Althouse: "Late last month, [Rand] Paul wrote on Twitter that 'Brennan and other partisans' should be stripped of their security clearances."

August 19, 2018

"Late last month, [Rand] Paul wrote on Twitter that 'Brennan and other partisans' should be stripped of their security clearances."

"He suggested Brennan has leveraged his clearance into gigs as a cable news talking head. So it came as no surprise that Paul lauded Trump for taking away Brennan's security clearance. 'I urged the President to do this. I filibustered Brennan's nomination to head the CIA in 2013, and his behavior in government and out of it demonstrate why he should not be allowed near classified information,' Paul said in a statement. 'He participated in a shredding of constitutional rights, lied to Congress, and has been monetizing and making partisan political use of his clearance since his departure.' In an interview yesterday with WKU Public Radio, Paul said he wants other ex-Obama administration intelligence officials, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, to lose their clearances as well...."

From "Rand Paul: Trump Should Keep Revoking Ex-Obama Officials’ Security Clearances/The Kentucky Republican is glad Trump stripped ex-CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance. But Trump shouldn’t stop there, Paul says" (Reason).

99 comments:

The Drill SGT said...: The theory of clearances for ex-administration folks after their departure from Fed service is that they may be consulted on an old situation. Since none of these Bozo's should be trusted to take out the garbage, they don't need a clearance.

FWIW, 99.9% of cleared staff (the workers):
1. instantly lose "Need to know" and access.
2. have their SCI (and that's what we are talking about here) terminated instantly
3. their TS may be downgraded to SECRET
4. after 2 years, any SECRET clearance is admin terminated; 8/19/18, 7:45 AM
The Drill SGT said...: PS: I have some knowledge here. I've had a TS or higher for 48 years.; 8/19/18, 7:46 AM
Ralph L said...: There was a time when the DCI was unheard and nearly unseen. I didn't think so at the time, but it's probably a good thing the director of the increasingly politicized CIA was demoted post 9/11. The office once had considerable power outside the CIA.; 8/19/18, 7:48 AM
rhhardin said...: Anybody with a clearance should be free of TDS, just as a mental health test.

He won the election so he's the president, and that's that.; 8/19/18, 7:49 AM
AllenS said...: I agree with Rand Paul.; 8/19/18, 7:51 AM
Ralph L said...: have their SCI (and that's what we are talking about here) terminated instantly

As a contractor, I was told when I quit that it was easy to reactivate it if I moved to another company, but I didn't try it. It may be different for government employees.; 8/19/18, 7:53 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: I, too, agree with Rand Paul.; 8/19/18, 7:56 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "The theory of clearances for ex-administration folks after their departure from Fed service is that they may be consulted on an old situation."

Serious question (and I apologize for not researching this myself): If you have knowledge that you gained when you had a clearance, are you now forbidden to talk about it when the person you're talking to has clearance? Or is the problem just that if they want to consult with you, they don't just want to hear about what you already know, they want you to see the new material so you can, given your past experience, advise on the new things?; 8/19/18, 7:59 AM
MadisonMan said...: I'm not sure why they would get to keep their security clearances. Is this SecurityVille equivalent of emeritus rank?

So, Me Too! As far as agreeing with Rand Paul.; 8/19/18, 8:00 AM
BamaBadgOR said...: I agree with Rand Paul and want to see Trump revoke 1000's of security clearances if only to keep this issue a lib talking point. As Mad Dog tersely said, security clearances are given "as needed." As Andrew McCarthy said, his security clearance was reinstated within 36 hours when needed. I hope John Brennan holds his breath until he is needed again.; 8/19/18, 8:01 AM
tcrosse said...: If a person's clearance is revoked, they can no longer receive email from Hillary Clinton.; 8/19/18, 8:02 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Ralph L said...
have their SCI (and that's what we are talking about here) terminated instantly

As a contractor, I was told when I quit that it was easy to reactivate it if I moved to another company, but I didn't try it. It may be different for government employees.

