Could the Candidates Pass a Security Clearance Background Check?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
October 17, 2008 4:52pm CST
I remember way back when, filling out the forms and doing the interviews for a security clearance in the army. I also remember how long some of my buddies in the Army had to wait for their clearances to come through.
I look at some of the people running for office, and some of the people who have served in elected offices and wonder why they don't have to pass the same security scrutiny?
Presidents, Senators, House Members and others automatically get the level security clearance required for them to fulfill their duties. How logical (or even safe) is it that an army private working towards an intelligence, communications or other Military Occupational Specialty field has to pass an extremely rigorous background check, but a person hoping for an elected office doesn't?
It stands to reason that the elected official will be exposed to much more sensitive information, and more importantly, have the power to do something with it than an 18 year old private.
With what we do know about Obama, he would never pass. Clinton would have sent an investigator into hysterical laughter for even applying. McCain once qualified under the same background investigation other Naval Officers in his positions would have gone through, but I have to wonder if Sen. McCain could pass the same muster.
I can think of a few ways requiring the same background check could be abused by the powers that be in Washington. I mean, how hard would it be to "find" enough objections to disqualify a candidate. So I can see why mandating it wouldn't be the best of ideas... but how do we justify requiring it of a lowly private but not of the people who have the White House as their goal?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
17 Oct 08
To answer your last question first....because this country was built on the premise that an ordinary citizen can become a leader in this country. Setting security requirements would leave a door open for abuse. If a candidate is a true security risk for one reason or another I have faith that the press will dig up the information and spread it worldwide.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Oct 08
Clinton accepted millions in donations from China. He also authorized the sell of sensitive information and equipment to China. What bigger example of security violations and risk could there be?
The Obama Campaign may have donated almost a million dollars to Raila Odinga, a Socialist who lost a bid for election in Kenya. Which would only be telling rather than a security violation, but Raila Odinga went on a killing spree after the election.
Keep in mind that rumors are rampant about Obama, and this one has some pretty good evidence of being true, but is far from a proven fact. But if the press would look into Obama as heavily as they looked into Palin or even Joe the Plumber, the facts (one way or the other) would be known.
McCain also would have some answering to do, like why he has blocked every effort to solve the POW/MIA problem.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Oct 08
btw, the argument that "ordinary citizens can become leader" isn't a very good reason, since it is those very "ordinary citizens" who are put through the rigorous background checks.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
18 Oct 08
I don't agree that the press hasn't looked into Obama with the same intensity as they have with Palin and good ole Joe. Ok, upon second thought, the press was all over Palin when it came out that her own legislature was investigating her abuse of power and ethics violations but, had it been Obama or even McCain, they would have reacted the same because those are serious allegations. I am confident that the media in this country is so biased on one side or the other that no one side is able to cover up anything in this election.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
18 Oct 08
How about each candidate has to go through the background check and no matter how it turns out is allowed to run? Instead of disqualifying anyone, all background checks are made public for the voters.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
18 Oct 08
What I like is that supporters of any particular candidate would not be disagreeing with some newpaper or tabloid that was easy to discredit, but the FBI or some such agency.
I told numerous people about Bill Clinton. Many just discredited my sources. An official background check by the government would carry much more weight.
@gwoman2 (710)
• United States
18 Oct 08
Hi ParaTed2k, must give credit where credit is due--you my friend write a really interesting article or disucssion and a very controversial one at that--Kudos to you:-)
I must admit that a few weeks ago I saw a video on Ytube that made me say, whoa, that's scary. The video was comparing Obama to Hitler--it was disturbing to say the least...so I did a bit of investigating and found that I was able to erase the fear...I thank you though, because knowledge is power and learning is neverending...so I'm off to another investigation!
On Obama "not passing a background check, on what do you base your comment?
And on the background checks for our soldiers or any military entity, I think it should be so...because these are the people that are more close, (they are right there) to the dangers and therefore have a greater chance or opportunity of communicating with other entities that we, as civilians would know nothing about. So yeah, they should be rigorously checked.
I do agree with you on officials being checked as well...something to think about and research:-)
Thanks for the post.
~G~
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Oct 08
One of the things that can (but not definitely) disqualify a person for a security clearance is their associations, relatives and friends. Back during the Cold War, I had a friend whose background check took over a year because he had a grandmother living in an iron curtain country.
Obama may be willing to throw Rev. Wright, Ayers and his Father under the bus to get to the White House, but if I had anywhere near the same associations back when my background check was done, I wouldn't have been approved at all.
Another point for many candidates is, most things may extend the wait so they could investigate further, but for most things, if you are up front and answer all the questions honestly, it usually made the difference between getting the clearance and not getting it.
Obama, and many other politicians didn't bring up there more notorious details until they were exposed... often lying about them even afterwards. The lie after the expose would be enough to disqualify most people.
The whole thing stinks of elitism.
