Name:   copperline - Subject:   My thoughts on that Date:   9/8/2016 7:08:04 AM

Ex-military & civilian employees who were trained to keep close watch on their classified information seem uniformly alarmed at the extent to which political people in the government were discussing things using less-than-secure methods.   I get that.  There are lots of people who were told that if they mishandled sensitive information, there would be severe consequences, and those people are rightly shocked to find that in some quarters of the government the same topics are handled with less rigorous discipline. 

I think it was sloppy, and I can’t be sure if any real damage was done… except that the investigation of the FBI has concluded that there was not.   I also think that it won’t happen again, and that this will be one of those moments that will reinforce to all government employees… civilian & military… that constant scrutiny of this is imperative.   

On the other hand, I think things like condemning emails that acknowledge peripheral info about a drone program that is officially secret… but widely reported & discussed in public… is an example of making a mountain out of a molehill.     In this country, we have a military targeted assassination program that is both Top Secret and reported on the nightly news.      

I think you are going to have to admit that if investigations come down to a conclusion that it was sloppy but not criminal, we had better accept that finding.     Otherwise, you are going down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories wherein the FBI is colluding to elect Clinton, the defense department conspires against us all, the election is being rigged by nefarious forces, etc. etc.       It seems sometimes that the public is agreeing with every paranoid conspiracy theory that comes along rather than taking the time to separate the facts from the exaggerations.

As we approach this election, we had better weigh out very carefully what the flaws are in both candidates and project as best we can what their past actions say about their future decision making ability.     My thinking is that Clinton has been active in public affairs for so long, in so many ways, in such complex situations… that it is easy to find ways to criticize her at various points…. But these points are around the edges and don’t reveal anything other than she has lived & worked in the most complex decision making environment we can imagine.   Trump, on the other hand, voices supreme confidence in his intellect & judgement while making vague & completely contradictory statements about what he thinks and has said in the past.    He says he is crystal clear about what he would do, but has absolutely no track record for any decisions outside of the real estate & TV world.   Clinton has said she made errors in judgement… this indicates she can look at herself, accept when she has erred, and learn from mistakes.   Trump’s character type doesn’t allow for that.   He doesn’t admit mistakes, he doesn’t retract previous statements when he changes his mind.   He doesn’t even admit that he has changed his mind.   He holds himself to be above  such scrutiny and he is asking his supporters to invest more blind trust in him than you have ever put in a leader before. 

He says he wants to be unpredictable.   I don’t want a President who thinks this is a virtue.   We are not talking about real estate deals & TV ratings here. 

As I listen to him, I am shocked that ex-military or ex-government employees can have this much faith in him.   I thought people with direct experience in such things would be more cautious, more realistic, and place more importance on the quality of experience that prepares a candidate for the highest office in the nation.     Especially when I listen to his observations about the military & global strategic issues, I ask myself…. If I was in the military, would I really want to place my life & the lives of my men under this guy’s leadership?   What do you think about a guy who says he knows more than the Generals, that POW’s are losers and says he can ‘read the body language’ of CIA briefers to reach conclusions about their opinions of Presidential decisions?  

Really?      This guy?