State Department misplaced $6 billion under World's Smartest Woman

Apparently much too hard for some people. But then again, as we've often pointed out, some people get jobs for the jobs' value on the jobholder's resume - not because they have either the ability or the inclination to do the job well. Any idea who that might apply to? Hmm?

This comes from an Inspector General's report that finds that when Hillary was Secretary of State, the State Department was apparently completely incapable of filing its contract information correctly, and the result of that was $6 billion flowing out the door without anyone keeping account of it. Given the now-all-too-clear consequences of electing a president with no executive management experience whatsoever, we're going to want a strongly competent manager next time, right? Nah! The Washington Free Beacon has more:

---

The report centered on State Department contracts worth “more than $6 billion in which contract files were incomplete or could not be located at all,” according to the alert. “The failure to maintain contract files adequately creates significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department’s contract actions,” the alert states. The situation “creates conditions conducive to fraud, as corrupt individuals may attempt to conceal evidence of illicit behavior by omitting key documents from the contract file,” the report concluded. The State Department’s inability to properly file its paperwork is causing most of the losses, according to the report. The IG “found repeated examples of poor contract file administration” over the years, the report said.

Now let's say this in fairness to Hillary: It does not appear this started under her. But it is just as clear that it continued unabated during her entire tenure without her doing the slightest thing to correct it. Maybe the problem's pre-Hillary origins could be used as a political defense of her, but should they be? The country has huge problems, and it might be nice to elect a president who has demonstrated some ability to come in to an organization and correct poor practices heretofore in place. Does anyone seriously believe Hillary Clinton is that kind of manager? Because if they do, they're a fool. Add this to the list of Hillary's non-accomplishments, which make up a very long list of non-reasons anyone should even be thinking about her as a prospective president. Someone you would consider electing president should be a person with an impressive list of achievements as a leader, a manager and a policy thinker, in addition to being honest and trustworthy. So there's five things:

1. Achievements as a leader.
2. Achievements as a manager.
3. Achievements as a policy thinker.
4. Honest.
5. Trustworthy.

Hillary Clinton? 0-for-5. Is this nation seriously idiotic enough to elect this woman?