View Full Version : Was Adm. McRaven Always “Weird”?
Did Adm. McRaven’s time in Austin make him a “weird”, Trump-hating liberal or was he always that way? Forgive me for the source.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/mcraven-trump-brennan-security-clearance-revoke/index.html
The only question that came to mind with McRaven, Brennan or whomever was entitled to top secret clearance, is why would they need the clearance if they are retired and/or no longer employed by the US Government.
I have had several interactions with him, different command relationships. In my opinion, he was, and is, an entitled whiney bitch. He, nor anyone (me included) should not possess a security clearance at any level after they retire from the job that requires it.
Thanks, for the replies. My additional question (as I have never held clearance) Do Soldiers, Marines, etc. keep their clearances after active duty? Also, Intel is distributed on a need to know basis (correct?), so what would be the reason for ex-CIA Chief or whoever to be read-in on intel. I think it’s as Trump said , a common courtesy, which provides these people with a future means of getting rich.
Most folks do not keep their clearance when they leave the “need to know” position unless they are going to another “need to know” position.
The reason some high ranking folks keep theirs is they come back to advise the folks that replaced them.
None of these assclowns will be asked to come back and advise this cabinet. C-ya! (as in good bye)
Mustang Man
08-16-2018, 19:40
"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," he added.
This right here, just another virtue signaler. Guarantee he doesn't mean this and desperately wants to retain it. It would so be of Trump and a great troll if he actually revokes his cleance.
He is obviously a green water sailor (the Swamp). I hope his wish is granted.
Golf1echo
08-16-2018, 21:58
Not sure how far this got and really don't care now:
https://taskandpurpose.com/meet-admirals-hillary-clintons-vice-president/
Since it's challenging to quantify the left's relevant accomplishments they at least have to posture.
"We respect ADM McRaven's service to this nation, and would otherwise see no reason to revoke his clearance at this time. However in deference to his wishes we have revoked his clearance. We wish him the best.
Going forward we will be conducting a review of current policy and de facto practice of allowing retired government officials to maintain their prior security clearance. "
Badger52
08-17-2018, 04:00
This right here, just another virtue signaler. Guarantee he doesn't mean this and desperately wants to retain it. It would so be of Trump and a great troll if he actually revokes his cleance.That right there (in my time anyway) would have prevented him ever having one. Not an issue of allowing military to form their own political opinions; but active disdain for your sitting CinC should mean "B'bye bitch."
rsdengler
08-17-2018, 05:02
Why would McRaven or any others who are no longer in that position think they have special privileges? Stop whining Mrs. McRaven; you already retired, and Brennan is out, they don't have that nice job any longer. So they no longer need to have a top secret clearance. When I left the Air Force, my secret clearance was kaput.
Unless, as Joker stated you are going to another position that requires that you need a secret clearance. Why come out and make a statement like that and expose yourself to scrutiny? Is it political ambition? Too much self-importance? Or is it your discontent/dislike of the current Administration? Or, is it showing that you really side with the Left and always have.
Not sure how far this got and really don't care now:
https://taskandpurpose.com/meet-admi...ice-president/
Since it's challenging to quantify the left's relevant accomplishments they at least have to posture.
When McRaven stated his position, first thought was alignment with Brennan was a pay back, and he has future political ambitions.
miclo18d
08-17-2018, 06:25
Why would you open your pie hole and walk yourself into a well laid ambush killzone?
A R R O G A N C E
Someone needs to read the drivel, they themselves wrote.....
My experience is as Jokers. Although he did a better job at keeping his political affiliation quieter than did Lord Stanley, both were leftists. They didn't have a problem with killing Muj, but were lefties.
Streck-Fu
08-17-2018, 07:15
Most folks do not keep their clearance when they leave the “need to know” position unless they are going to another “need to know” position.
From my experience, most clearances are not actively revoked when people leave the position requiring it. Rather, they lose access to he systems and information but the DIA does not spend manpower to close or revoke a clearance.
With TS being reverified every 5 years and Secret every 10, once the investigation is completed and the clearance granted, no further action is required unless disqualifying information is disclosed.
The media inference that person that leaves a position requiring access classified information may retain access to those systems after leaving that position is false and a mischaracterization of how it actually works.
