ADVERTISEMENT

Former CIA Chief Michael Morell Endorses Hillary Clinton

DrHoops

DrHoops

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Sep 7, 2001
21,921
6,963
113
In what I think is a powerful New York Times op-ed, former C.I.A. Chief, 33 year CIA veteran, and someone who was at George W. Bush's side on 9-11 and at President Obama's side when Osama Bin Laden was killed, strongly endorses Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

He has never been a registerred Republican or Democrat and has never endorsed a candidate until now:

"Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security."

"Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria."

"I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, 'Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.'"

I don't see how there is any choice for a rational voter in this election. Hillary is a great candidate. Experienced and ready to lead. Also...Morell doesn't seem so worried about the email issue (that's for our resident classified document "expert", Aloha ;)).
 
Last edited:
This is not really debatable, and certainly all signs point to a landslide election. Most recent poll out today has Hillary up 15 points nationally, with only 33% supporting Trump.
 
Still, don't you find it disturbing that 1 out of 3 people walking the streets of America would vote for that guy?

twenty02 said:
This is not really debatable, and certainly all signs point to a landslide election. Most recent poll out today has Hillary up 15 points nationally, with only 33% supporting Trump.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa and meridian
Mike Morell's backing of anyone comes as a surprise given his CIA background and supposed impartiality regarding politics.

On the other hand, the Republican Congressional investigations surrounding Benghazi were very critical of Morell's testimony concerning the video talking points following the terrorist attack in Benghazi. This criticism may have pushed him toward Hillary as Morell contended the Obama administration didn't pressure the CIA or FBI into at least partially blaming a video as these agencies gathered facts and presented reports.

Personally, given a choice between Morell's account of the talking point presentation after the attack and say Senate Investigation Chair Trey Gowdy's thinking, I go with Morell's recollections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
DrHoops said:
Still, don't you find it disturbing that 1 out of 3 people walking the streets of America would vote for that guy?
Click to expand...

I'd guess that if The Donald was running as a Democrat he'd have similar support from that side. Every party has their idiots.
 
That's right. The Benghazi!!! investigation has been a farce since day one. It's just so....beyond stupid.

hoot1 said:
Mike Morell's backing of anyone comes as a surprise given his CIA background and supposed impartiality regarding politics.

On the other hand, the Republican Congressional investigations surrounding Benghazi were very critical of Morell's testimony concerning the video talking points following the terrorist attack in Benghazi. This criticism may have pushed him toward Hillary as Morell contended the Obama administration didn't pressure the CIA or FBI into at least partially blaming a video as these agencies gathered facts and presented reports.

Personally, given a choice between Morell's account of the talking point presentation after the attack and say Senate Investigation Chair Trey Gowdy's thinking, I go with Morell's recollections.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, but those idiots don't make it to the top of the Democratic Party's ticket. He is the Republican's "leader", like it or not. When looking at ALL of the Republicans running for POTUS, they chose The Donald. End of story.

Hank Reardon said:
I'd guess that if The Donald was running as a Democrat he'd have similar support from that side. Every party has their idiots.
Click to expand...
 
James Fallows:

I first met Michael Morell more than 25 years ago, when he was a young economic analyst for the CIA and I had returned from several years in Japan. It was at an unclassified meeting about economic trends in Asia.

. . . I met him occasionally since then and watched and admired his progress through the years, which led to his twice becoming acting director of the agency. I liked him and respected his coolly analytical dispassion, in comparison with which Barack Obama would seem a hothead. If Morell had partisan views of any sort, I never heard them. His book The Great War of Our Time is respectful (and respectfully critical) of the two presidents with whom he worked most directly, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Thus for Morell to write, as he does in the New York Times this morning, that he will vote for Hillary Clinton and “do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president,” is more notable than you might think. Career CIA analysts have their preferences, like anyone else. They don’t routinely make this sort of public endorsement.

The details of Morell’s case for Clinton, and against Trump, are also more interesting than you might expect. This part of Morell’s description of Donald Trump’s liabilities sounds familiar, though again it’s unusual considering its source:

These [harmful] traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.​

But it builds toward this, which again from a CIA veteran has a particular edge:

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated….

Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
​
That is: Trump, the self-proclaimed best negotiator of all time, has been flattered and conned by a genuine pro.
​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411, DrHoops, dahldc and 2 others
DrHoops said:
In what I think is a powerful New York Times op-ed, former C.I.A. Chief, 33 year CIA veteran, and someone who was at George W. Bush's side on 9-11 and at President Obama's side when Osama Bin Laden was killed, strongly endorses Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

He has never been a registerred Republican or Democrat and has never endorsed a candidate until now:

"Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security."

"Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria."

"I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, 'Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.'"

I don't see how there is any choice for a rational voter in this election. Hillary is a great candidate. Experienced and ready to lead. Also...Morell doesn't seem so worried about the email issue (that's for our resident classified document "expert", Aloha ;)).
Click to expand...

War monger endorses war criminal. You mean like the aggressive action we took in Iraq + Libya advocated by HRC? Having thousands of boots on the ground in Syriawould have done nothing except cost us lives + $. ISIS issue would probably be worse. she never learns. That would have been an iraq all over again and probably worse.
 
Last edited:
Hank Reardon said:
I'd guess that if The Donald was running as a Democrat he'd have similar support from that side. Every party has their idiots.
Click to expand...
The Dems had their Trump: The Bern. Ran on the same demagoguery about foreign trade and sucked in the same type of gullible voters to his "voodoo economics." What's deeply ironic about that is that so many very intelligent liberals, at least ones I know, fell for The Bern's voodoo hook, line and sinker. So it's not just about stoopid, it's also gullible and uninformed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morrison and TheSpa
iuwclurker1 said:
The Dems had their Trump: The Bern. Ran on the same demagoguery about foreign trade and sucked in the same type of gullible voters to his "voodoo economics." What's deeply ironic about that is that so many very intelligent liberals, at least ones I know, fell for The Bern's voodoo hook, line and sinker. So it's not just about stoopid, it's also gullible and uninformed.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's utter bullshit. A lot of people are completely fed up with politicians miraculously becoming multi-millionaires after being elected. The so-called "public servants".
 
  • Like
Reactions: HillzHoozier
toastedbread said:
Sorry but that's utter bullshit. A lot of people are completely fed up with politicians miraculously becoming multi-millionaires after being elected. The so-called "public servants".
Click to expand...
I can name several hard-core liberals with long connections to IUB, who felt the Bern, but had no clue that several liberal economists had called Bernie's economic plans voodoo economics.

So tell me, Mr. #InfuriatedWithTheEntireWorld, what's utter bullshit?
 
toastedbread said:
Sorry but that's utter bullshit. A lot of people are completely fed up with politicians miraculously becoming multi-millionaires after being elected. The so-called "public servants".
Click to expand...

What's bullshit about? Bernie had vague fantasy land proposals, that were only enclipsed by Trumps even vaguer fantasy land ideas.

They both ran hard against TPP, as populist heroes playing to people's ignorances.
 
twenty02 said:
What's bullshit about? Bernie had vague fantasy land proposals, that were only enclipsed by Trumps even vaguer fantasy land ideas.

They both ran hard against TPP, as populist heroes playing to people's ignorances.
Click to expand...
I disagreed with Bernie on TPP, but he didn't just have vague ideas. He had specific proposals. They were just semi-radical proposals.
 
DrHoops said:
In what I think is a powerful New York Times op-ed, former C.I.A. Chief, 33 year CIA veteran, and someone who was at George W. Bush's side on 9-11 and at President Obama's side when Osama Bin Laden was killed, strongly endorses Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

He has never been a registerred Republican or Democrat and has never endorsed a candidate until now:

"Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security."

"Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria."

"I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, 'Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.'"

I don't see how there is any choice for a rational voter in this election. Hillary is a great candidate. Experienced and ready to lead. Also...Morell doesn't seem so worried about the email issue (that's for our resident classified document "expert", Aloha ;)).
Click to expand...
He's the guy who came up with the ridiculous explanation that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video. He's a Clinton insider who stands to benefit financially if she wins.

More of the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUSUMMERS
IU1 said:
He's the guy who came up with the ridiculous explanation that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to a youtube video. He's a Clinton insider who stands to benefit financially if she wins.

More of the same.
Click to expand...

Morell is the guy who was a long term analyst for the CIA and as Deputy Director reviewed events at Benghazi and helped develop the Obama administration early response. A response which Susan Rice gave on the Sunday talk shows. A response which upon further review by all concerned including the CIA and FBI later downplayed the video and faced up to the facts it was an organized terrorist attack and not a spontaneous reaction to a video.

A video, by the way, which did cause violent reactions in other locales so the initial response wasn't totally implausible.
 
hoot1 said:
A response which upon further review by all concerned including the CIA and FBI later downplayed the video and faced up to the facts it was an organized terrorist attack and not a spontaneous reaction to a video.
Click to expand...
This drives me crazy.

