John Brennan's Security Clearance

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, westside said:

When it comes to the Democratic party, ignorance is bliss survival.

 

Had to fix this.

[Tiberius]

McRaven has spoken

 

Never more, Trump cultists, nevermore 

 

 

 

William H. McRaven, a retired Navy admiral, was commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014. He oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Dear Mr. President:

Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.

Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.

If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Tiberius

[Wacka]

6 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

The old man is confused again. Must have missed his latest dose of Aricept.

 

Aricept works well. I take a daily dose of it after my stroke. Oldmanfan really needs some.

[oldmanfan]

3 hours ago, westside said:

It's too bad you don't hold anyone else accountable. Keep sticking your head in the sand. When it comes to the Democratic party, ignorance is bliss.

Except that I'm independent.  And I've read Rhino's stuff and it doesn't convince me.   

 

I realize coming into into this thread, where many of you have your preconceived points you won't come off of is a waste of time. I said above I don't care who caused the attack on our democracy, I want it figured out and for those who did so to pay the price, party be damned. 

 

But you and others don't read and unless people subscribe to your narrowly held views all you have are insults.  You lecture others to read more and become educated, yet you refuse to read or acknowledge anything that could disrupt your conspiracy fantasies.  The prosecutor has indicted Russians, caught  guys like Flynn lying, but there's nothing going on in the administration?  Right.

 

Let Mueller do his job, go after any and all who were responsible for this Russian thing (which despite the fantasies shown here really did happen as every intelligence agency has said) and let the chips fall whee they may.

[donbb]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

McRaven has spoken

 

Never more, Trump cultists, nevermore 

 

 

 

William H. McRaven, a retired Navy admiral, was commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command from 2011 to 2014. He oversaw the 2011 Navy SEAL raid in Pakistan that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Dear Mr. President:

Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him.

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency.

Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation.

If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.

 

This deserves it's own thread. I'll give you the glory.

[row_33]

Always thought that was an illegal killing.

 

 

[row_33]

——————-

 

So that means Brennan can’t use confidential info to porkbelly consulting fees.

 

 

[B-Man]

Pretty scathing statement against John Brennan here by Sen. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

 

 

 

That is called airtight logic to those posters here who cannot recognize it.

 

 

 

.

[donbb]

 

[B-Man]

Mr, Brennan can say anything he wishes to a national audience.

 

Security Clearance does NOT equal free speech.

 

 

This is a ?️

 

and those dumb enough to repeat it do not deserve any respect.

 

 

 

 

.

[Juror#8]

I have a lot respect for McRaven. Lots. Always considered him a non-partisan. Was surprised he opined to be honest. Not sure you can decorate a military jacket more than his has been or find a person who has been involved in as many skirmishes on the side of the red, white, and blue. 

 

I’m wondering how his words get fit here into the “Trump is above reproach” narrative or the “2 years later it’s still Obama’s fault” narrative. 

 

I’m sure there has to be a way. 

 

It likely starts with an “anti-anyone who said anything against Trump” article from Bman and ends with some explanation that involves a pro-Trump, exculpatory analysis the logic of which would have been flipped to excoriate Obama 5 years ago. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I don’t mind Trump. Despite the guy’s unparalleled capacity for indelicate social media indefatigability, and his unique ability to convince dolts that his unending personal unscrupulousness is a media contrivance, I don’t think he’s necessarily been a bad president. 

 

I’m not even sure that could be determined right now anyway.

 

Still too early. 

 

Id give him a B+ for presidential impact, a B- for effectiveness, and a C for leadership on my “way to early” grading. 

 

But whatever ... I’m just wowed by how party affiliation drives a sense of situational ethics. Because if Obama did a modicum of the **** that Trump has done, spoke to people the way Trump has, wasted time the way Trump has, used social media the way Trump has, whines about **** the way Trump has, every other post in this forum would have started with “lets” and ended with “secede.” 

