Are you behind Trump, or McRaven?

Thanks for your comment Ken.

Just to illustrate the point. Trump exuberantly claimed the first pay raise in a decade. Later it was changed to highest pay raise in a decade, then it became the highest pay raise for 9 years. If the salaries increase by 2.6% and inflation is 1.9%, the inflation based pay raise is .7%. At least the pay raise will beat the predicted inflation rate.

Stay on point. McRaven is speaking up specifically regarding the weaponizing of security clearances to wall off possible witnesses from access to classified information - the "enemies list" who could testify in the ongoing Russian investigation - and the implications of revoking clearances on national security. McRaven is standing up for Brennan, the intelligence community and the principle of first amendment rights to dissent. McRaven is no fool and understands also the need, NEED, to maintain good relations with allies. When McRaven says that the US has been embarassed on the world stage, and that is obvious, watch any outside of the US news report - what kind of detachment do you have to have as a citizen to not even care?
You've been sucking up the Trump world alternate facts if you actually are believing that Trump is accomplishing anything but making the US divided, more chaotic and increasingly easy prey for its enemies.

To your point, I think that the security clearance issue is worth looking at. My thoughts are that Brennan and Clapper are going on TV saying they know something and that Trump is working with or at the direction of Russia. When pressed, there is no direct evidence they can provide, so the public makes the assumption that they have seen intelligence we haven't. However, I find it persuasive that in light of all the other things that have been learned and leaked, if the evidence of a true conspiracy existed we would know. I might be wrong, but I estimate the odds to be low. We'll see. Back to security clearances, Brennan and Clapper are in no way silenced, but they can't imply (or allow others to infer) that they have looked at recent intelligence. Will it chill the speech of people under a legal obligation not to share secrets? I hope so. They agreed to give up their freedom of speech in certain ways.

To SPC Laux's point, I am not surprised that you and I, with different life experiences, value and prioritize things differently. So maybe I'm not fooled by Trump world at all, and I've still come to a different opinion.

Matthew, thanks for your comment. How can you be behind two people who are so diametrically opposed?