When they retire, they turn in the CAC and the SIPR access gets turned off but the Clearance remains on active until it expires.
Rather than start a new thread - article below deals with Brennan - which provoked McRaven’s comments.
Some thoughts on Brennan’s security clearance revocation.
John Brennan’s Security Clearance
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
August 16, 2018 10:29 AM
National Review
Scarier than former CIA chief John Brennan losing his security clearance is the idea that he ever had one in the first place.
Perhaps to avoid the appearance of partisanship in pulling the security clearances of former intelligence chiefs, the Trump administration should now abide by some sort of universal nonpartisan standard. I suggest that the following sort of improper conduct, either during or after one’s tenure, might result in the loss of a security clearance:
1) Lying to Congress. Brennan lied to Congress on at least two occasions (cf. his denial of CIA surveillance of Senate staffer computers and the claim of an absence of collateral damage in drone attacks), and perhaps three (his absurd denial of knowledge of the seeding of the Steele dossier among government agencies). Democrats used to be outraged by Brennan’s deceit, and a few in the past had called for his resignation. Note that James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, has also misled Congress, concerning NSA surveillance of American citizens. Clapper has admitted such (e.g., “the least untruthful” answer). Not lying to Congress is a pretty low bar to meet.
2) Accusations of Treason against a Sitting President. Brennan believes his denial of continued access to intelligence is an infringement on free speech. But it is really another low bar to ask a former CIA director to refrain from leveling unproven charges of treason against the current president of the United States (“nothing short of treasonous”; “When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history”). Such invective in theory could have foreign-policy consequences by branding the slander of presidential disloyalty with an imprimatur of a CIA security clearance.
Note again that James Clapper similarly flat-out accused the president of the United States of treason, in being a spy for the Russians (“I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that’s what he’s doing with the president”). Clapper, of course, has no proof of that low charge. Nor has he produced any after his on-air accusation. If he is suggesting that his security clearance has allowed him access to incriminating evidence, then he should say so.
3) Hired Political Commentary. Former intelligence chiefs certainly have a perfect right to offer their expertise, even enhanced by their current security clearances, against or in support of a current administration, on both foreign-policy and intelligence challenges, and as guest experts on television, radio, social media, and in print.
That said, hiring oneself out as a political partisan to a network should be a different matter.
Had Brennan and Clapper now and then visited the networks to voice their concern about Trump’s cancellation of the Iran deal or moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, it would be one thing. But going on salary with MSNBC and CNN to profit from one’s emeritus status and security clearances to libel the president of the United States removes all appearances of disinterested commentary. As private citizens, they can do all that on their own time without any vestigial connections to the U.S. government.
An added note. When an intelligence official finds himself in a self-created mess, Washington agencies often have a tendency to rush to support of one of their own. But Brennan has long had a dubious record.
He dramatically reinvented himself after the 2008 election from Bush point man on terror alerts (cf. the “Orange Terror alert” of 2003), renditions, and enhanced interrogations — to Obama aficionado, now shocked, in Casablanca-style, by such supposedly clumsy and less nuanced methods that he once had endorsed.
When one collates Brennan’s politicized and often incoherent explanations on a number of key intelligence matters in various capacities between 2009 and 2016 (on the circumstances surrounding Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a.k.a. the “underwear bomber,” his confusing and changing narratives surrounding the bin Laden raid, and his bizarre and careerist-inspired description of jihad: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”), the portrait of a political contortionist rather than a professional and disinterested intelligence officer is confirmed.
All that can be said in condolence to John Brennan about losing his security clearance might be something along the lines of, “Try not to lie repeatedly to the U.S. Congress. Please do not allege that the current president of the United States is a traitor. And do not hire yourself out to partisans to issue near daily unproven invective, supposedly sanctified and monetized by your past tenure and present access to the highest level of covert U.S. intelligence.”
That was not too much to ask.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/john-brennan-security-clearance-revocation/
bblhead672
08-17-2018, 10:04
Most folks do not keep their clearance when they leave the “need to know” position unless they are going to another “need to know” position.
The reason some high ranking folks keep theirs is they come back to advise the folks that replaced them.