 

But I’m getting ahead of myself here, let’s get Bman to post an anti-McRaven article first and go from there. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Juror#8

[donbb]

6 minutes ago, Juror#8 said:

I have a lot respect for McRaven. Lots. Always considered him a non-partisan. Was surprised he opined to be honest. Not sure you can decorate a military jacket more than his has been or find a person who has been involved in as many skirmishes on the side of the red, white, and blue. 

 

I’m wondering how his words get fit here into the “Trump is above reproach” narrative or the “2 years later it’s still Obama’s fault” narrative. 

 

I’m sure there has to be a way. 

 

It likely starts with an “anti-anyone who said anything against Trump” article from Bman and ends with some explanation that involves a pro-Trump, exculpatory analysis the logic of which would have been flipped to excoriate Obama 5 years ago. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I don’t mind Trump. Despite the guy’s unparalleled capacity for indelicate social media indefatigability, and his unique ability to convince dolts that his unending personal disrepute is a media creation, I don’t think he’s been a necessarily bad president. 

 

I’m not even sure that could be determined right now anyway.

 

Still too early. 

 

I’m just wowed by how party affiliation drives a sense of situational ethics. Because if Obama did a modicum of the **** that Trump has done, spoke to people the way Trump has, wasted time the way Trump has, used social media the way Trump has, whines about **** the way Trump has, every other post in this forum would have started with “let’s” and ended with “secede.” 

 

But I’m getting ahead of myself here, let’s get Bman to post an anti-McRaven article first and go from there. 

 

I'm sure DR has McRaven pegged as a deep state operative somehow.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Juror#8 said:

I have a lot respect for McRaven. Lots. Always considered him a non-partisan. Was surprised he opined to be honest. Not sure you can decorate a military jacket more than his has been or find a person who has been involved in as many skirmishes on the side of the red, white, and blue. 

 

I’m wondering how his words get fit here into the “Trump is above reproach” narrative or the “2 years later it’s still Obama’s fault” narrative. 

 

I’m sure there has to be a way. 

 

It likely starts with an “anti-anyone who said anything against Trump” article from Bman and ends with some explanation that involves a pro-Trump, exculpatory analysis the logic of which would have been flipped to excoriate Obama 5 years ago. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I don’t mind Trump. Despite the guy’s unparalleled capacity for indelicate social media indefatigability, and his unique ability to convince dolts that his unending personal unscrupulousness is a media contrivance, I don’t think he’s necessarily been a bad president. 

 

I’m not even sure that could be determined right now anyway.

 

Still too early. 

 

Id give him a B+ for presidential impact, a B- for effectiveness, and a C for leadership on my “way to early” grading. 

 

But whatever ... I’m just wowed by how party affiliation drives a sense of situational ethics. Because if Obama did a modicum of the **** that Trump has done, spoke to people the way Trump has, wasted time the way Trump has, used social media the way Trump has, whines about **** the way Trump has, every other post in this forum would have started with “lets” and ended with “secede.” 

 

But I’m getting ahead of myself here, let’s get Bman to post an anti-McRaven article first and go from there. 

 

Pretty sure we don't have a "Trump is above reproach" narrative here.

 

But...it's still Obama's fault.  He set the atrocious EO precedents for Trump to abuse.

[Juror#8]

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Pretty sure we don't have a "Trump is above reproach" narrative here.

 

But...it's still Obama's fault.  He set the atrocious EO precedents for Trump to abuse.

 

It’s not a board indictment. Couldn’t do that on a forum which is just comprised of a lot of constituent parts.

 

But yea there are some whose narrative is “it’s never Trump’s fault.”

 

I can link posts/posters. 

 

Same posters pilloried Obama for everything from his time spent golfing, to who he spent social time with, to what music he listened to, to what he said, to what civilians he supported, to how he said what he said ...

 

For Trump the same behaviors is all (and always) distinguishable because _______ (fill in the blank). 

 

Never Trump’s fault. 

 

Always Obama’s fault. 

 

Situational ethics. 

 

There is someone on this board who said that corruption is unique to the Democrats. 

 

Just let that **** sink in for a second. 

