3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Is this messed up or what? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/ For more than two years, the Navy’s intelligence chief has been stuck with a major handicap: He’s not allowed to know any secrets. Vice Adm. Ted “Twig” Branch has been barred from reading, seeing or hearing classified information since November 2013, when the Navy learned from the Justice Department that his name had surfaced in a giant corruption investigation involving a foreign defense contractor and scores of Navy personnel. Worried that Branch was on the verge of being indicted, Navy leaders suspended his access to classified materials. They did the same to one of his deputies, Rear Adm. Bruce F. Loveless, the Navy’s director of intelligence operations. More than 800 days later, neither Branch nor Loveless has been charged. But neither has been cleared, either. Their access to classified information remains blocked. Although the Navy transferred Loveless to a slightly less sensitive post, it kept Branch in charge of its intelligence division. That has resulted in an awkward arrangement, akin to sending a warship into battle with its skipper stuck onshore. [Epic Navy bribery scandal shows how easy it can be to steal military secrets] Branch can’t meet with other senior U.S. intelligence leaders to discuss sensitive operations, or hear updates from his staff about secret missions or projects. It can be a chore just to set foot in colleagues’ offices; in keeping with regulations, they must conduct a sweep beforehand to make sure any classified documents are locked up. Some critics have questioned how smart it is for the Navy to retain an intelligence chief with such limitations, for so long, especially at a time when the Pentagon is confronted by crises in the Middle East, the South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula and other hotspots. Read more at the link above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Big deal. Our next President would be denied a security clearance (or have an existing clearance revoked) if held to the same standards as active duty military, government workers, or civilian contractors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Big deal. Our next President would be denied a security clearance (or have an existing clearance revoked) if held to the same standards as active duty military, government workers, or civilian contractors. That's a libelous thing to write about President Sanders, you should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 That's a libelous thing to write about President Sanders, you should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 That's a libelous thing to write about President Sanders, you should be ashamed. Sanders didn't think Hillary's private server and circumventing law wasn't a big deal. Is that the type of judgement and wisdom we should hope for in a potential president of the United States? What do you think that says about the bern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2016 Author Share Posted January 30, 2016 Doesn't anyone here say wtf are we doing when the Chief of Naval Intelligence hasn't been able to receive any classified intelligence since 2013? Maybe he should be replaced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Doesn't anyone here say wtf are we doing when the Chief of Naval Intelligence hasn't been able to receive any classified intelligence since 2013? Maybe he should be replaced? Ya. Not good. There is something wrong there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Why are they called REAR admirals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Why are they called REAR admirals? Because in the days of sail, in the line of battle you typically had two squadrons in the line, each under command of an admiral. The senior would be in command of the fore squadron, and the junior in command of the rear. Thus, "rear admiral." (The admiral in command of the van was a "vice admiral," the entire line being in command of a full admiral.) Command responsibilities are different now, but that's where it comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Sanders didn't think Hillary's private server and circumventing law wasn't a big deal. Is that the type of judgement and wisdom we should hope for in a potential president of the United States? What do you think that says about the bern? To be fair, how many people really expect rational judgement from a candidate whose political career was based upon You have it We want it Give it to us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Because in the days of sail, in the line of battle you typically had two squadrons in the line, each under command of an admiral. The senior would be in command of the fore squadron, and the junior in command of the rear. Thus, "rear admiral." (The admiral in command of the van was a "vice admiral," the entire line being in command of a full admiral.) Command responsibilities are different now, but that's where it comes from. Not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Not true Then where does it come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2016 Author Share Posted January 30, 2016 Then where does it come from? Are you questioning gator's obviously superior knowledge as it pertains to military history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Are you questioning gator's obviously superior knowledge as it pertains to military history? Of course not. I'm just giving him a chance to make an ass of himself again. Where's Greg with an asshat meme when you need one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Not true This is exactly the pajama boy crap you typically pull. If something that he says seems inaccurate, why not point it out and/or ask for clarification? We all know that all you're going to do is pull some ridiculous statement out your ass, repeat it fifty or so times, then try to say that isn't what you meant in the first place. Don't you have anything better to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2016 Author Share Posted January 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Sanders didn't think Hillary's private server and circumventing law wasn't a big deal. Is that the type of judgement and wisdom we should hope for in a potential president of the United States? What do you think that says about the bern? Like Obama, Sanders has an agenda. It's not to tackle debt, grow the economy, resolve our borders and immigration issues or protect Americans. It's mostly to create new and expand existing entitlements . Elect him and we get 4-8 more years of Obama-like performance. He'll ignore the big existing problems that the Fed gov owns and be another one-trick pony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 This would make Gator happy if it were here.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422775/Swiss-government-proposes-paying-1-700-month-work-not-bid-end-poverty-insists-people-want-job.html#ixzz3ygCsHmm5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Then where does it come from? You got it partly right, but not full credit there dimwit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 You got it partly right, but not full credit there dimwit Then where does it come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts