The Providence (R.I.) Journal, March 6:
Like everything in Washington these days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress resulted in a bitter partisan tussle. Some 60 Democrats boycotted the speech, including Rhode Island’s Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Critics deplored Netanyahu’s violation of diplomatic protocol in accepting an invitation to speak by the Republican House speaker, clearly against the desires of President Obama, who is in charge of American foreign policy. And they blasted the speech as a stunt to sway Israel’s upcoming elections and undermine the president’s efforts to achieve peace with Iran.
Maybe. But it seems to us that something much bigger than the usual political maneuvering is at stake in the Mideast right now. And the questions Netanyahu raised about ongoing negotiations with Iran are worthy of the president’s ”“ and the American people’s ”“ deep consideration.
In our view, Israel faces an existential threat from Iran, a brutal dictatorship that exports terrorism and has promised to wipe the Jewish state off the map. Incidentally, along with trying to develop nuclear weapons, Iran has been working on intercontinental ballistic missiles that could rain such weapons down on the United States. Netanyahu aptly described Iran as engaged in a “march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”
Netanyahu raised two chief concerns about the negotiations. He argued it would be dangerous to Israel and the United States to permit the Iranians to retain thousands of centrifuges for uranium enrichment, key to producing nuclear weapons. And he is worried about the reported “sunset clause” in the deal, permitting Iran to produce nuclear materials in as little as decade. The evident deal, he warned, “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
We support President Obama’s attempts to negotiate with Iran, while accepting that its regime is not to be trusted. The horrors and costs of another Mideast war are almost too painful to contemplate, and an agreement that stops Iran from developing the bomb and avoids war is greatly in America’s interest. But such an agreement must not merely delay Iran’s program, something that would surely ignite a nuclear arms race in the tinderbox of the Mideast.
Netanyahu contended the West can make a better deal. And he warned that Israel, instructed by the Holocaust not to ignore seemingly insane threats to eliminate Jews by the millions, will stand alone, if need be, to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
It is vital that America heed such concerns and work with its close allies to prevent Iran from obtaining now ”“ or in the not-too-distant future ”“ nuclear weapons. We cannot just hope that the forces of modernization will finally sweep away the despicable clerics who now impose their will on Iran and are working hard to destabilize the Mideast.
The Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph, March 6:
For anyone inclined to support Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, the disclosure that she exclusively used a private email account to conduct government business when she was secretary of state is a very troubling matter.
Much more than a simple matter of convenience, that choice reflects a deliberate attempt by Clinton to hide her actions from public scrutiny. Now being called into question is not just her judgment on policy issues, but whether voters can trust her to lead the country.
Clinton violated no laws, but her conduct contradicted Obama administration policy and flouted the president’s promise to lead a historically transparent government.
“Very specific guidance has been given to agencies all across the government, which is specifically that employees of the Obama administration should use their official email accounts when they’re conducting official government business,” Obama press secretary Josh Earnest said this week.
When personal email accounts are used for official business, he said, administration policy is that a copy should be sent to a government account so it can be preserved for future reference by the public, historians and Congress.
This was not done. And it wasn’t until last year, after a State Department request, that Clinton turned over 55,000 pages of her privately stored emails. The problem is that Clinton’s advisers, without government oversight, decided which of her emails would become part of the historical record. Were another 10,000 pages held back? Twenty thousand? Zero? Nobody knows, and Clinton isn’t telling.
As an indication of just how seriously she considers the issue, Clinton went to the effort this week of tweeting, “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.”
However, she has yet to explain why she did not follow administration policy and conduct her government business with a government account in the first place.
Earnest also noted this week that the government runs a separate email system to exchange classified information to ensure sensitive information is never sent through an outside server. Did Clinton observe this policy or ignore it as well?
As computer security experts warn, emails kept on private servers are more vulnerable to hacker attacks than messages stored on government servers. So, while Clinton sought to limit public disclosure of government business, she actually made it more vulnerable to access from the nation’s enemies.
Not surprisingly, Clinton’s detractors have pounced, particularly the ones in search of Benghazi bogeymen. Even though the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Libya have been investigated ad nauseam with consistent findings that there were no intelligence lapses, a special House committee issued subpoenas Wednesday for Clinton’s emails from when she was secretary of state.
Clinton staffers said this week that her actions were in line with previous secretaries of state who also used private email addresses. But of course, “everybody did it” is not a legitimate excuse.
Jerome Reisman, a New York-based attorney experienced in government ethics, told The Associated Press that a private server gives the user more control over their communications and makes it more difficult to subpoena electronic records as part of investigations as well as being significantly less secure.
“This is not an issue necessarily of was it legal or was it illegal. It was wrong,” Reisman said. “It is very important. It reflects on her character. It reflects on her role. It reflects on the model she serves to the rest of public employees.”
Exactly.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
