An oops-moment from Michael Morell as he lavished praise on Hillary Clinton on the Charlie Rose show just ten days after he lavished praise on Hillary Clinton on the Charlie Rose show ten days ago.  (Get the picture?)  It was clear, from some of the things Charlie said, that he, CBS, and Morell had gotten so much flak for what Morell said on August 8, that it was decided to give Morell a mulligan on August 18.

https://charlierose.com/videos/28626?autoplay=true

Morell’s oops-moment starts at about minute 50.

 

“You know, it’s interesting, Charlie:  I worked with her [Hillary Clinton] for four years.  Leon Panetta, David Petraeus worked with her for four years.  We trusted her word; we trusted her judgment.  You know, Charlie, Director Panetta, Director Petraeus, I provided her with some of the most sensitive information that the CIA collects and she never gave us one reason to doubt how she was handling that.  She spoke to us forthrightly. … I trust her word and I trust her judgment.  You know, she spoke to us forthrightly. … I trust her word and I trust her judgment.” (End of scripted interview – Emphasis added)

 

Surprise; surprise! Charlie didn’t think to ask Morell if he were the only person in Washington unaware that FBI Director James Comey branded “extremely careless” her handling of sensitive CIA information by using highly vulnerable, unclassified servers. And this might have been a follow-up question for Charlie to ask: “Did Mrs. Clinton speak ‘forthrightly’ to you, Michael, about “how she was handling that?”

 

Michael Morell is welcomed back for another hour with Charlie Rose, remarkably, ten days after the interview in which he told Charlie he wanted to kill Russians and Iranians, so that he could ‘splain that he really didn’t want to start a war.  But he still wanted to do the kinds of’ things to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that fit the classic definition of terrorism: “The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.”

 

Morell should be apprehended as an international terrorist.  But more on that later.  I made the sacrifice of watching the whole 54-minute interview.  Just after minute 50.  Morell has just told a heartwarming story about how compassionate Secretary Clinton was when he lost out to John Brennan, whom Obama picked to be the CIA Director.  The day after Morell was un-picked for the job, he was in the Situation Room [it’s always “in the Situation Room!”] and Secretary Clinton, “sat down next to me, put her hand on my shoulder, and she simply said, ‘Are you okay?’  There is humanity there, and I think the public needs to know.”

 

Charlie goes on to lament how hard it is for Clinton to convey what he calls her “humanity” and how she is worthy of trust … then does a riff on the Biblical passage about those who can be trusted in small matters [like sitting down next to Morell, putting her hand on his shoulder, and asking him if he is okay].  A nice soft pitch from Charlie; Morell gives every indication that he hit it out of the park.  And … the oops! mentioned above.

“The Heat:” US elections and Russian relations: panel on CCTV August 17 discusses how and why Russia has been dragged into the U.S. election campaign; how seriously to take the notion that President Putin would prefer Trump; and how the resuscitated Cold War could be still colder – or a lot hotter – if only Putin would oblige by doing tit for tat.

Wide ranging discussion includes James Jetras, Soviet desk officer at State Department in early 80s; Vladimir Goldstein, Assoc. Professor of Slavic Studies at Brown; and Ray.  Half-hour program in two parts:

Part 1 (16 minutes)

 

Part 2 (9 minutes)

KPFA radio’s “Flashpoints” interviewed Ray (20 min.) and Robert Parry (30 min.) on August 16.  First question to Ray was about what former acting CIA director Michael Morell told Charlie Rose on August 8 about killing Russians and Iranians, in order to “scare” Assad into leaving (sic).  Ray brought up the classic definition of “terrorism” — the use of violence to frighten people as a way of trying to achieve a political goal, and suggested that very, very tough little Michael Morell might wish to think about that.

https://kpfa.org/episode/flashpoints-august-16-2016/

Also discussed are Israel’s influence on U.S. policy toward Syria; fanciful “moderate” rebels in Syria; the infamous “barrel bombs” compared with $11.5 million of ordnance dropped that the U.S. drops on Syria ever day; Chechnya, where – unlike Obama – Putin has real skin in the game; the U.S. media playing charlatan again,; body bags and  bringing back the draft.

Ray’s segment goes from minute 1:20 to 21:48.  Robert Parry picks up from there, with a more of a broad-brush tour d’horizon of U. S. foreign policy and the implications of what-if it’s Trump and what-if it’s Hillary Clinton.

John Kiriakou & Ray on Watching the Hawks, August 12, critique the excellent-adventure schemes proposed by former CIA acting director Michael Morell – a very, very tough supporter of Hillary Clinton.

 

Mike wants to “go after” Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and “scare” him by blowing up buildings, cars, and aircraft and covertly-killing (sic) Russians and Iranians.

John and Ray were given time to discuss some of the real issues, and Ray made a try at impersonating vacuous-but-earnest Mike oozing charm from every pore.

 

(13 minutes: from minute 1:25 to 14:45)

Mike Morell: Travels With Charlie (Rose)

 

Sputniknews (radio) asked Ray to comment on the childish comments of former Acting Director of the CIA, Michael Morell, who told Charlie Rose on August 8 he (Morell) wanted to “make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. … make the Russians pay a price in Syria.”  I am not making this up.  Here’s how that segment went:

 

Rose: “We make them pay the price by killing Russians?”

Morell: “Yeah.”

Rose: “And killing Iranians?”