SECRET, absolutely

TS likely

TS/SCI It depends. If you come back to the same IC agency, it's pretty fast. 10-60 days. New poly if the agency does poly's

If you go somewhere else and your SSBI investigation is fresh (within 2 years) you may need to provide a paper updated SF-86 and just get re=adjudicated by the new agency. New poly if the agency does poly's

Old SSBI, you may need a new investigation and adjudication. 6-12 months. New poly if the agency does poly's; 8/19/18, 8:09 AM
Ralph L said...: There's paperwork ("reading in") involved before consultation, you couldn't just call him on the phone and ask about something. At least you shouldn't.; 8/19/18, 8:12 AM
The Godfather said...: You need not only a security clearance but also "need to know" in order to access classified information. "Need to know" means that you need the information in order to do your job for the government. Brennan might "like to know" secret stuff so he can advance his career as a talking head, but that's not the same thing as "need to know".

So, yes Brennan's security clearance should be lifted. Second, someone needs to find out if anyone in the government has been passing classified information to Brennan, and if so, what was his "need to know"?; 8/19/18, 8:15 AM
Hagar said...: And, if there is an emergency, they will damn well do what they want or need to, clearance or no clearance.; 8/19/18, 8:15 AM
Ralph L said...: If you come back to the same IC agency, it's pretty fast.

I remember being told that now about contractors, 25 years later, and I think our security officer told me a few things he wasn't supposed to.; 8/19/18, 8:17 AM
Darrell said...: The only future use for Brennan I can think of is for ballast.; 8/19/18, 8:32 AM
narciso said...: Recall Paul and Cruz were the ones who filibustered brennan:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/08/the_story_of_ohr_and_more.html; 8/19/18, 8:37 AM
Michael K said...: Sandy Berger was an excellent example of why ex officials should NOT have security clearances.

He destroyed irreplaceable records and was treated as if it was no big deal.; 8/19/18, 8:37 AM
FIDO said...: I would think, that if I asked Kissinger a question of some of his TS knowledge, he would have to determine that I Needed To Know before he could share anything.

The standard is 'the person who wants the information has a clearance to GET the information and in addition, has the RIGHT to be given this information.

Too many of these professional talking heads are given juicy gobbets of data just because they have a clearance without that second part.

Brennan is looking at obsolescence here.

But it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

We are in a norm shattering age. The Alphabet Agencies need their own housecleaning as well.; 8/19/18, 8:38 AM
Birkel said...: What rule should apply when the former CIA Director was the one who ordered CIA operatives to infiltrate the opposing party’s political campaign?

Does running ops against U.S. persons, up to and including the new president, maybe kinda disqualify a guy?; 8/19/18, 8:43 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: [Brennan]He participated in a shredding of constitutional rights, lied to Congress, and has been monetizing and making partisan political use of his clearance since his departure.'

Brennan is a liar and a hack.

Stand with Rand.; 8/19/18, 8:50 AM
Rob said...: I can't help feeling that for the great majority of former senior officials, letting them keep their security clearance is like letting former congressmen go onto the floor of the chambers and lobby their colleagues there--an act of comity and mutual backscratching that should have been eliminated years ago. And btw, do we really think President Elizabeth Warren is going to let former President Donald Trump have access to top secret information? Not bloody likely. Drain the swamp!; 8/19/18, 9:01 AM
Hagar said...: Since attention has been called to the problem, I think Trump should announce a new general policy of Out of office/contract = Out of security clearance.; 8/19/18, 9:15 AM
Leland said...: If you have knowledge that you gained when you had a clearance, are you now forbidden to talk about it when the person you're talking to has clearance?

Professor, I'll start with saying I haven't had the same clearance level as Drill SGT, but I have had much of the same training as a contractor working in the DoD/NASA world. I've also had my SF-85 information shared to China thanks to the Obama Administration. Your question has a few parts to it, so please let me unpack it.

Any classified information gained can only be shared with those with a "need to know". You are forbidden to talk to anyone about it unless they have the required clearance level for the information and a "need to know". That's the importance of Drill SGTs item 1.

How do you know they "need to know"? It's a bit complicated, but in short, they have established bona fides related to the information being requested. And there are certain areas in which any such information can be discussed, and those with clearances know in what environment they can discuss matters, even when all parties have proper clearance and need to know.

