Real or fake? Does it matter?
Mark Steyn
nails it, as usual:
[T]he secretary of state denied that she’d ever seen the late Ambassador Stevens’s cables about the deteriorating security situation in Libya on the grounds that “1.43 million cables come to my office” – and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any. . . .
When a foreign head of state receives the credentials of the senior emissary of the United States, he might carelessly assume that the chap surely has a line of communication back to the government he represents. For six centuries or so, this has been the minimal requirement for functioning inter-state relations. But Secretary Clinton has just testified that, in the government of the most powerful nation on earth, there is no reliable means by which a serving ambassador can report to the cabinet minister responsible for foreign policy. And nobody cares: What difference does it make? . . .
Nor was the late Christopher Stevens any old ambassador, but rather Secretary Clinton’s close personal friend “Chris.” It was all “Chris” this, “Chris” that when Secretary Clinton and President Obama delivered their maudlin eulogies over the flag-draped coffin of their “friend.” Gosh, you’d think if they were on such intimate terms, “Chris” might have had Hillary’s e-mail address, but apparently not. He was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends cabling the State Department every hour of the day.
6 comments:
Rhetorically, Steyn's only problem is putting his real point about halfway down his articles. He's a great writer and a tremendously insightful man, but I wonder how much more of an impact he would have if he didn't assume his readers had an attention span.
Of course, I have the same flaw (and without the positive qualities that accompany it in his case). It's why I recognize it.
I agree. I don't know if I'd say he always does it, but he did beat around the bush on the first half of this one.
I have grown very discouraged on these matters. It seems that just anything might be said by a Democrat in power and no one blinks, so long as they answer questions with words. The phrase "where is the outrage?" seems quaint now since the Clintons appeared on the scene 20 years ago.
"“1.43 million cables come to my office” – and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any."
The fact that she would even use such an excuse demonstrates that she completely fails to understand the nature of executive management...and the fact that so many commentators have accepted it demonstrates that THEY completely fail to understand the nature of executive management.
The executive is not only responsible for the things he or she directly sees, but for establishing an information and decision-flow architecture to ensure that the right things are seen and acted upon by the right people at the right time.
This is far, far beyond the ken of people like Hillary and Obama, who are basically not executives at all but simply overweening "individual contributors."
Hi, David, it's nice to see you here. I see you often on other sites.
Thanks, Tex!
Post a Comment