None of these assclowns will be asked to come back and advise this cabinet. C-ya! (as in good bye)
Exactly! I tried to explain this to a Never Trumper on another site, but alas all he can see is Trump did something thus it is bad. My post copied below:
Bbblhd672: There’s this concept in classified materials and information security called “need to know.” None of those ex-government employees/appointees/etc have a continuing “need to know” classified information. Thus, there should be no outrage over their security clearances being revoked, especially if there is any indication they are using that access without need to know.
As a submarine radioman I had a Top Secret, Special Intelligence clearance. The day I was no longer a service member my need to know went away. My former colleagues in the radio room could no longer discuss any of the classified information we had discussed previously because I no longer had the need to know, despite still having a TS/SI clearance. However my obligation to never reveal any classified information has not and will never go away.
His response:
You've missed the point. High level security officials have clearance to support the ongoing intelligence projects with their experience. But hey, let's just ignore history and see how that goes.
He (and all the other lefties) just cannot accept that someone who no longer has a job requiring access shouldn't have a security clearance.
Retired, fired, whatever the reason for not having the job any longer equals no security clearance.
If the President needs someone to advise him and the Cabinet then the security clearance can be restored.
tom kelly
08-17-2018, 13:20
LOOK'S LIKE McRAVEN IS READY FOR THE U S SENATE???? HE CAN REPLACE SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, IF HE COULD GET ELECTED ????
tom kelly
[QUOTE=
Retired, fired, whatever the reason for not having the job any longer equals no security clearance.
If the President needs someone to advise him and the Cabinet then the security clearance can be restored.[/QUOTE]
This was my “layman’s” understanding of security clearances, which is why I don’t see the need for him to maintain a clearance. Especially, as others have said, Brennan is certainly not advising Trump’s cabinet and, therefore, has no “need to know”.
Also, the fact McRaven was chancellor of Texas University is just icing on the cake and par for the course.
From my experience, most clearances are not actively revoked when people leave the position requiring it. Rather, they lose access to he systems and information but the DIA does not spend manpower to close or revoke a clearance.
With TS being reverified every 5 years and Secret every 10, once the investigation is completed and the clearance granted, no further action is required unless disqualifying information is disclosed.
The media inference that person that leaves a position requiring access classified information may retain access to those systems after leaving that position is false and a mischaracterization of how it actually works.
When they retire, they turn in the CAC and the SIPR access gets turned off but the Clearance remains on active until it expires.
Not accurate with TS add-one. You leave, you are read-off, unless your new job requires them.
Surf n Turf
08-17-2018, 16:42
Not accurate with TS add-one. You leave, you are read-off, unless your new job requires them.
Correct !
For TS / SCI You are "read-off" and "debriefed" on anything you were "read-on" too, and you get to re-review your NDA's to set firmly in your mind what you no-longer know or can remember.
If you are gainfully re-employed in a short period of time (5 years ?) your former clearance is in place, but you still have to be "read-on" to anything new, and sign newly composed, newer NDA's for your reading pleasure.
SnT
SouthernDZ
08-17-2018, 16:56
While living in the vicinity of Fort Sam Houston, I made the two-hour drive up to Fort Hood monthly to see my daughter stationed there. Unfortunately my travels took me past UT in the People's Republic of Austin, an island of blue in a completely red state. I think living in and around the assholes that reside in Austin would more than explain ADM McRaven's actions and state of mind.
While living in the vicinity of Fort Sam Houston, I made the two-hour drive up to Fort Hood monthly to see my daughter stationed there. Unfortunately my travels took me past UT in the People's Republic of Austin, an island of blue in a completely red state. I think living in and around the assholes that reside in Austin would more than explain ADM McRaven's actions and state of mind.
I have no doubt about that! Unfortunately, my new career is moving me there; however, I have 39 years of conservative upbringing to insulate me and my family from the “weirdness”. And, we will not be living in Austin, either.