So, for a discussion to take place, everyone needs to have adequate clearance, established a need to know, and be discussing the information is a location with adequate security commiserate with the information being shared. One reason to retain a clearance is that it provides you, the knowledge bearer, with access to the location in which information can be shared.; 8/19/18, 9:16 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/19/18, 9:21 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: During the recent campaign for the election of the US President, CIA Director John Brennan was trying to prevent the election of Donald Trump.

Since the election, Brennan has been trying to undo the election of President Trump.

He should not be trusted to comply with professional conduct, especially in relation to national security.

He should not be allowed to work for any private company that requires a security clearance.

Brennan is a loathsome person, and President Trump has cleverly lured the Democrats into defending Brennan.; 8/19/18, 9:22 AM
Michael K said...: The plot thickens.

In 2017 Oleg Deripaska was represented in the U.S. by Adam Waldman. Mr. Waldman was also representing Christopher Steele, the author of the Dossier. Waldman was the liaison Senator Mark Warner (Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman) was using to try and set up a secret meeting with Christopher Steele. {Text Messages}

Warner seems to be deep into this whole mess. Why he has Burr, the Chairman, involved is a mystery.

The Russian is involved but not with Trump.; 8/19/18, 9:42 AM
Ralph L said...: It worries me a bit that Burr said he won't run for reelection in 2022.; 8/19/18, 9:47 AM
Bay Area Guy said...: Rand Paul is totally right - Brennan is a disgrace and should be sent out to political pasture. Or, if he had any guts, he'd run for political office (and get his butt kicked).; 8/19/18, 10:00 AM
Psota said...: We should have listened to Ron Paul back in 2008.

Should have listened closer to Rand back in 2013

Can't imagine why GOP went along with Obama-era NSA/CIA/DNI abuses. The abuses seems to have been well known among insiders. Only reason I can think of is that they knew they were being surveiled on some level and were afraid of being blackmailed.; 8/19/18, 10:05 AM
Michael K said...: Only reason I can think of is that they knew they were being surveiled on some level and were afraid of being blackmailed.

I wonder what Warner has on Burr.; 8/19/18, 10:10 AM
rcocean said...: Brennan is bat shit crazy.

He publicly called a sitting POTUS a "Traitor" and called for his impeachment.

And for what? For meeting with Putin.

I wouldn't trust Brennan to take care of my dog.; 8/19/18, 10:29 AM
rcocean said...: If people like Hayden, Brennan, Clapper and Comey are going to talk like Rosie and Kathy Griffith, they should have the same Security Clearance.

That is, none.; 8/19/18, 10:30 AM
Yancey Ward said...: I suspect these ex-political appointees are monetizing their clearance levels in some manner, and that is the only reason they are allowed to keep them in the first place. Do you think Brennan was doing so in his gig with CNN? I do, and I think that is one of the reasons Brennan was hired.; 8/19/18, 10:35 AM
hombre said...: Psota: "Can't imagine why GOP went along with Obama-era NSA/CIA/DNI abuses."

Because going along with Democrats is what they do - mostly.; 8/19/18, 10:48 AM
Chuck said...: I must have missed the Althouse post on Admiral William McRaven’s response to Trump.; 8/19/18, 10:56 AM
Birkel said...: One of the best things about Trump w/rt his attempt to drain the Swamp is

His vengefulness!!

Every time the Swamp thinks they have Trump in a bad way, he sets about executing his revenge. Going along to get along only works when both sides play by the same rules. Trump is playing by the Left’s rules.

Burr is leaving the Senate because he would face serious opposition in 2022. He is a disgrace with less press than Lindsey Graham. Good riddance to bad rubbish.; 8/19/18, 10:59 AM
Birkel said...: Hey Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire,
Nobody gives a shit about that political climber.
There, you have a synopsis.; 8/19/18, 11:00 AM
Darrell said...: I must have missed the Althouse post on Admiral William McRaven’s response to Trump.

We talked about it in a Cafe a few nights ago. Field Marshal Freder took your position on the matter, so you don't have to worry.

