so why not focus on that". We aren't evaluating Joe, the document control handler who chugged mai tais instead of labeling documents, for the Presidency.
I have a saying, there's a difference between taking responsibility for an action vs being responsible for an action. That doesn't directly apply here as she was responsible for some of the actions, but the point is, as a leader, she has to take responsibility for what the state department did. That's part of being a leader. However, that's not the same as being responsible for the perennial State Department issues. The rules are written the way they are for a reason. That reason includes the likelihood of a spillage occurring. In cases like these, it almost always end up with people trying to be more efficient. This is evident given that the State Department server was compromised and not reliable.
Now if you want to criticize her foreign policy decisions, that is legitimate criticism. Criticizing her for doing the norm and not realizing incorrectly marked emails is not a legitimate criticism. So, I don't see how this plays into judging her for president. Do you believe as president that she will use her personal server again? On the other hand, if she is "too hawkish" now, then she'll probably be "too hawkish" then. You see the difference?