WarriorDiplomat
08-17-2018, 18:37
Did Adm. McRaven’s time in Austin make him a “weird”, Trump-hating liberal or was he always that way? Forgive me for the source.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/16/politics/mcraven-trump-brennan-security-clearance-revoke/index.html
He was an Obama Admiral......he would not have sat in that position for 3 years under Obama without supporting his destructive policies on the force and the mission I say that because everyone up and down the chain was seeing the damage and the ones who were ardent conservatives and understood the damage being done to our country, troops, and allies were speaking up or doing something contrary to POTUS policy that conflicted with his desired endstate resulting in over 200 High Ranking officers being fired over that administration and McRaven stuck it out for 3 years......2+2 is still 4 all the signs and indicators are there now and was then just like Votel will IMO come out as a liberal when he has fullfilled his own desire if he goes no further than CENTCOM.
Some additional insight into Brennan (who really was the subject of McRaven’s rant).
He plays the pitiful political hack and shabby radical to the end.
American Spectator
George Neumayr
August 17, 2018, 12:05 am
The real story about John Brennan’s security clearance is not that he lost it under a Republican president but that he once got one. One of the peculiar footnotes of Brennan’s history is that he obtained a position in Bill Casey’s CIA after having supported the Soviet-backed American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War. Had Casey conducted the polygraph test in which Brennan admitted to voting for Soviet proxy Gus Hall in 1976, Casey would have tossed him out of the office. Casey hated communists. Whoever hired Brennan must have been a Deep State holdover from the Carter years.
All of Brennan’s propaganda about “Trump-Russian collusion” is just sour grapes over the loss of his preferred candidate, Hillary, for whom he was desperately auditioning by launching an unfounded investigation into her opponent, and a remnant of his pro-Soviet nostalgia. Brennan’s much-vaunted “conscience” was pricked not by Soviet leaders who slaughtered their own people and enslaved hapless nations but by a Russian leader who — brace yourselves — isn’t keen on postmodern Western propaganda in favor of gay rights. Brennan prided himself on his “commitment” to alternative lifestyles and would pad down the halls of the CIA in a “rainbow lanyard,” as Bill Gertz once reported. Putin’s refusal to hold “gay pride” parades in Moscow infuriated Brennan. He also didn’t care for Putin’s unsentimental approach to Islamic terrorism. Brennan defined jihad as “self-improvement” and lobbied Obama to embrace the fanatics of the Muslim Brotherhood. Brennan got his wish when the Obama-backed Morsi rose to power in Egypt and wrecked it.
Michael Flynn thought that Brennan was a PC jackass of the first order, in thrall to the Muslims with whom he had traveled to Mecca during his stint as station chief in Saudi Arabia. Brennan got his revenge on Flynn by unleashing on him Stefan Halper, the vaguely pro-Republican oaf and Cambridge con man the Obama administration hired to spy on Trumpworld. Halper reported to his friends in British intelligence that Flynn in 2014 had been seen at a Cambridge University forum fraternizing with a Russian historian. That morsel of half-baked gossip was then fed to Brennan. In 2015, the British and presumably Halper kept bird-dogging Flynn. Part of Brennan’s “Trump-Russian collusion” fetish feeds off his hatred for Flynn, who had criticized the Obama administration for pursuing a pointlessly anachronistic course against Putin. Islamic terrorism, not Russian nationalism, threatened the vital national interests of America, argued Flynn. Brennan stewed over this disagreement and exacted his revenge on Flynn through Justice Department official Sally Yates, a Democratic hack who had joined the anti-Trump ring in the Obama administration along with her subordinate Bruce Ohr and fellow saboteur Peter Strzok.
The only criticism that Trump deserves for yanking Brennan’s security clearance is its delay. He should have done it on day one. Brennan was a security risk from the start — an anti-American radical of staggering proportions who should never have been permitted within a hundred-mile radius of Langley. Putin, Trump once said, is “laughing his ass off” at the mayhem dolts like Brennan have caused. Putin is also no doubt laughing at the spectacle of a former communist rising to the top of the CIA, then conducting in his retirement an attempted coup against a patriotic president on the claimed grounds that he is insufficiently hostile to Mother Russia.
Like the execrable Peter Strzok, with whom he conspired to “stop” candidate Trump, Brennan sputters about Trump as a “Russian asset.” But if anyone qualifies as a useful idiot for the Russians, it is Brennan. At the most critical moments in the Cold War, he was rooting for the Reds. He has gone from demanding “détente” to forbidding it, from raging about “McCarthyism” to impersonating it. Brennan never grew up. In his youth, he clamored for the overthrow of an American president; nothing has changed in his dotage. He is still vowing to sabotage an American president, and indulges the adolescent delusion that he somehow speaks for the proletariat, insisting that it will “defeat” Trump.
