Here’s a post-Paris question:
Will America really elect as president someone who, as secretary of state, was more reckless communicating sensitive information than the Islamic State terrorists who pulled off their bloody attack?
The question has become more urgent now that Hillary Clinton has vowed to put an “immediate intelligence surge” at the top of her security agenda. Leave aside Mrs. Clinton’s belated embrace of the word “surge,” or that her call for an intelligence surge against ISIS is her way of not calling for a troop surge. In so doing, she inadvertently raises the question why, so many years after 9/11, we don’t have the intel we should.
One answer is Mrs. Clinton herself. Because there is little in her record—either as senator from New York or as secretary of state for President Obama—to indicate she would be a president who would give our intelligence agencies more and better tools. Not to mention protecting and defending them when, as inevitably happens, they come under political fire for doing their jobs.