Real people thought that McRaven displayed a complete lack of judgement since he ignored all of Brennan's acts which constitute felonies, when convicted. And he said his greatest personal honor was serving under Matay Odumbo. His clearances should be pulled just for that.; 8/19/18, 11:09 AM
Yancey Ward said...: So, Chuck, have you decided how you want me to send you $100? Send the info to twixella@aol.com; 8/19/18, 11:18 AM
Darrell said...: So, Chuck, have you decided how you want me to send you $100?

Just make a contribution to the Trump 2020 campaign.
I can't see how that wouldn't make Chuck happy.; 8/19/18, 11:21 AM
Matt Sablan said...: People have lost it for less.; 8/19/18, 11:35 AM
Hagar said...: The situation for Drill Sgt. and Leland working in "the technical world" and Brennan et al. is somewhat different. It is on the policy making levels that the individuals are valuable as pontificators and leakers, and these are the troublemakers that need to be stopped.
The working people already know they will be in a world of trouble if they ever violate the conditions of their clearances (I think?).; 8/19/18, 11:35 AM
cronus titan said...: "If you have knowledge that you gained when you had a clearance, are you now forbidden to talk about it when the person you're talking to has clearance? Or is the problem just that if they want to consult with you, they don't just want to hear about what you already know, they want you to see the new material so you can, given your past experience, advise on the new things?"

Keeping the clearance for former senior officials is to inform on new issues that originated during the former official's tenure. Former officials may know relevant things to new issues and can provide important information, as well as perspective. In Brennan's case, he uses his clearance to give himself an air of credibility for his punditry. At this point, Brennan adds nothing because he has made quite clear his interest is in hurting Trump and nothing else. From a clearance perspective, he is useless.

Rand Paul had Brennan's number.; 8/19/18, 11:52 AM
Matt Sablan said...: I just read some of McRaven's quotes. He's ignoring that Brennan has perjured himself in front of Congress. Brennan has criticized Trump for years. If this was an attempt to silence dissent, Trump would have charges pressed for crimes we know were committed. Or just gin some up like Obama did to journalists after spying on them.; 8/19/18, 11:52 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Trump says mean things on Twitter and withdraws perks: McCarthyism writ large.

Obama actually jails and arrests journalists for investigating him while trying to overturn Citizen's United so groups can't express political opinions the government doesn't like: First Amendment Hero.; 8/19/18, 11:55 AM
John henry said...: I don't understand why the govt doesn't just, as a routine practice, suspend all security clearances when people leave govt employ. That's everyone from top to bottom.

If they take a job working for or consulting with a contractor where they actually have need to know and need the clearance, it can be unsuspended for that limited purpose.

That would take care of the argument that President Trump is punishing people.

John Henry; 8/19/18, 11:56 AM
John henry said...: My default position is to agree with Ron Paul on most everything.

Especially this.

The few things I am not in full agreement on, can be exceptions.

John Henry; 8/19/18, 11:58 AM
walter said...: “Decisions on security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views,” they wrote.
--
Ok..that one works too. Has anyone argued based on actually needing Brennan's help?

New Yorker:
In asking the President to revoke his security clearance, he was taking a step that could have negative financial consequences for him and his family. (Many retired military and intelligence figures parlay their security clearances into valuable consulting gigs.)

Oh my..gonna lose a gravy train. Sad!; 8/19/18, 12:09 PM
Wince said...: Brennan has demonstrated Factitious Disorder when it comes to Trump.

Factitious disorder imposed on another (previously called Munchausen syndrome by proxy) is when someone falsely claims that another person has physical or psychological signs or symptoms of illness, or causes injury or disease in another person with the intention of deceiving others.

People with this disorder present another person as sick, injured or having problems functioning, claiming that medical attention is needed. Usually this involves a parent harming a child. This form of abuse can put a child in serious danger of injury or unnecessary medical care.; 8/19/18, 12:10 PM
Narayanan said...: I would like response to My Q from earlier thread:
Do ex Presidents have "lifetime" security clearance?