Samantha Powers, another lefty drip in Obama’s anti-Trump ring, warned Trump that he shouldn’t risk the wrath of Brennan. Who knows, implied Powers, what he might do? In taking away Brennan’s security clearance, Trump just took Powers at her word.
https://spectator.org/john-brennan-a-security-risk-from-the-start/
Exactly! I tried to explain this to a Never Trumper on another site, but alas all he can see is Trump did something thus it is bad. My post copied below:
His response:
He (and all the other lefties) just cannot accept that someone who no longer has a job requiring access shouldn't have a security clearance.
Retired, fired, whatever the reason for not having the job any longer equals no security clearance.
If the President needs someone to advise him and the Cabinet then the security clearance can be restored.
Director Haspel, a career Intel officer, doesn’t need or require Brennan’s “help” with anything. Americans are safer with his departure from the IC. His true colors are now finally on display for all to see and are no longer hidden behind his notifications to the workforce.
WarriorDiplomat
08-18-2018, 16:11
Director Haspel, a career Intel officer, doesn’t need or require Brennan’s “help” with anything. Americans are safer with his departure from the IC. His true colors are now finally on display for all to see and are no longer hidden behind his notifications to the workforce.
Gina Haspel was impressive in her confirmation hearings.....she was the boss.....too smart for the committee's herding game....she reminded me of my mother in her disposition and physical looks even.....but anyone who served Obama willingly IMO is compromised idealistically and worse yet not necessarily as qualified as they should be because in Obama administration it appears loyalty to country was not near as important as loyalty and shared vision with an Obama America
... anyone who served Obama willingly IMO is compromised idealistically and worse yet not necessarily as qualified as they should be because in Obama administration it appears loyalty to country was not near as important as loyalty and shared vision with an Obama America
There is a large number of people in the IC that consider those two positions the same. There are still many patriots too but something must happen when career employees get elevated to the executive service: they lose sense of WHO we serve and apparently care more about leaving their mark on the org.
After 8 years of BHO, we, in general, act like an abused child after to do anything unless we do it together (via working groups) in order to avoid responsibility for decision making and blame it on “bureaucracy”.
Folks who advocate for “speed, surprise, and violence of action” are quickly sidelined as cowboys.
Why would you open your pie hole and walk yourself into a well laid ambush killzone?
Imagine if you will
A retired military swamp critter hoping to be a future POTUS candidate
Aspiring to be the LEFT'S #1 FAG(former action guy) boy with a chance to beat 45
Looking for a blessing from fellow swamp rats like Clinton.
Looking to curry favours from the Kalifornacate elites
Looking for a bazillion bucks donner like Sores
Looking for more than 15 minutes on MSM
I can see a bunch of reasons to make stupid statements that piss off the Right,
while at the same time piling up at-a-boys from the Left
Golf1echo
08-19-2018, 09:16
I see references and attacks from these guys against President Trump about and based on the analogy of McCarthyism... Maybe they should think that through some as what comes to my mind when coming across those inferences is General MacArthur's presidential notions. It is a rare case when the American people would trust and support a military leader that has undermined the office of the president...the perception is normally one of a coup.
miclo18d
08-19-2018, 11:02
Imagine if you will
A retired military swamp critter hoping to be a future POTUS candidate
Aspiring to be the LEFT'S #1 FAG(former action guy) boy with a chance to beat 45
Looking for a blessing from fellow swamp rats like Clinton.
Looking to curry favours from the Kalifornacate elites
Looking for a bazillion bucks donner like Sores
Looking for more than 15 minutes on MSM
I can see a bunch of reasons to make stupid statements that piss off the Right,
while at the same time piling up at-a-boys from the Left
In my eyes....
Loss of credibility and support from many many soldiers sailors airmen and marines past and present.
ADM (Ret) McRaven is a sharp guy with a big intellect. I consider his book Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare Theory and Practice to be a must read. A common issue with such people though is they tend to think that they are smarter than everybody else. Possibly this is the issue with him.
x/S
ADM (Ret) McRaven is a sharp guy with a big intellect. I consider his book Spec Ops: Case Studies in Special Operations Warfare Theory and Practice to be a must read. A common issue with such people though is they tend to think that they are smarter than everybody else. Possibly this is the issue with him.
x/S
I have no problem with his service. I feel that while in the military you should be apolitical even the GOs. You have to politic at those high levels inside the service but we serve the country not a party.
After you retire do what you want and he has. He has shown his far left leaning and it dumbfounded me when he cam out against citizens right to bear arms. That caused me to put in in the box with all other shithead politicians. He supports Hillary and that caused me to lock the box and throw away the key. That just me.....
WarriorDiplomat
08-19-2018, 19:53
There is a large number of people in the IC that consider those two positions the same. There are still many patriots too but something must happen when career employees get elevated to the executive service: they lose sense of WHO we serve and apparently care more about leaving their mark on the org.
After 8 years of BHO, we, in general, act like an abused child after to do anything unless we do it together (via working groups) in order to avoid responsibility for decision making and blame it on “bureaucracy”.
Folks who advocate for “speed, surprise, and violence of action” are quickly sidelined as cowboys.
I completely agree with the reality of a person who accepts that level are more than likely compromised to an extent anyway and in that case we must defer to the policies of whom they serve. Personally I do not believe that public servants are to be idealistically promiscuous to survive in an organization or government in this era where revolution is near impossible given our consistent revolutions over government officials every 2-4-6 yrs however the equivalent today must be for a patriot is to be willing to not shed literal blood but to shed proverbial and institutional blood in protest through actions such as speaking out.
There are many who say they believe in loyalty to country in words but in actions would never stand against something as evil as the fallen Messiah's BHO administration by protesting and speaking out even if they pay a career penalty but few will or would....their tends to be a practical and philosophical attitude towards these actions as not really helping anything but undermining the individual.....the idea of playing politics to further a career makes me sick especially politics and policies so diametrically opposed as Obama's were to America's best interest. Somewhere out their a true believer exists and it is these that will stand over the ashes and rebuild freedom......Not in a million years will you convince me that someone who served as a senior O level and gained rank under the previous administration had the intent of gaining position to top cover the troops
So, just a thought...
If being smart, having a knack for leading people in a tough business, and maybe even shooting a few people along the way is all it takes to gain AUTOMATIC and LIFELONG respect and admiration along with a bottomless pit of credibility and freedom to say and do whatever the fuck you want without fear of retribution; why in the fuck arent there more politicians from MS-13., the Bloods, the Crips, and Hells Angels
Or is it really just another case of elitist entitlement?
Have we really decide to give people lifelong "beyond reproach" status?
Here's another one...
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/08/20/pulling-their-clearances-is-only-the-start--its-time-to-stamp-out-elite-privilege-n2511233
Pulling Their Clearances Is Only the Start – It’s Time to Stamp out Elite Privilege
Kurt Schlichter
Help, I’m being oppressed! My freedom of speech was been utterly stripped from me because when I retired from the Army those fascist monsters took away my TOP SECRET security clearance. See, a security clearance is a special privilege I should be entitled to exploit for as long as I want to because… well, shut up peasant, that’s why. I learned this in my Con Law class, right after we studied the Constitution’s text enumerating the rights to abortion, wedding cake baking servitude, and to be called by the bizarre pronoun of your – I mean “xir” – choice.
Oh wait, all of that – except the giving up my clearance part – is utter nonsense.
But John Brennan, that hack, and his elite pals are supposed to get the special privilege of keeping it. Why? As a professional courtesy. See, security clearances are things you pass out as favors or rewards, I guess, at least among the elite. Courtesy among them, nothing for you, though. You aren’t special. You’re just some guy serving his country and not turning it into a profit center on the outside. Like a sucker.
I got my clearance for the same reason you readers who got one got yours –because I needed it to do my job in the service of our country. And when I stopped needing it because I was no longer doing a job in the service of my country, I didn’t get to keep it to inflate my value as a pundit or “consultant.” Mine went away. As did yours, I’ll wager. The chances are pretty infinitesimal that you are one of the special somebodies who get handed power and privilege not to serve our country but as a perk for being part of the in-crowd.
