on here. Because I like others too and he, like anyone, has his areas where he could improve/is improving.

But come on lol. This is probably the most histrionic way one could interpret what he shared.

My main issue with this McKinsey nonsense (and the smears in general, really) is the far-left doesn't hold other candidates (including their own) to the same standard.

Tbh with you, after reading his description of that defense assignment the things that come to mind for me are:

1. He enlisted and started training with the Navy in 2007... so maybe by 2009, given his training with Navy intelligence, he attained a clearance level (eg. TS/SCI) that short-listed him as eligible to even staff a project like that. Not newsorthy.

2. Reconstruction, stabilization, technical assistance etc are pretty standard efforts in conflict/post-conflict zones, no? Tbh t's probably a "good" thing the gov incorporates such efforts in its military engagements as opposed to.. whatever the military version of a pump and dump is. Yall can't possibly hold a low-level contracted analyst responsible for US foreign policy.

3. Personally, I actually think it's kind of good that a pres candidate's military experience has focused on stabilization/reconstruction and intel work, as opposed to combat. This is exposure more appropriate for a 21st century Commander in Chief imho, given the age of hybrid-warfare and what not. Particularly a candidate also calling for withdrawing ground troops over there and restructuring defense priorities.(eg. focusing less on combat and more on things like AI, critical infrastructure protection and human capital; housing the climate portfolio under defense... which the left probably scoffs at but I think is a super smart strategy to ensure bipartisan support in Congress, etc).

So ya. I don't share the far-left's paranoia.. and if he was up to anything horrible, it was funded by the gov so take it up with them.