With all the hullabaloo about John Brennan's loss of his security clearance, many in the media are ignoring how high ranking government officials with security clearances think they are somehow better than those lower in the food chain. Why should they continue with a security clearance, when most lose the clearance, unless it's reinstated after they join a private sector concern that requires the clearance?
Personally, I feel those making the biggest stink about the security clearance are those that either abuse their clearance, or know of someone that does. To me, that's beyond criminal, since the safety of the nation depends on their actions. I think too many have clearances that they don't need, use it for personal gain, and have the ability to hide their actions through the bureaucracy.
I thought when they left the job, they had the clearance removed ?? Not having a job needing it is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI think the muckety-mucks keep their clearances as a source of future revenue, and as a trophy. That, and what it can help obtain has a huge value on the black market.
DeleteI think the problem here, is that since it not acros the board, singling Brennan out looks like retribution.
ReplyDeleteI'm good with that, but it looks bad to some.
If you strike at the king, make sure you kill him, Brennan.
In a way it does. In another, he proved he's dishonest, and the lack of trust makes the removal of a security clearance necessary.
Delete