Being a colonel was just a job for me, and doing what you did was just a job for you. But for a lot of these retired generals and senior bureaucrat timeservers, it’s a lifestyle. I always saw my eagle as leased; they think they hold the pink slip on their positions. Oh, and do they ever have contempt for Normals like you.
Security clearances get pulled routinely when the holder no longer needs access because the fewer people with access, the safer the info is – pretty basic stuff. But hey, we’ll take the chance on classified info spilling if it means elite jerks can get to bask in the warm light of being In The Know. It’s not like any of our betters ever got caught up in classified info shenanigans. Not Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. Not that Towering Doofus James Comey. Not David Petreaus. And not his mistress.
Oh, wait – all of them totally did. But, of course, these elite malefactors are all in jail, because you or I would be if we did what they did. Aren’t they?
Oh, right. They aren’t. They’re special. More professional courtesy. More special rules for special people.
Now, we’re also told that these special somebodies need to keep their clearances in case someone actually in the government who is actually doing a government job (instead of raking in bucks as a “consultant” or pundit) wants to ask their sage advice. How would that go with John Brennan?
“Hey John, it’s Don. Yeah, no hard feelings. Anyway, I needed to pick your brain about some stuff that you have a unique perspective on. So, how do I lie to Congress and get away with it? How about leaking to the liberal media – any pro tips? Oh, and how do I get 30 of our sources in China caught and shot? Yeah, I know you weren’t in charge of the CIA then, but you can tell me how you repaired the damage when you were Director. Oh. You didn’t. Awkward.”
If we had a real media and not the world’s most pompous Democrat transcription service, the CIA’s blown Chinese spy ring disaster would be front page news but hey, Omarosa! In any case, the only consulting anyone should do with the members of this class of unmitigated failures whose incompetence brought us 9/11, Iraq, Libya, ISIS, and a future where we would all be wise to learn Mandarin, is to ask their opinion and then do the opposite – Costanza style.
Let’s look at our elite’s track record of success. Don’t worry – it won’t take long. We’re still chasing bandits in Afghanistan after nearly 17 years, the Navy can’t stop running into other people’s boats, and our best and brightest in the FBI are texting each other like teens while they try to undo the election. They can’t be bothered with things like, I don’t know, following up on warnings about psychotic freaks who get online and announce their plan to shoot up schools. Oh, and remember the 2008 economic collapse? I’m thinking you weren’t the one making bad bets with billions of dollars that brought it all tumbling down. By the way, guess how many people the feds tossed in the pokey for the 2008 meltdown that cost you and me a trillion bucks? One. Uno. A single dude.
If you lifted $50 of Coors Light from a 7-Eleven fridge, where would you be?
Our elite is a failure that is fixated on its own privilege and avoiding accountability. As my upcoming book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracywonders, is it too much to ask that our elite actually be elite? Is it too much to ask that we have one standard of accountability?
The liberals are right about something – privilege is destroying our country. But it’s not privilege based on what hellhole your great-great-great grandfather escaped from or the kind of biological plumbing you were born with. It is privilege based on your membership in a selfish, feckless, unaccomplished caste of schmucks that fancies itself our betters yet rejects, with the help of a complicit liberal press, any kind of accountability for the mess it’s made of everything.
You know why you got Trump? Because Donald Trump, with all his quirks, is exponentially more competent, capable, and trustworthy when it comes to running this country for the benefit of Normal Americans than the sorry collection of Ivy League-credentialed dimwits, progressive poohbahs, and Fredocon enablers that masquerades as America’s elite.
Pull their security clearances? Yeah, but that’s just a start. Strip them of all of the privileges they haven’t earned, then ship the whole useless bunch of them off to a desert island and see if they can survive eating their own smugness.
bblhead672
08-21-2018, 12:53
Retired military officers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) under Article 2 of the UCMJ, which extends the jurisdiction of military law to “Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.” “Retirees are subject to the UCMJ and may be tried by court-martial for violations … that occurred … while in a retired status.”
Article 88 of the UCMJ criminalizes “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State.”
