Former CIA spook endorses Clinton! WaPo!

Brian Sat, 2016-08-06 16:22
DAESH (ISIS) thugs in Syria, Hillary Clinton

(Achtung! I despise Donald Trump. Maybe even more than you. I've despised him for many, many years, since long before he decided to run for POTUS. This is not a pro-Trump piece. I discuss here what I believe to be the actual situation.)

The USA's great "newspaper of record" has published an opinion piece that, in my humble opinion, is a valuable textbook on why we shouldn't believe anything the mainstream media tell us about Clinton/Trump. Including this week's "meme," that Trump's crazy.

It was written my one Michael J Morell, who was a CIA agent/leader for 33 years. Imagine! The New York Times thinks an endorsement of Clinton by someone who once ran the world's largest drug-running cabal is a positive thing. A guy who undoubtedly participated in some of the many, many instances where the CIA has unleashed violence on other countries, and arranged for their leaders to be changed/killed. (Mossadegh in Iran, Lumumba in Congo, Arbenz in Guatemala, Diem—and others—in Viet Nam, Allende in Chile, Noriega in Panama, Chavez in Venezuela—for a few days—and lots of others.).

It's all WaPo (BS). Here's how:

  • You should understand that when someone like this uses the phrase "keeping our nation safe," you should read, "protecting our wealthy overlords' ability to rampage all over the world unimpeded." Similarly, "a threat to our national security" is anything that interferes with 'keeping our nation safe,' as above." It has nothing to do with the safety of any American anywhere, unless s/he's fabulously wealthy. If you don't agree, or don't understand, there'll be no need for you to read the rest of this piece.

  • Ms Clinton, he says, can be trusted to protect the rights of the wealthy (and, of course, all the jobs/careers that form the industry that engages in that protection). Trump, he avers, may be a threat to all that. Would that be such a bad thing?

  • Trump, he says, "lacks respect for the rule of law." He says this in the same column in which he lionizes Clinton's role as "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." In fact, that raid was highly illegal, and it did not bring Bin Laden to "justice." It killed him. Mr Morell thinks a "special ops" murder is "justice." Rule of law my arse. If that's his view of the "rule of law," it's hard to imagine what Trump could do to violate it.

  • Mr Morell also seems to think Ms Clinton being a "strong proponent of a more aggressive approach" in Syria is a good thing, and apparently very respectful of the rule of law. WaPo! The US role in fomenting, supplying, training, and keeping going the proxy war in Syria is entirely illegal, and immoral. His view that the US's lack of aggression (under Obama, when that "passivity" came close in 2013 to fomenting World War III) led to ISIS is worse than WaPo. It's utter, filthy bilge, no matter how many Washington careerists say it. ISIS is a creature of US policy, not an aberration. The US proxy war in Syria is responsible for them, nothing else.

  • Of course, it wouldn't be on topic to mention Secretary Clinton's "respect for the rule of law" and "national security" guiding her as she arranged for a private, unsecured server installed in her home where she conducted high-level US State Department business, and was, predictably hacked.

  • Mr Morell omits to mention several other high points of Secretary Clinton's gaining of "experience" while he was her advisor: the coup in Honduras, the effects of which were disastrous—at least for Hondurans, who Morell and Clinton would care little about. Or Libya, where Clinton stumped for invasion over the objections of President Obama and much of the General Staff. Or her role in the sanctioning of Iran over their faked (by the US) "nuclear weapons program." Or her role in the gun-running program the State Department set up after destroying Libya, collecting guns from America's al-Qaeda allies and shipping them to Syria. (The thing that actually led to the four deaths in the "embassy" in Benghazi.) I'm sure Morell thinks these were all very admirable things. Should we?

  • In fact, Clinton's "aggressive" foreign policy stances were almost always moreso than many of the people around her, including the invasion of Libya, the assassination of Osama bin Laden, and on the "surge" in Afghanistan, where she wanted 40,000 troops, but only got 30,000, poor thing. She always wants more troops. Apparently, pig-headed aggressivenss is something Americans should want in a President. (And, I'd add, it creates more jobs in the Death Industry, an industry in which Morell served for many years.)

  • I suppose it's par for the course that Morell would think that someone who believes America is "exceptional," that it must "lead," and must always be ready to use "force" (kill competitors) would be a good "leader." Killing people was Morell's career path. But I don't think the average person should fall for this claptrap (though I know many do). There's a lot of evidence that these belief systems are responsible for much of the world's violence.

  • And, of course, no discussion of the election of a US "Commander-in-Chief" would be complete without some words about that most gut-wrenching (not!) of decisions—to put US troops "in harm's way." This is such WaPo. US troops aren't in harm's way, they are harm's way. They're not in "harm's way" until they're somewhere killing people. Is it a decision Clinton agonizes over? I can't read her mind, but, given her record, I'd say hardly.

  • Of course, no one can write a word about Trump for the mainstream (lame-stream) media these days without bringing up some WaPo about Russia. Russia's "invaded two of his neighbors," Morell bleats. I can't imagine him writing that phrase without laughing out loud—at himself! It's true the US hasn't invaded Mexico (lately), or Canada (lately), but if Putin ever wants to catch up to the US's invasion record, he's got a very long way to go. Putin driving Russia's economy to "ruin"? WaPo! Russia's economy is vastly improved from when US, EU, and Russian oligarch bandits were robbing it under Yeltsin. Thanks to sanctions, it's now stronger than ever. That's a good reason why Putin's approval ratings are in the stratosphere, while America's currently suffering through an election between two of the most hated candidates ever. Jailing journalists? Killing political opponents? America, look in the mirror!

  • Apparently Trump's candidacy is already damaging "national security" (see definition, above). Really, Mr Morell? How so? Examples, maybe?

  • Finally, there's what I'd call the pièce de résistance." "Putin ... was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them." Morell was a career intelligence officer as well, so he ought to know. But, in his case, he says, he was taught "to call it as I see it." ¡Que milagro! US intelligence and Russian intelligence must be worlds apart. Sorry, I'm going to have to call WaPo. Intelligence officers are trained, professional liars.

Why would we take the word of a professional country-wrecker and killer on who'd be a better president? Isn't it likely he's "identifying [our] vulnerabilities and ... exploiting them"? That would certainly be my first guess.

THere're a lot of quite reasonable people disseminating pro-Clinton, anti-Trump materials in the effort to "stop Trump." I get it—stopping Trump is a very good idea. But the campaign to stop Trump and ensure someone better were elected ended when Hillary Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. In my opinion, voters in the US are now deciding whether we'll have to "stop Trump" or "stop Clinton."

As Mr Morell's piece demonstrates quite clearly, in foreign policy (to the extent we can believe Trump, always iffy) Clinton is worse than Trump. Trump will be a catastrophe for the USA, but Clinton will be a disaster for the world.

Her determination to up the ante, to be more "muscular" in advancing US domination (as she has been throughout her career), to confront Russia, Syria, Iran, China, and even Palestine may well lead us to the end of humankind—far more quickly than climate change will manage. She'll have to be stopped.

That's our job, in my opinion. Putting her in office is not.


Libya Before and after Clinton