Michael J. Morell, "I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.": She Curses Like One of the Boys!

Tweet

In a despicable August 5, 2016 guest New York Times op-ed entitled "I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.," former acting CIA director Michael J. Morell warmly endorses Hillary Clinton, while trashing Trump. Morell writes of Trump

"Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security."

Agreed. Trump is insufficiently stable to serve as president and presents a danger to humanity across the face of the planet. But unreservedly endorse Hillary? Morrell provides the following rationale:

"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.'"

Wow! Hillary is one tough cookie! She actually cusses like one of the boys!

But heck, if Morell were to come to me and recommend a course of action, i.e. vote for Hillary, citing only the "good" without the "bad," I would fire him on the spot.

Hey, Michael, care to tell us a bit more about Hillary's support of the Second Gulf War?

Or how about the disastrous undeclared 2011 war against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi that she foisted upon Obama. (I am ignoring her conduct during the subsequent Benghazi debacle, which was in many ways was a direct consequence of  the chaos she fomented.)

Or her direct involvement in the unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, whose details, e.g. the add-on agreement allowing Iran to begin building nuclear weapons with a decade and the $400 million cash ransom payment for American hostages, continue to leak out.

Or her willingness to compromise American security by establishing an unsecured basement home server for her emails while secretary of state. According to Patrick Howley in a June 2, 2016 Breitbart exclusive article entitled "Hillary Clinton Posted Names of Hidden Intelligence Officials On Her Email":

"Numerous names cited in Clinton’s emails have been redacted in State Department email releases with the classification code 'B3 CIA PERS/ORG,' a highly specialized classification that means the information, if released, would violate the Central Intelligence Act of 1949."

Endorse Hillary without mentioning any of the above? Shame on you, Michael.

Paul Krugman, "Both Sides Now?": Hillary's Lies Are "Less Important" Than Trump's

Tweet

In what is probably his most despicable opinion piece ever, Paul Krugman informs us in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Both Sides Now?":

"To be fair, some reporters and news organizations try to point out Trump statements that are false, frightening, or both. All too often, however, they still try to maintain their treasured balance by devoting equal time — and, as far as readers and viewers can tell, equal or greater passion — to denouncing far less important misstatements from Hillary Clinton."

Ah yes, Hillary's "misstatements," i.e. lies, are not as "important" as those of Trump.

Don't get me wrong: Notwithstanding the fact that Hillary is reptilian and venomous, she does not threaten all life on this planet. Given Trump's serious narcissistic personality disorder (even worse than that of Hillary), I wouldn't want his little fingers anywhere near the launch buttons of America's nuclear arsenal.

But more to the point, let's have a look at FBI Director Comey's responses to Rep. Trey Gowdy questions before the House Oversight Committee on July 7:

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails, either sent or received. Is that true?”

Comey: “That’s not true, there were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Gowdy:”Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material.’ Was that true?”

Comey: “There was classified material emailed.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said she used just one device. Was that true?”

Comey: “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?”

Comey: “No, we found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”

How serious were these lies? As reported by Breitbart's Patrick Howley, "Hillary Clinton posted and shared the names of concealed U.S. intelligence officials on her unprotected email system." Yup, I would say they're pretty serious.

Hillary's lies are "less important" than those of Donald? Sorry, Paul. That's just plain BS.

But even if they were to be deemed "less important," should such  a determination form the basis for selecting America's next president? Frightening.