Open Letter to Admiral Mcraven (http://usdefensewatch.com/2018/08/an-open-letter-to-admiral-william-mcraven/)
Do McRaven's public comments about POTUS rise to the level of court martial under the UCMJ? Or have we long passed the point of holding officers to a standard of behavior as outlined by the UCMJ?
Revoke my security clearance, too, Mr. President (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/revoke-my-security-clearance-too-mr-president/2018/08/16/8b149b02-a178-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1330bea481de)
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.
McRaven is a political sycophant. He is also a member of the anti-American sovereignty swamp stink-tank known as the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations). That tells me all I need to know about him. This was posted by Matt Bracken yesterday; and it should clear up any confusion.
https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2018/08/21/bracken-sends-171/
ProudGSMom
08-22-2018, 22:56
Can’t help myself, but every time I see his name, I think the capitalization is off. Shouldn’t it be, at least as far as his moral compass post-service is concerned,
Will I AmCraven?
Old Dog New Trick
11-19-2018, 10:39
McRaven is back in the news attacking POTUS Trump over recent remarks and events.
I hope that with all the smudge marks and black eyes NSW (namely SEALs) have some that won’t “buff out” will bring to light an Admiral complicit in rampant corruption and cover ups including murder and war crimes going all the way to President Obama.
McRaven should be lucky to retire in peace with all the shenanigans and mistakes SEALs have made since the beginning of GWOT/EF.
WarriorDiplomat
11-19-2018, 17:39
To us that served under the last administration his attitude is no surprise.....its commanders like ADM McRaven that the military is still stacked with these leaders are more than sycophants they are true blue leftist liberals.....most of them today think like McRaven a man who apparently lacked the judgement to see the evil in the Democrats policies but I can't give a SOCOM 4 star that pass he is too educated and too informed to not know how destructive they were.....the conclusion must be he is willing to allow the greatness of this country suffer for his own personal ambitions......Votel, Thomas and Milley are of the same ilk no doubt. How can one lead a military and defend the constitution and yet not know how molested she will be under Democrats and more importantly not realize that citizens also see their lack of faith.
Hyper conventional SEAL's and JSOC does not surprise why he is so one dimensional and straight forward in thinking and part of the reason the genius of UW fell to the wayside
McCraven knows the liberal mainstream media will come to his rescue.
I have no issue noting his support of Brennan, BHO and Clinton is a betrayal of the Armed Forces and the Constitution...a 4 star absolutely knows the Communism is the enemy of our republic......then again under leaders like him I can see how the SOF world became the whipping boy of the SJW's.
Trump is the best thing that happened to this country a mans man who rules with strength and fears nothing....BTW his intellect and strategic thinking is way beyond our military leaders his endorsement of Pelosi for speaker of the house is human chess 101 LOL....2 more years of her stupidity knowing how fractured the Dems are this is an amazing move.....ADM McRaven s so far over his intellectual head it isn't funny he can take his stupid "relative firepower" what a genius idea duh but we still prefer 3-1 fire superiority if available.....and go back to eating paint chips
Team Sergeant
11-19-2018, 20:50
Personally I think Adm. William McRaven is one reality show away from wearing women's clothing, cutting off his dick and moving in with bruce jenner.
Adm. William McRaven, nothing but a bottom-feeding left-wing shill.
(And when the military or any military association tells you its a bad idea to use your military creds in politics tell'em to fuck off. These O-7's 8's 9's etc have been playing politicians for decades.)
tom kelly
11-19-2018, 23:30
MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY, AT LEAST BRUCE JENNER WAS A OLYMPIC ATHELETE, The admiral was and is an average sailor....my opinion. tom kelly
rsdengler
11-20-2018, 05:59
Personally I think Adm. William McRaven is one reality show away from wearing women's clothing, cutting off his dick and moving in with bruce jenner.
Adm. William McRaven, nothing but a bottom-feeding left-wing shill.
(And when the military or any military association tells you its a bad idea to use your military creds in politics tell'em to fuck off. These O-7's 8's 9's etc have been playing politicians for decades.)
HaaaaaWaaaHaaa....LOL....too funny, yep you have to say it like it is......Adm. McRaven needs to stay retired; that means STFU and decide if those stilettos he bought will go with that sequined dress.....:D