"I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton."

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
When you get away with generalized proclamations that "she's a career politician" and "she lies all the time!" and hear from people who've actually worked with her, the picture painted of Ms. Clinton is a rather positive one. This below from a career intelligence officer who's seen Clinton in sensitive situations.

New York Times - I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.

During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.

No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.

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.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.

I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.

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.”

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

These 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.

The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.

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. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. 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.

Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism is a war between religions.

In fact, many Muslim Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most responsible for keeping America safe since the Sept. 11 attacks.

My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.

Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caminetto

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
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.

ummm unsecured email server.... and selling weapons purchase approvals to whoever makes a nice donation to the Clinton foundation? What exactly are those qualifications this guy speaks of? Has he not heard about Libya or Ukraine for that matter?

I could go on but not in the mood to deal with the hildabeast ass lickers today.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
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.

ummm unsecured email server.... and selling weapons purchase approvals to whoever makes a nice donation to the Clinton foundation? What exactly are those qualifications this guy speaks of? Has he not heard about Libya or Ukraine for that matter?

I could go on but not in the mood to deal with the hildabeast ass lickers today.


Whats the alternative?
 

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,755
23
81
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.

ummm unsecured email server.... and selling weapons purchase approvals to whoever makes a nice donation to the Clinton foundation? What exactly are those qualifications this guy speaks of? Has he not heard about Libya or Ukraine for that matter?

I could go on but not in the mood to deal with the hildabeast ass lickers today.


Rest assured that they have access to far more data than you could ever dream of about all events that you know about and all those that you don't.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,987
33,689
136
In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

These 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.

The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.

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. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. 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.

Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism is a war between religions.

Wow. I knew this stuff already but really damning coming from someone at this high a level
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,824
1,583
136
You buried the headline of this. "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,031
2,886
136
It is obvious that Hillary is a person, and not a perfect one at that. And in this narrative we get no true sense of her as an individual with complexity that must exist. Similarly, it is obvious that Trump is a person, and not an Antichrist at that. And in this narrative we get no true sense of him as an individual with complexity that must exist.

I am concerned that he chooses to present his feelings about Hillary without tying them to his feelings about Trump. On some levels, this presents a logical contrast which is helpful. Unfortunately, it provides an emotional contrast which I cannot know if I trust. It is all too convenient to split these two figures, so that the negatives of Hillary can be easily projected to Trump and that the positives of Trump can be similarly projected to Hillary.

I do not distrust this man's expertise, nor do I disagree with which of these two he would choose. Beyond this, I see nothing informative of either Hillary or Trump. I merely see the defense used for a conflict posed to Mr. Morell. And either it is a massive conflict, he is limited in his tools to handle it, or some combination of both.

Wish I could hear him talk about Hillary and just Hillary.
 

Joepublic2

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2005
1,097
6
76
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.

ummm unsecured email server.... and selling weapons purchase approvals to whoever makes a nice donation to the Clinton foundation? What exactly are those qualifications this guy speaks of? Has he not heard about Libya or Ukraine for that matter?

I could go on but not in the mood to deal with the hildabeast ass lickers today.

We have one candidate that's a corrupt plutocrat who likely wants to disarm me and one candidate that's a crooked, emotionally thin skinned man-child who's making noise about tossing around nukes for fuck's sake. I'd say the latter is a greater threat to my security and the security of the nation and world in general. I'm seriously considering buying some land in the middle of nowhere and building a fallout shelter if he gets elected. I mean, what the fuck is he thinking (probably more like not thinking, I guess).
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,492
10,768
136
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.
Two Neocons sitting in a tree...

The guy is wishfully thinking we had followed through on more regime change. And he throws his support behind the person who will deliver that.
If you liked the Iraq war, vote Hillary Clinton. Atta boy Mr. Morell. You know who carries the Bush legacy in this election.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,983
6,809
126
Here is to dreaming that some chinese space junk crashes through the ceiling onto the stage at the first Clinton/Trump debate.

Perhaps it would be better to awaken to the utter futility of your rage and to cease longing for others to suffer for it. All that do will be innocent victims themselves. The one you hate the most and care the least about is yourself. You are working hard to be at the top of the heap of people who feel as worthless as you do. Relax, we are all just like you. Shit, I got so angry I killed God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caminetto

DrunkenSano

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2008
3,892
490
126
Here is to dreaming that some chinese space junk crashes through the ceiling onto the stage at the first Clinton/Trump debate.

It certainly would be a great boon to this country if something happened to both Clinton and Trump before the election. We are facing a lose/lose here in a very bad way.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
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.

ummm unsecured email server.... and selling weapons purchase approvals to whoever makes a nice donation to the Clinton foundation? What exactly are those qualifications this guy speaks of? Has he not heard about Libya or Ukraine for that matter?

I could go on but not in the mood to deal with the hildabeast ass lickers today.

All consuming Hillary hate, huh?

How many times do you need to be told that weapons sales need to be approved by plethora of federal agencies including the DoD?

The way she handled her email was a poor choice but do you really think she hasn't learned from that? Can you demonstrate real harm?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
16,152
8,749
136
I can see where Hillary hate is directly proportional to how worse the Repub candidate is that's running against her. With that in mind, it's perfectly logical why Hillary has been so vociferously maligned, given the (lack of) qualifications of the guy she's up against.

Like I said before, if it's impossible to speak well of your own creation, then ya really gotta speak pug ugly of everyone else's to make yours somehow look better.

In Trump's case, even Ethan Hunt would turn that mission down.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,407
136
You buried the headline of this. "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

I heard another spying expert type guy say years ago this type contact was called "A useful idiot" and a long time ago it was called " A useful retard". Interesting lesson.
Basically the target is such a flawed person that manipulating them is comically easy.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
It is obvious that Hillary is a person, and not a perfect one at that. And in this narrative we get no true sense of her as an individual with complexity that must exist. Similarly, it is obvious that Trump is a person, and not an Antichrist at that. And in this narrative we get no true sense of him as an individual with complexity that must exist.

I am concerned that he chooses to present his feelings about Hillary without tying them to his feelings about Trump. On some levels, this presents a logical contrast which is helpful. Unfortunately, it provides an emotional contrast which I cannot know if I trust. It is all too convenient to split these two figures, so that the negatives of Hillary can be easily projected to Trump and that the positives of Trump can be similarly projected to Hillary.

I do not distrust this man's expertise, nor do I disagree with which of these two he would choose. Beyond this, I see nothing informative of either Hillary or Trump. I merely see the defense used for a conflict posed to Mr. Morell. And either it is a massive conflict, he is limited in his tools to handle it, or some combination of both.

Wish I could hear him talk about Hillary and just Hillary.
One cannot talk about Hillary and just Hillary if one wishes to justify voting for her. Only in the context of Trump can that be a rational decision.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,031
2,886
136
One cannot talk about Hillary and just Hillary if one wishes to justify voting for her. Only in the context of Trump can that be a rational decision.

I'm not sure I agree, although I don't wish to vote for either so it isn't from some judgment of my personal experience.

This election is sort of a prisoner's dilemma.