Dare Rand Paul venture into territory ... revoking Obama clearance if he retains any?; 8/19/18, 12:25 PM
Gospace said...: Ann Althouse said...
"The theory of clearances for ex-administration folks after their departure from Fed service is that they may be consulted on an old situation."

Serious question (and I apologize for not researching this myself): If you have knowledge that you gained when you had a clearance, are you now forbidden to talk about it when the person you're talking to has clearance? Or is the problem just that if they want to consult with you, they don't just want to hear about what you already know, they want you to see the new material so you can, given your past experience, advise on the new things?

Asked and answered- Anything you learned that was classified cannot be talked about with anyone who has a clearance- unless they have a need to know. But if they have a need to know, they didn't need to ask you, because they already have access to the records... The reason is the second part. If it's felt your expertise and knowledge with past cases would offer insight into a new situation, you can be called in, briefed on the situation, and consulted.

Since the foreign policy decisions made during the Obama years were uniformly abysmal and worked against U.S. interests, there's no reason for anyone in the current administration to consult them. Pulling their security clearances emphasizes their unreliability to act in the nation's interest.; 8/19/18, 12:43 PM
Narayanan said...: Speaking of gravy trains and boats and airplanes ... Lobbying industry, rotating doors and security clearance

What are the inside dope?; 8/19/18, 12:47 PM
Narayanan said...: @Professora ...
Considering your class room experience ... How do you relate levels of expertise between teacher/student in interactions, discussions and executive political hierarchy wrt clearance levels and getting work done.; 8/19/18, 12:53 PM
Narayanan said...: Is it being claimed: attainder to revoke clearance?

Brennan is going to court on this? Lawfare?; 8/19/18, 12:59 PM
Darrell said...: You know who else should lose their security clearance?

The guy that vetted Brennan to begin with.; 8/19/18, 1:12 PM
narciso said...: Wonder who that was,

https://spectator.org/john-brennan-a-security-risk-from-the-start/; 8/19/18, 1:13 PM
Narayanan said...: Spectator.org cite brings up a point about "love/hate" for communism ... "Ideological conviction / defense mechanism"

So we have Brennan/McCain with same response to Putin who was KGB =/= communist.

MSM Following in step for making them heroes.; 8/19/18, 2:17 PM
walter said...: Since he's been "silenced", Brennan needs a gofundme page.
Pete's is still perk-o-lating: "$438,285 of $500,000 goal"; 8/19/18, 2:54 PM
narciso said...: does this sound right:

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1031208166157996032; 8/19/18, 3:45 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: I like that letter signed by 13 ex-Intlleigence Officials chastizing Trump for revoking Brennan's security clearance.

If I were Editor of the NYT, I would headline the article as follows:

"13 former Deep Staters strenuously object to current Deep Stater Brennan being exposed as a Deep Stater. Vow Secret Coordinsed revenge against President Trump"; 8/19/18, 4:05 PM
Chuck said...: My main point in raising the issue of Admiral McRaven's response to Trump, was to jab at Trumpism's professed high-testosterone, pro-military, simplistic "tough guy" values against Trump himself.

Here's an actual military man; a former SEAL, decorated combat veterean, a special ops commander in the Persian Gulf, a four-star admiral and commander of SOCOM... telling Donald J. Trump to please, "revoke my security clearance too." Trump; the pussy draft-dodger.; 8/19/18, 4:19 PM
Narayanan said...: @Chuck.
You do realize the draft is involuntary servitude and unnecessary in genuinely parlous circumstances???!!!; 8/19/18, 4:25 PM
Michael K said...: Chuck chest beating.

telling Donald J. Trump to please, "revoke my security clearance too." Trump; the pussy draft-dodger.

One old rule in the military is that anyone over O-6 cannot be trusted. Since Chuck has never been in the military, he does not know that all generals are politicians.

I doubt he even noticed when the Army Chief of Staff, Casey, said after the Fort Hood Massacre, "I hope Diversity won't be a casualty of this "tragedy."

