posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by ikonoklast
I think it is always worth mentioning that such a process, "screening" was never weaker than it was during the cold war. Mind you, this was not by
any evil choice, but because of how narrowly the establishment came to characterize the 'criteria' required for 'honorable reliability.'
There were two cultures at play in the development of 'the process' and cannot be generalized as one in this case. The first was the military, long
familiar with examples of individual honor and reliability. And the second was it's commercial cousin; the military industrial complex. The military
industrial complex maneuvered diligently to seize any and all opportunity to become legitimate, empowered participants in the nation's defense...
making them indispensable and thus occupying a niche which was protected from many liabilities and afforded governmental support as a routine
One of the principle purposes of the exercise of 'screening' as practiced by the culture expressing itself as "military" was to ensure that those
candidates for especially critical duties were 'capable,' 'competent,' and beyond reasonable reproach. Once the military industrial complex got
involved, it became about the candidate being beyond reproach alone. Perhaps the paradigm shift was understood, but perhaps it went unnoticed, much
like the possibility of cross-generational blow back.
In the end, the veil of "national security" will relegate this episode to failings that end up too embarrassing to admit to at a later date. I wish
it were not so; but even those who research in this area know, eventually, the only people you can get 'facts' from package (fold, spindle, mutilate)
it up for your consumption... and coincidentally, the military industrial complex is on the spot there as well... they effectively control the media
as proxy to the 'government' ... or shall we call them the ruling political class, comrades? [/insert light-hearted chuckle]
edit on 9-5-2013
by Maxmars because: (no reason given)