Yes, there was no protest. There was only an attack. But this tells us nothing about what motivated the attack. It could have been "an organized terrorist attack" in response to the video. And given the abundance of heavy arms in Libya, there was plenty of time for it to have been "planned" after the video broke.

The conclusion that this was "an organized terrorist attack" tells us nothing about what motivated the attackers. The argument you're making isn't right. It's not even wrong. It's a logically incoherent non sequitur.

But it's not only logically incoherent, it's also factually false. As I've posted countless times, the New York Times sent people to Benghazi in a months-long deep dive into the Benghazi story. Among many other things, the Times interviewed people who witnessed and even participated in the attacks. Guess what those people said? [Spoiler: They said the attacks were motivated by the video.]

Now, I don't pretend to know what was subjectively in the minds of the Benghazi attackers. I'm not a mind reader. But there's authoritative reporting on what actually motivated the attackers, and that can't be waved away with woolly illogic. Why is this still a thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Your inaccurate use of the term, obviously.
Click to expand...
My bad. It was merely Paul Krugman who wrote (my emphasis), "The point is not that all of this is impossible, but it's very unlikely -- and these are numbers we would describe as deep voodoo if they came from a tax-cutting Republican."

The liberal economists who I was referring preferred the term fantastical (my emphasis):

For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims.​

and:

We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.

As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.
​
Clearly they weren't just "semi-radical proposals" -- their advocacy by Bernie had the potential to undermine actual forward progress by painting Democrats as fanciful as Republicans. That's what you voted for, perhaps obliviously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twenty02
iuwclurker1 said:
My bad. It was merely Paul Krugman who wrote (my emphasis), "The point is not that all of this is impossible, but it's very unlikely -- and these are numbers we would describe as deep voodoo if they came from a tax-cutting Republican."

The liberal economists who I was referring preferred the term fantastical (my emphasis):

For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims.​

and:

We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.

As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.
​
Clearly they weren't just "semi-radical proposals" -- their advocacy by Bernie had the potential to undermine actual forward progress by painting Democrats as fanciful as Republicans. That's what you voted for, perhaps obliviously.
Click to expand...
I can't stop you from being stupid, but please note that I was specifically responding to Twenty's claim his proposals were "vague."
 
Exactly! I don't get why these FACTS are so hard for people to understand.

To IU1, anyone who provides FACTS contradicting his predetermined OPINION is a "Clinton insider".

hoot1 said:
Morell is the guy who was a long term analyst for the CIA and as Deputy Director reviewed events at Benghazi and helped develop the Obama administration early response. A response which Susan Rice gave on the Sunday talk shows. A response which upon further review by all concerned including the CIA and FBI later downplayed the video and faced up to the facts it was an organized terrorist attack and not a spontaneous reaction to a video.

A video, by the way, which did cause violent reactions in other locales so the initial response wasn't totally implausible.
Click to expand...
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
I can't stop you from being stupid, but please note that I was specifically responding to Twenty's claim his proposals were "vague."
Click to expand...
Good for you. I responded to your assertion that:
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
They were just semi-radical proposals.
Click to expand...
Then you went off on a bender.

At this point, Goatly, I need to borrow from the venerable Rockfish1 and respond to your "I can't stop you from being stupid." You're really not good at this.

You really ought to take Sope's advice.
 
iuwclurker1 said:
Good for you. I responded to your assertion that:Then you went off on a bender.

At this point, Goatly, I need to borrow from the venerable Rockfish1 and respond to your "I can't stop you from being stupid." You're really not good at this.

You really ought to take Sope's advice.
Click to expand...
And you really need to stop thinking you're smarter than you really are.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
And you really need to stop thinking you're smarter than you really are.
Click to expand...
You're still not good at it.

Goatly, I don't need to be or think I am smarter than I am. I'm playing a win-win game. I can still win if everyone in the world is smarter than I am. I wish they were frankly.

Don't blame me if your chosen profession is win-lose at its most essential core. Do blame yourself, though, if you choose to let your profession rule your behavior.
 
iuwclurker1 said:
My bad. It was merely Paul Krugman who wrote (my emphasis), "The point is not that all of this is impossible, but it's very unlikely -- and these are numbers we would describe as deep voodoo if they came from a tax-cutting Republican."

The liberal economists who I was referring preferred the term fantastical (my emphasis):

For many years, we have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy. When Republicans have proposed large tax cuts for the wealthy and asserted that those tax cuts would pay for themselves, for example, we have shown that the economic facts do not support these fantastical claims.​

and:

We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.

