“You quickly stepped back from and caveat-ed your original statement, didnt you? Why not just admit your mistake”
I was speaking in a certain context of higher federal appointees, I really didn’t think anyone was stupid enough to think I meant every mailman and park ranger needs a security clearance. The only “mistake” I made was underestimating how many nitpickers are around here.
“A director of CDC may need one, or maybe not.”
Definitely needs one. The department deals with biowarfare-related threats, of course the director needs a security clearance.
“Obama had many positions that required clearances filled with people who couldnt complete a background check.”
Yes, and so did Bill Clinton, but that is irrelevant. The President can choose to order his subordinate agencies to override the typical clearance requirements for his appointees that don’t qualify, but if Trump is revoking someone’s clearance, he certainly isn’t going to do that, and he is the only person who could do that.
Wow, so I correct your clearly incorrect statement (which may have been an innocent slip on your part), and you call me stupid? Not much humble, huh?