 

This is about nothing more than how non partisan (McRaven) criticism will be received by the “never Trump’s fault” crowd which absolutely does exist here. 

 

It’s usually just ignored or there are ad hominems that fly so they never have to address the substance of the person making the criticism. 

 

But make no mistake, there is completely a “never Trump fault” crowd (just like there was a “never Obama’s fault” crowd). 

 

Some are very unapologetic about it. Some swim in an out with the occasional “I tolerate Trump because, well if Hillary had a judicial appointment bull **** ...” but they defend most Trump action and every Trump word - even the remarkably indefensible ****. 

 

If it were McRaven making the same indictment and criticisms against Obama, however, it would be more evidence of Obama’s base unAmericanness blah blah blah. 

 

I dont care care about anything but the narrative double-standard. 

 

Not that I need to say this, but because of the quickness for which people try to ascribe political leanings to someone who doesn’t agree with them and therefore tries to discredit what they’re saying based on ideological terms, I’ll say the following: I made the same laments about the treatment of W. Bush.

 

Same thing.

 

His mishandling of war circumstances and Obama’s mishandling of war circumstances got different play here. There were many who couldn’t find fault in Obama’s war prosecution but were intensely critical of Bush’s. 

 

Why? Right should be right and wrong should be wrong - party affiliation notwithstanding. 

 

You can search my screen name and “Bush” because it’s all on record. 

 

Again, it sucks to always have to go back to my defense of Bush to maintain creditibility for a point years later about Obama and Trump but let’s just circumvent the otherwise-coming ideological flame thrower **** which takes a salient non-partisan point off course. 

 

Right is right and wrong is wrong. It’s should be like an a priori. Frankly I don’t give a !@#$ who the person is. 

 

Some dont see it the same way though. I truly shouldn’t even have to name screennames. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Juror#8

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Juror#8 said:

 

It’s not a board indictment. Couldn’t do that on a forum which is just comprised of a lot of constituent parts.

 

But yea there are some whose narrative is “it’s never Trump’s fault.”

 

I can link posts/posters. 

 

Same posters pilloried Obama for everything from his time spent golfing, to who he spent social time with, to what music he listened to, to what he said, to what civilians he supported, to how he said what he said ...

 

For Trump the same behaviors is all (and always) distinguishable because _______ (fill in the blank). 

 

Never Trump’s fault. 

 

Always Obama’s fault. 

 

Situational ethics. 

 

There is someone on this board who said that corruption is unique to the Democrats. 

 

Just let that **** sink in for a second. 

 

This is about nothing more than how non partisan (McRaven) criticism will be received by the “never Trump’s fault” crowd which absolutely does exist here. 

 

It’s usually just ignored or there are ad hominems that fly so they never have to address the substance of the person making the criticism. 

 

But make no mistake, there is completely a “never Trump fault” crowd (just like there was a “never Obama’s fault” crowd). 

 

Some are very unapologetic about it. Some swim in an out with the occasional “I tolerate Trump because, well if Hillary had a judicial appointment bull **** ...” but they defend most Trump action and every Trump word - even the remarkably indefensible ****. 

 

If it were McRaven making the same indictment and criticisms against Obama, however, it would be more evidence of Obama’s base unAmericanness blah blah blah. 

 

I dont care care about anything but the narrative double-standard. 

 

Not that I need to say this, but because of the quickness for which people try to ascribe political leanings to someone who doesn’t agree with them and therefore tries to discredit what they’re saying based on ideological terms, I’ll say the following: I made the same laments about the treatment of W. Bush.

 

Same thing.

 

His mishandling of war circumstances and Obama’s mishandling of war circumstances got different play here. There were many who couldn’t find fault in Obama’s war prosecution but were intensely critical of Bush’s. 

 

Why? Right should be right and wrong should be wrong - party affiliation notwithstanding. 

 

You can search my screen name and “Bush” because it’s all on record. 

 

Again, it sucks to always have to go back to my defense of Bush to maintain creditibility for a point years later about Obama and Trump but let’s just circumvent the otherwise-coming ideological flame thrower **** which takes a salient non-partisan point off course. 

 

Right is right and wrong is wrong. It’s should be like an a priori. Frankly I don’t give a !@#$ who the person is. 

 

Some dont see it the same way though. I truly shouldn’t even have to name screennames. 

 

Not worth it

 

but thanks for telling us you have the power to divide out truth and what is right infallibly

 

LOL

 

 

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

I have a lot respect for McRaven. Lots. Always considered him a non-partisan. Was surprised he opined to be honest. Not sure you can decorate a military jacket more than his has been or find a person who has been involved in as many skirmishes on the side of the red, white, and blue. 

 

I’m wondering how his words get fit here into the “Trump is above reproach” narrative or the “2 years later it’s still Obama’s fault” narrative. 

 

I’m sure there has to be a way. 

 

It likely starts with an “anti-anyone who said anything against Trump” article from Bman and ends with some explanation that involves a pro-Trump, exculpatory analysis the logic of which would have been flipped to excoriate Obama 5 years ago. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I don’t mind Trump. Despite the guy’s unparalleled capacity for indelicate social media indefatigability, and his unique ability to convince dolts that his unending personal unscrupulousness is a media contrivance, I don’t think he’s necessarily been a bad president. 

 

I’m not even sure that could be determined right now anyway.

 

Still too early. 

 

Id give him a B+ for presidential impact, a B- for effectiveness, and a C for leadership on my “way to early” grading. 

 

But whatever ... I’m just wowed by how party affiliation drives a sense of situational ethics. Because if Obama did a modicum of the **** that Trump has done, spoke to people the way Trump has, wasted time the way Trump has, used social media the way Trump has, whines about **** the way Trump has, every other post in this forum would have started with “lets” and ended with “secede.” 

 

But I’m getting ahead of myself here, let’s get Bman to post an anti-McRaven article first and go from there. 

 

He’s entitled to his opinion, of course. He’s also entitled to be wrong. Sticking up for a buddy doesn’t make him honorable or above reproach. It makes him yet another insider good old boy.

[Juror#8]

59 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Not worth it

 

but thanks for telling us you have the power to divide out truth and what is right infallibly

 

LOL

 

 

 

 

 

Probably for the best. Your flimsy ass isn’t built for this ****. 

52 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

He’s entitled to his opinion, of course. He’s also entitled to be wrong. Sticking up for a buddy doesn’t make him honorable or above reproach. It makes him yet another insider good old boy.

 

Fair enough. 

[4merper4mer]

0% of the population is above reproach.

 

I cringe when I hear of someone's "unimpeachable integrity" right before they are appointed to some Wadhington investigation.  They almost invariably prove to be whack-a-do's.  

 

Defending a colleague is often an emotional reaction.  I'm not saying it is always wrong, just emotional.  This admiral's reaction was.clearly emotional as he claimed Brennan's freedom of speech has been infringed.  It clearly has not.  The admiral might have a lot of credibility in a lot of areas, but not in this case.  He screwed his own case.  

 

If he wanted to state why he thought it is important that Brennan keep his clearance and/or why nothing he had done should have jeopardized it, he should have written about that.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Juror#8 said:

 

Probably for the best. Your flimsy ass isn’t built for this ****. 

 

Fair enough. 

 

I have a job that eats up the best I can give

 

this stuff around here is for fun and sometimes to learn things

 

[keepthefaith]

The practice of leaving security clearances in place for former intelligence people or other insiders is questionable at best. What good can come from it except for utilizing those that can truly be trusted and of future assistance?  Any incoming administration should review who from previous administrations has them and make a determination who shall keep them and for how long.  Otherwise the potential for leaks and abuse just grows every year. 

 

Certainly if one is an outspoken political adversary of a new administration and/or doesn't have a good working relationship and/or was part of a group of people who conspired against an incoming administration - that person should not retain clearance.  Brennan, clapper and the rest should have had their clearances revoked very early in 2017.  Trump's an idiot for waiting this long.