I consider Payne Kilbourn's attempt to link Mitt Romney's refusal to release more tax records to the president not having a security clearance to be a stretch ["Guess who doesn't need a security clearance," Aug. 30].

For starters, Romney supplied 23 years of tax records when being vetted by the McCain campaign in 2008, so what's the big deal unless there's something there he doesn't want made public? There's an old saw in politics: If you don't have anything to hide, why are you hiding it?

Second, I received a top secret clearance for my work as a congressional staffer in 1989, so he does seem to understand that process. Thus, I applaud the point Kilbourn makes about the voters' judgment being the arbiter on such a matter--it is indeed a solemn responsibility.

Yet since he draws a distinction between Obama and Romney in this regard--with the implication that Obama couldn't get a clearance if a federal employee--I would simply ask if he had similar reservations about George W. Bush's DUI or Dick Cheney's two DUI arrests?

Pete Rose

Fredericksburg