Staff Reports
Hillary Clinton, the perennial political loser, has decided to chime in on the latest drama surrounding National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and the mishap involving Signal, an encrypted messaging app. To recap, Waltz was discussing anti-Houthi operations when he inadvertently included Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic, who just so happened to inflate the narrative, claiming classified military plans were being shared. For those paying attention, this is just another day in the life of a hyperbolic journalist, and the nation has seen plenty of those from Goldberg, known best for his anti-Trump rhetoric. Of course, this entire kerfuffle is just a convenient distraction for the liberal media, who have once again gone into hysterics.
Clinton, in her infinite wisdom, felt compelled to lecture the current administration on classified information, as if she were the rightful expert. It’s almost laughable. After all, when her own track record is examined, it screams irony. The liberal base doesn’t exactly crave her opinions anymore; they’ve moved on, just like the rest of America did in 2016. The lecture from a woman who mishandled classified information while serving as Secretary of State is just painful to watch. Maybe she thinks if she tries hard enough, she can recapture the “glory” of being relevant again.
The whining about Trump’s administration, while perhaps expected from someone still bitter about her electoral defeat, pushes an agenda that can only be described as absurd. Clinton’s perspective on national security lacks both depth and credibility, and it’s utterly bewildering that her critics are assumed to be shocked by Trump’s alleged indifference to classified information. After all, this is the same group that thought the best way to safeguard sensitive government materials was to set up a personal email server. Need a scorecard? That’s not just careless; it’s recklessly negligent.
It’s almost comical how she critiques the current administration for “dumb” decisions while conveniently ignoring her own past blunders which jeopardized national security and diminished America’s standing on the world stage. Clinton frets about military strategies being discussed over a messaging app, while she was conducting state business on an unsecured private server, which was like broadcasting classified information on a billboard. Her hypocrisy could fill an entire library.
Hillary Clinton, Are You Kidding Me With This Op-Ed? https://t.co/SBjciFv3y9
— Deenie (@deenie7940) March 31, 2025
In her nostalgic op-ed, the former Secretary of State romanticizes her travels to 112 countries as if that made her qualified to critique Trump’s policies. But all those frequent flyer miles didn’t save her from being outmaneuvered in 2016. Her so-called ‘smart power’ approach surely didn’t do much good as Russia seized Crimea under her watch or as she turned a blind eye to the Syrian horrors while gleefully wandering the globe. Most importantly, she seems to forget that financial interests rather than foreign policy guided many of her initiatives—an inconvenient fact for a woman who campaigned on values.
Clinton’s dramatic narrative of Trump’s alleged cozying up to dictators doesn’t pass the smell test, especially for a woman who watched as a junior senator from New York while her own party left a legacy of diminishing international strength. Gen Z, far from being entranced by her nostalgia, shows increasing support for conservatism, proving once again that her relevance is not just outdated but a relic of a failed campaign.
The world has shifted, and as it appears, Clinton should gracefully accept that being president is not in the cards. After all, she didn’t just lose to Trump; she lost the respect of an electorate that now largely views her as a cautionary tale in overreach and political entitlement. Perhaps it’s time for Clinton to take a step back from the podium and the spotlight, allowing the younger, fresher voices of the conservative movement to forge a stronger future.