“I’m concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” Casey told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

That's our Chuck. Always ready with some military wisdom he pulls out of his ass.; 8/19/18, 4:38 PM
Birkel said...: Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, has a plan.
Any Democrat port in a Trump storm.
There is no Democrat talking point our favorite racist LLR will not repeat.

Brennan authorized CIA ops against low level Trump Campaign hangers on, in order to secure domestic spying via FISC.
When that is revealed, fully, I expect the Admiral will never be asked to explain his support for unconstitutional activity.

And Chuck will hate Trump all the more for being correct.
Wiretapped.; 8/19/18, 4:39 PM
Michael K said...: Why does that general have a security clearance anyway ?; 8/19/18, 4:39 PM
Birkel said...: Michael K,
The admiral might actually be consulted by those currently in the military.
Also, he is probably paid a lot more by his current employer because of it.
That is a standard consideration.; 8/19/18, 4:51 PM
narciso said...: until this last outburst, he seemed reasonably level headed, I guess it's the chain letter mentality, they have to get on board,; 8/19/18, 4:56 PM
tcrosse said...: Chuck, thanks for your service. Oh, wait....; 8/19/18, 4:58 PM
Ralph L said...: McRaven has been chancellor of the Univ of Texas since 2014, but said he's leaving this year. I doubt he's risking anything but his reputation.; 8/19/18, 5:12 PM
Michael K said...: Also, he is probably paid a lot more by his current employer because of it.

That is the reason he should not have it. If he is on active duty, that is one thing.

A friend of mine retired, having been passed over for general, and worked for McDonnell Douglas for a few years, using his experience as the most experience fighter pilot in the Marine Corps.

Then he started his own company and made $23 million when he sold it. None of that required a security clearance.; 8/19/18, 5:12 PM
Michael K said...: McRaven was U Texas Chancellor for several years and has now retired from that. What is the use of a security clearance other than another check mark on his resume. That is not what they are for.

The fact that he popped off like that marks him as a Deep Stater,; 8/19/18, 5:15 PM
Birkel said...: I would bet he is a corporate officer.
Probably several of them @ 200-300k each.
Maybe a couple paying a lot more.
Probably have a national defense focus...

Maybe somebody industrious will check...; 8/19/18, 5:20 PM
Chuck said...: Narayanan Subramanian said...
@Chuck.
You do realize the draft is involuntary servitude and unnecessary in genuinely parlous circumstances???!!!

Wouldn't it have been interesting, if Trump had taken a public position that the Vietnam War was illegal or immoral or that he had a qualified conscientious objection to the draft?

Trump didn't do that. Trump did the Trumpiest-weasel thing. Trump claimed that he had heel spurs.; 8/19/18, 5:23 PM
tcrosse said...: Trump didn't do that. Trump did the Trumpiest-weasel thing. Trump claimed that he had heel spurs.

It's not like you had to take his place, as somebody took yours.; 8/19/18, 5:28 PM
Michael K said...: Chuck, here is a bit of food for thought for you.

Joshua says:

A few years back, substantive evidence emerged that Texas state legislators were abusing their positions to secure favorable admissions consideration for their children and relatives at the University of Texas System. The UT System, eager to cultivate profitable relationships with the legislature, was only too happy to cooperate. The potential for scandal was immense, and the evidence was compelling enough to warrant an investigation. But the political power of the UT System is also immense — it was the only major Texas public institution to successfully defy Rick Perry’s efforts to reform it in his fourteen years as Governor — and so the legislature didn’t meaningfully investigate. It was, after all, their kids. Neither did the UT Regents who should have been at the forefront of the thing. Either the public university is public and accountable to the public, or it is a publicly funded plaything of the elite.
One Regent forged ahead: Wallace Hall, who demanded the relevant admissions records so a proper analysis could be done. The Chancellor of the UT System, interested in preserving the access and favor accruing to an institution willing to do favors for legislators’ children, offered a comprise of sorts: he would give up the records — but stripped of the identifying information necessary for the analysis.
The case went to litigation, and the Chancellor of the UT System won on putative privacy grounds. Public accountability was quashed, and the elite-on-elite favor system that characterizes American governance from Austin to DC continued onward. The Chancellor had an opportunity to do something for an equitable and transparent society, and chose — and fought for years in court for — the opposite.
The Chancellor of the University of Texas System was Admiral Bill McRaven.
So give me a break with this stuff.

