Not every Hillary Clinton endorsement ends up on this page. That is
largely because they have come in a deluge that is difficult to keep up
with. Republican endorsements, of course, are spotlighted here as are many high profile Democratic ones.
Today's endorsement from Michael J. Morrell,
who has defended Hillary against Republican attacks in his book, deserves notice and circulation for several reasons. First of all, he
is not affiliated with any political party. Secondly, he has worked
with Hillary and seen her in action on critical decisions and security
matters. Most importantly, his experience and specialization give him a
unique perspective on both Hillary and Donald J. Trump as the latter
plays out his campaign.
Clinton in Pittsburgh, Pa., on Saturday.Credit Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
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.
SNIP
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.
The
Brexit vote, if it demonstrated nothing else, showed the world that
there are no do-overs at the ballot box. Americans can elect an
inflated, self-absorbed, ignorant loud-mouth with no apparent native
curiosity who is easily manipulated by our arch-adversary. Or we can elect
the woman who, when she visited Russia in 2010 was not originally
scheduled to meet with Putin, wrangled a face-to-face, and for her efforts managed to get some concessionsfrom
him on the Iran sanctions. Even I, the die-hard, had my doubts that
she would manage that. I have never doubted her since. It is a simple
choice. We can choose Putin's Puppy Dog or the woman who knows how to corral and rope Putin and keep him on a leash.
Morrell pretty much validated my puppy dog analogy.
The New York Times, self-appointed good cop and bad cop on all things Hillary Clinton, offers this. Given its apparent legitimacy and strength, I share this article about this book. While the Clinton Cash
book accuses without evidence, Michael J. Morrell's book cites lack of
evidence behind the Republican juggernaut aimed at Hillary Clinton's
performance as Secretary of State during a single critical incident.
The Times itself, as a publication, has pretty much scuttled its credibility by teaming up with Peter Schweizer, author of the evidence-free tome Clinton Cash, but the Morrell book catches the Times biting its own sorry tail.
All hail Gertrude Stein! "There is no there there. "
Oh the woes of trying to run a complex publication with consistency and integrity - lost on the NYT - but thanks for this one.
WASHINGTON — The former deputy director of the C.I.A.
asserts in a forthcoming book that Republicans, in their eagerness to
politicize the killing of the American ambassador to Libya, repeatedly
distorted the agency’s analysis of events. But he also argues that the
C.I.A. should get out of the business of providing “talking points” for
administration officials in national security events that quickly become
partisan, as happened after the Benghazi attack in 2012.
The
official, Michael J. Morell, dismisses the allegation that the United
States military and C.I.A. officers “were ordered to stand down and not
come to the rescue of their comrades,” and he says there is “no
evidence” to support the charge that “there was a conspiracy between
C.I.A. and the White House to spin the Benghazi story in a way that
would protect the political interests of the president and Secretary
Clinton,” referring to the secretary of state at the time, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