As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.
​
Clearly they weren't just "semi-radical proposals" -- their advocacy by Bernie had the potential to undermine actual forward progress by painting Democrats as fanciful as Republicans. That's what you voted for, perhaps obliviously.
Click to expand...
Speaking as one who cited those "liberal" economists at the time in my own complaints about Sanders' numbers, the problem wasn't the substance of the policy. The problem was the Sanders campaign's lousy argument for the policy.

There are good arguments for Sanders' policies that don't rely on the sort of pie-in-the-sky delusions that support every single Republican candidate's tax plans. Yes, Sanders' policies would cost quite a lot more than his economist estimated. But take universal health care as an illustrative example: Taxes would go up, but out-of-pockets would come down, and the whole thing would certainly be less expensive than what we have now.

The real problem from my perspective wasn't that Sanders' policies were crazy. The real problem was that, despite his appeal to immature Bernie Bros, Sanders is a lousy messenger for his ideas -- at least among the wonky sorts who actually care about them. He hasn't thought this stuff through and doesn't have any actual plans to make it happen. For that you need an uninspiring grind like Hillary Clinton. But I hope the Sanders message is somewhere in the heart of what will be the Democratic Party. There's nothing crazy (for example) about extending standard public education another four years.

"Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards." -- Max Weber​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zizkov and TheOriginalHappyGoat
Rockfish1 said:
Speaking as one who cited those "liberal" economists at the time in my own complaints about Sanders' numbers, the problem wasn't the substance of the policy. The problem was the Sanders campaign's lousy argument for the policy.

There are good arguments for Sanders' policies that don't rely on the sort of pie-in-the-sky delusions that support every single Republican candidate's tax plans. Yes, Sanders' policies would cost quite a lot more than his economist estimated. But take universal health care as an illustrative example: Taxes would go up, but out-of-pockets would come down, and the whole thing would certainly be less expensive than what we have now.

The real problem from my perspective wasn't that Sanders' policies were crazy. The real problem was that, despite his appeal to immature Bernie Bros, Sanders is a lousy messenger for his ideas -- at least among the wonky sorts who actually care about them. He hasn't thought this stuff through and doesn't have any actual plans to make it happen. For that you need an uninspiring grind like Hillary Clinton. But I hope the Sanders message is somewhere in the heart of what will be the Democratic Party. There's nothing crazy (for example) about extending standard public education another four years.

"Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards." -- Max Weber​
Click to expand...
Considering your reputation as an ornery ass, I'm constantly amazed by the moderated responses you can send at this total putz. Reminds me I need to try to do better.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Considering your reputation as an ornery ass, I'm constantly amazed by the moderated responses you can send at this total putz. Reminds me I need to try to do better.
Click to expand...
On the topic of thinking you're smarter than you are, Goatlock, I'll leave myself out of it and opine that despite your well-cultivated point of view and your studious bent you definitely don't rank in the top ten regulars here. In terms of ability to present an argument, I doubt you're in the top twenty.

Oh and by the, on your assertion that Bernie's proposals weren't vague, did you note what Rock said?
Rockfish1 said:
He hasn't thought this stuff through and doesn't have any actual plans to make it happen.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a pretty good definition of vague to me.

Now go back to your bottle and cuddle.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Considering your reputation as an ornery ass, I'm constantly amazed by the moderated responses you can send at this total putz. Reminds me I need to try to do better.
Click to expand...
On this board and in these days, few can better the Dude.

Man: How have things been going?
Dude: Oh, you know, strikes and gutters, ups and downs.
​
I'm rooting for the Little Lebowski Urban Achievers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
Rockfish1 said:
Subsequent data reveal that I was a dumbass to make the effort.
Click to expand...
I'm actually shifting him into my IGW/MTIOTF category. I'm starting to just skip over his posts without even reading them. When I do bother to read them, well, you see what happens.

Also, I appreciate your proper use of "data" as a plural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B

Pence: I "cannot in good conscience" endorse Trump

Replies
263
Views
4K
The Water Cooler
Mas-sa-suta
Mas-sa-suta
B

Retired generals, admirals and top civilian defense officials say "No!" to presidential immunity

Replies
7
Views
555
The Water Cooler
Bowlmania
B
C

Meanwhile in the MAL documents case...

Replies
6
Views
316
The Water Cooler
UncleMark
U
C

Very interesting arrest in Ukraine...

Replies
6
Views
420
The Water Cooler
cosmickid
C
Hoopsdoc1978

Make your choice.

Replies
39
Views
1K
The Water Cooler
IUCrazy2
I
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back