Posted by an active duty Navy friend going to Naval Postgrad.; 8/19/18, 5:28 PM
Michael K said...: Trump claimed that he had heel spurs.

Chuck, how many times do I have to point out to you that heel spurs are disqualifying. During Vietnam doctors examining recruits, like I do now, were very aware that recruits lied to get out of the service. They did not give the deferments away. I know of college students that had their spleens removed to avoid the draft.

Now, we are very conscious that recruits lie to get in. Every week we see recruits lying, sometimes on the advice of the recruiters

You never get off your TDS. It really is tiresome.; 8/19/18, 5:31 PM
Birkel said...: He is on the Council of Foreign Relations.
Has overseen UT while it violated the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.
Solid.; 8/19/18, 5:32 PM
Chuck said...: Michael K, how many times do I have to point out that absolutely everybody recognizes that a case of heel spurs, if genuine, would disqualify a draftee? But that in the case of Trump, nobody in their right mind believes that Trump, a lifelong and inveterate liar, lied about heel spurs and got a well placed New York doctor to play along?

Don't you remember Trump being the sociopath who did interviews as "John Baron" and "John Miller"? That is the guy whose vague word you are taking on whether he had heel spurs, with no memory of which foot, or both feet, and who never had any treatment for the condition?

Really, Michael K; the U.S. military was better off without Donald Trump. Whether he actually served or not is really unimportant. As with all things Trump, the important part is the lying. The lying and the illegal personal exceptionalism. And, because the low-information emotional voter is so important in matters pertaining to Trump; we have real, live military heroes suggesting that Trump, a draft-dodger, is full of shit.

These are guys who would, under other circumstances be proclaimed as heroes at Trump rallies. Trump would be borrowing their heroism, and proclaiming to all of the factory workers and bikers and cops and truck drivers and Rush Limbaugh fans in that audience, that he -- Trump -- stands with the tough guy American heroes. When it fact it's all just so much TV bullshit.; 8/19/18, 6:33 PM
narciso said...: Like Chris paronto and oz zeist when Brennan forced nda where was admiral mcraven then, not defending his operators; 8/19/18, 6:47 PM
narciso said...: Like bill Clinton, who had the nerve to talk down to a survivor of the bataan death march, colonel holmes.; 8/19/18, 6:53 PM
narciso said...: When obama pulled out of iraq and cut short the counterinsurgency program what was mcravens council.; 8/19/18, 6:57 PM
narciso said...: When fallujah and ramadi fell, he was real quiet, like a basenghi. It was left to the mother of mark Lee, Chris Kyle's seal partner to speak out.; 8/19/18, 7:27 PM
Ralph L said...: Don't heel spurs show up on an X-ray?; 8/19/18, 7:40 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger Ralph L said...
Don't heel spurs show up on an X-ray?

Yes but we also have recruits heel walk to look for pain.; 8/19/18, 7:43 PM
Michael K said...: Well, Chuck, I'll agree that the US military was better off without you.

Did you ever see "Full Metal Jacket?" You were the recruit that shot Gunny Ermey. I'd know you anywhere.; 8/19/18, 7:45 PM
narciso said...: We only found this out later, but we couldnt rely on the february 17th militia, which wouldnt be around had we not intervened, but ex gaddaffi soldiers; 8/19/18, 7:54 PM
Ralph L said...: we also have recruits heel walk to look for pain.

But you're trying to weed people out.

Thanks to Hollywood, we assume now that every rich or connected son then could avoid the draft, but did draft boards take a doctor's mere word that the draftee felt pain?; 8/19/18, 8:23 PM
Narayanan said...: Which preceds in draft process ... Notification of draft # or deferment application.

@Chuck ... You ok then with Cassius Clay being put in prison?

