Originally posted by neformore
Which is the bit I'm addressing.

Okay .. that's in a different post. I was looking at the opening post. The opening post gave me the impression this was a discussion about getting security clearances ... not that it is a campaign comercial or something ...

okay, I see what you are referencing. I was addressing the opening post.

The world accepted this when Bush was voted in. Its not a new thing.

No, it's not a new thing. But it SHOULD be 'a thing', don't ya' think?
Shouldn't the POTUS be someone who should be able to get a security clearance - and not just because they are elected?

See where I'm coming from? Its a dead argument.

NOW I see what you are saying.

But if you really want to get technical ... this ENTIRE BOARD is a dead argument. It's just chat and it doesn't change anything, anywhere, about anything.

Originally posted by neformore
Anyone who looks at it and says "this is reason not to vote for this guy" is being naive at best and grossly hypocritical at worst.

Anyone who looks at it and says 'this is a reason not to vote for this guy' is being SMART. The REALITY is that it won't make a difference because he'll be appointed a clearance anyways when he's elected (and yes, I think we'll be stuck with him as POTUS). But NOTICING it and understanding the significance of it makes the person smart.

Obama. Kerry. Bush43. Even John Kennedy. (the list goes on). NONE of them should have clearances. Heck.... Kerry and Bush should probably be in jail.

Just a few reasons for NO CLEARANCE -

Kennedy - Drug addiction. Mob ties. Questionable international ties.

Kerry - 'winter soldier'. Lies under oath to congress. Unauthorized meetings and negotiations with the enemy during war time in France.

Bush - Alcoholism (recovering or not, it's still a reason not to give it). Questionable international ties. Here's the biggie - friends with the Hinkleys - the fella' that shot Reagan!!!

Obama - Past drug addiction. Mob ties. Long time friends and associates who are convicted criminals (Rezko for one). Questionable international travel. TRi-COUNTRY citizenship USA/Kenya/Indonesia. Close family members as well as other family members living overseas in Kenya. At least one cousin is a radical islamic extremist. Documented lies about those family members and his associations. Close personal long-term ties with people (Wright and Farrakhan) who travel to Lybia and meet with Kaddafi.

Addressing the OPENING POST .... if any one of us walked into the NSA/FBI/CIA and had any of these things in our background, they'd walk us out the door and tell us to go try McDonalds down the road for employment.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Anyone who looks at it and says 'this is a reason not to vote for this guy' is being SMART.

Yes. I see. Your saying that a large amount of the past presidents and all of the current candidates are not worth voting for.

So you think it should be a "none of the above" protest vote then?

Close family members as well as other family members living overseas in Kenya.

This one kinda puzzled me. FF. I work with a guy who has close family members living overseas in Kenya. Is there something I should know about Kenyans?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obama - Past drug addiction.

.... if any one of us walked into the NSA/FBI/CIA and had any of these things in our background, they'd walk us out the door and tell us to go try McDonalds down the road for employment.

ya, you couldn't be farther from the truth on this one.

Originally posted by scientist
ya, you couldn't be farther from the truth on this one.

really???
usually we require you to provide truth with these type of bold statements.

Originally posted by neformore
So you think it should be a "none of the above" protest vote then?

I'm starting to think so. Soooooooo many of these bozos couldn't get a security clearance in real life, but then they get elected and therefore it's handed to them .... something is wrong there.

Is there something I should know about Kenyans?

No. Not that I know of.

(a looooong time ago) When I worked in the defense industry (I'll U2U ya' with more details if you wish), I worked in corporate security. We processed security clearances. We had to take prints, do some leg work, interview people .. that kind of thing (among other stuff). If someone had relatives living overseas it was of special interest. If someone had multiple relatives living overseas it became more of a special interest. If someone had relatives living oveseas that were known 'radical islamic extremists' (at least one of Obama's cousins is one - and admits it) .... that would definately cause a red flag.

A person wanting a clearance wouldn't want too many 'special interest' items to come up on their application. Split loyalties would come in question. That sort of thing.

Same with duel citizenships - let alone Obama's tri-citizenship.

Originally posted by scientist
ya, you couldn't be farther from the truth on this one.

I'm telling you from my own experience processing these things.
If someone was a drug addict then it got noted on the information.
That very well could hamper someone from getting a clearance.

That was how it was done in the 1980s. It could be different now,
but that's what happened back then.

ANYTHING in your background that could be used for blackmail or could be preyed upon by agents would be a red flag and could hamper you getting a clearance (and rightfully so). Even visits to shrinks were considered special attention items.

I stopped reading half way through this thread. ( Didn't see anyone post what I was thinking anyway )

Okay. So first off ... someone was whining that another poster called Obama President and said the topic was about "Mr. Obama" - lets clear that up as well - its Senator ... he is still considered a senator. ( For whatever that is worth )

Now, as for security clearances. Wouldn't one think that as a senator and sitting on some interesting committees, he'd have SOME clearance ( such as Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committee )

You'd think as senator, he's been cleared by something because of information that may cross his desk at some point in his career?

That doesn't really answer my questions though. He could be a new senator or a Ted Kennedy, he has security clearances, does he not?

The whole argument I was reading was that he couldn't, wouldn't, never in a million years, get clearance. I was attempting to point out that as a senator in general - he has some form of clearances, and from the sounds of at least 2 of his committees, probably some powerful clearances.

So, becoming President, he'd get a trip to the top of the clearance elevator. All I was trying to point out is ( and you mentioned ) is he's a junior senator ( means he's been there a little while ) and has to have some clearance already.

It just seems kinda silly that one could have access to National Security knowledge, but then be denied other "secrets" because of his past.

The President is a political figurehead of the citizens of the country nothing more. He doesn't "run" the country. He is just a mouth piece for those who do.
I have read posts here that dumped on the Bush's and on the Clinton's,one party against another.
They are all in on it.Heck,Barbara Bush said,"I consider him (Bill Clinton) one of my sons."
Are you all that blind? The only reason Obama has gotten as far as he has, is because those in power(which is totally different than those in charge) have allowed him too. He has not been elected yet.
The important thing is look at who the Vice-President nominees will be after tomorrow. Biden has been bought off by all the corporations that are incorporated in Delaware (all most all of the U.S company's were).
McCain is already in their pocket.
Either one of them will only have access to "need to know information" anyway.
By the way, what the heck is the difference between a security detail assigned to protect a person,and a guard detail assigned to keep a person from escaping?The direction their guns are pointed when the bullets begin flying.