He was conscientious objector!; 8/19/18, 8:37 PM
narciso said...: Funny thing, I don't think there is a conscience clause in Islam,; 8/19/18, 8:46 PM
narciso said...: Ex gaddaffi soldiers who a long with this small band of ex military contractor, repealed a company of al queda.; 8/19/18, 9:03 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: "Did you ever see "Full Metal Jacket?" You were the recruit that shot Gunny Ermey. I'd know you anywhere."

Sgt. Hartman sez: "I will give you three seconds, exactly three fucking secinds, to wipe that stupid grin off your face, or I will gouge out your eyeballs and skull-fuck you!"; 8/19/18, 9:17 PM
Michael K said...: but did draft boards take a doctor's mere word that the draftee felt pain?

I dunno. The physical when I went in was pretty rudimentary.

I had a three level compression fracture from about two years before and they didn't notice it.

I don't know if Trump got favoritism. I know that Clinton did.

Gore got a billet as a "journalist."

Bush might have gone to Vietnam if the war hadn't been winding down. The left sure tried to make a lot out of that.

Chuck is right in their pattern.; 8/19/18, 9:24 PM
walter said...: Vote Dems in November, Chuck.
It's George('s) Will.; 8/19/18, 11:41 PM
Gospace said...: Draft boards, if your number is up, don't take your word for heel spurs. MEPS- Military Entrance Processing Station does the x-ray. They won't take your civilian doctor's word for it either. They do the x-ray. And they are disqualifying. My wife had a bone spur on top of her foot removed. It was, according to her, extremely painful.

Flat feet used to be disqualifying for service because it was widely thought they caused problems because they weren't "normal". Turns out normal isn't always better. Studies showed that people with flat feet have fewer foot problems and less foot pain as they age. What's disqualifying is subject to change. The day I joined the Navy my vision was too poor to go to sub school. Between the time I entered and the time I went the rules were changed.

There is another thing that's disqualifying. Being too ugly. It's not quite put that way... I've only ever heard one story about that. A Marine. Computer science major with a master's back when that was rare and valuable. He had had some sort of disease when young that left him with a huge round head. Couldn't get a job- after the interview interviewers threw his application in the garbage can. Aced the entrance exam. Recruiter signed him right up, and he got through the pre-entrance physical exams, then showed up at MCRD San Diego. And there was no cover or helmet that fit him. The medical manual didn't have a head too large qualifier. He went through boot coverless. And as he successfully navigated boot camp, there was much discussion of what to do with him. Graduation day came and he became a full fledged Marine. And after the ceremony was pulled in and told he was going to be discharged. Honorably. Under medical conditions. BUT- Marines take care of their own. He had earned the respect that comes with getting through Marine boot camp. Once a Marine, always a Marine. He was offered- and took- a job at MCRD working on their computer systems. Started the next day.; 8/20/18, 1:12 AM
AllenS said...: I was drafted into the Army in 1966. A lot of my friends did whatever they had to do to avoid the draft. That was their business, not mine. Let me tell you a little something, Chuck, you would have been one of those doing whatever to not go in.; 8/20/18, 2:03 AM
Ralph L said...: after the ceremony was pulled in and told he was going to be discharged.

Still, that's a major, major downer.; 8/20/18, 7:50 AM
Michael K said...: I work part time at a MEPS and have for 7 years.

Flat feet used to be disqualifying for service because it was widely thought they caused problems because they weren't "normal".

Flat feet are getting more common, especially on girls, because (I think) so many kids wear sandals now. The only flat feet that are disqualified are those that are stiff and inflexible and limit mobility. They are not at all common.

I expect that heel spurs during the VN war were more carefully checked because, as I have said here before, people were trying to get out and now they are trying to get in. We usually just use heel walking and that, if painful, may be disqualifying. Some heel spurs can be successfully treated by injection of steroids. If the kid was disqualified and comes back after treatment and passes the exam, they can be qualified. The physical is good for two years.

I disqualified a kid last week who has a draining pilonidal sinus., I told him to get it operated on before school starts (He is a high school senior), then he can come back 6 months after the surgery and, if it is healed, he can still go to Basic next summer.

The condition we see the most lying about is asthma. I have seen doctors lie about asthma.; 8/20/18, 11:24 AM