Morell: “Yes … You don’t tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”

 

Here is Ray’s interview: (5 minutes)

http://sputniknews.com/us/20160811/1044149451/cia-comment-on-russia.html

 

What excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose?  An August 5 NY Times op-ed titled “I ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1

 

Peabody award winner Rose having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking Morell, performed true to form.  Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over the past two years.  This interview, though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats that have bubbled to the top of CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and on for 46 minutes).

https://charlierose.com/videos/28568?autoplay=true

 

A Heavy Duty

 

Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school.  In a word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of “tell-it-all” memoirs.  But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.

 

For example, George W. Bush’s memoir, Decision Points, included a passage the former president seems to have written himself.  Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left office, the “high-confidence,” unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons?  No way!  In his memoir he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence Estimate “tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”  No, I am not making this up.  He wrote that.

 

In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA’s briefer of President George W. Bush, in these terms:  “Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly.  He and George Bush hit it off almost immediately.  Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief’s side.”

 

Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those “weapons of mass destruction in Iraq” and the alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.  Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of invading Iraq?

 

Tenet High on Morell – Just One Little Problem

Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell.  But he also reveals that Morell “coordinated the CIA review” of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous Feb. 5, 2003 – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.  So Morell reviewed the “intelligence” that went into Powell’s thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat!  Powell later called it a “blot” on his record.  Morell even apologized to Powell in 2015.

It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the “intelligence” was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go.  Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to “justify” war on Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”

It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and got promoted.

 

A Deus-ex-Machina Escape

 

And, for services performed, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting to London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag.  Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq’s [non-existent] WMD.

 

Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still holding out some hope that WMD would be found.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/11/28/myths-about-intelligence/97b131ad-5fc0-4087-99a3-6c3209dede6d/?utm_term=.4f3dd6d1515c

He noted, however, “If we eventually are proved wrong — that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth …”  And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.

 

In October, the 1,200-member “Iraq Survey Group” commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.  By then, the US-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion.

 

In Morell’s own memoir, The Great War of Our Time, Morell writes, “In the summer of 2003 I became CIA’s senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom.” He notes that one of the “dominant” issues, until he left the UK in early 2006, was “Iraq, namely our failure to find weapons of mass destruction …”  (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell’s opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the “dodgy-dossier” type of intelligence.)

 

Landing on His Feet

 

When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things.  He was appointed the CIA’s first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA’s deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.

 

Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness, and ambition can get you to the very top of U.S. intelligence in the 21st century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President.

 

Wisdom on China

 

For those who did not make it to the very end in watching the most recent Michael-and-Charlie show, here is an example of what Morell and Rose both seem to consider trenchant analysis.  Addressing the issue of U.S. relations with China, Morell described the following as a main “negative:”

 

“We both have large militaries in the same place on the planet, the Pacific.  What does that mean?  It means you have to plan for war against each other, and we both do; it means you have to equip yourself with weapons systems for war against each other, which both of us do; and it means you have to exercise those forces for war against each other, and both of us do.  And both sides see all of three of those things.  That leads to a natural tension and pulls you apart. …”

 

Those who got to the end of Morell’s book had already been able to assimilate that wisdom on page 325:

 

“The negative side [regarding relations with China] includes the fact that … each country needs to prepare for war against each other (because our militaries are in close proximity to each other).  Each plans for such a war, each trains for it, and each must equip its forces with the modern weaponry to fight it [leading] to tension in the relationship. … 

 

Well, Morell is at least consistent.  More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the  “blood-drenched” arms traders.  Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton, as well.

 

Finally, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants.  Ray addressed this five years ago in the “Rise of Another CIA Yes Man.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/29/rise-of-another-cia-yes-man/

That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; sine of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.

Hillary Clinton’s Turn to McCarthyism

By Robert Parry

 

“The Hillary Clinton campaign might recall the calumnies hurled at Bill Clinton, as well as how things ended for Sen. Joe McCarthy after he questioned the loyalty of a young Army lawyer.

 

“The bullying senator was famously rebuked by Joseph Welch, the Army’s chief legal representative: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” (McCarthy was ultimately censured by the Senate and died in disgrace.)”

Hillary Clinton’s Turn to McCarthyism

Generals Strutting onto Convention Stage Sharply Criticized by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey

 

Dempsey insists, correctly, “generals have an obligation to uphold our apolitical traditions. They have just made the task of their successors — who continue to serve in uniform and are accountable for our security — more complicated. It was a mistake for them to participate as they did. It was a mistake for our presidential candidates to ask them to do so.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/military-leaders-do-not-belong-at-political-conventions/2016/07/30/0e06fc16-568b-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html

 

Dempsey is the only four-star in recent memory that helped a president (Obama) avoid being mousetrapped into a feckless, unnecessary war (Syria, the neocon target in September 2013).  Moreover, he did not have his orderly plaster ten rows of medals, ribbons, and merit badges on his left breast – like the preening “warrior/scholar” David Petraeus.  And Dempsey avoided barking, like Gen. John Allen (see next posting).

 

The Petraeuses and Allens of this world bring to mind one of Sid Caesar’s best roles as a preening, schpitt-und-polish German General.  His orderly, performing what appear to be some of the spiffing-up functions of Paula Broadwell, offers an equally memorable performance.  Enjoy!

 

(8 minutes)

(UPDATED) Gen. John Allen speaks at DNC; shades of Berlin 80 years ago

Pride/Hubris before the fall:  USA! USA! “Indispensable, Transformational Power;” The Bad Guys “will fear us!” – and not only they.

Parental guidance advised

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/31/readwatch-the-scariest-speech-from-both

(8 minutes)

 

UPDATE:  In addition, all are invited to watch the scary introductory 3-minutes not included in the above link.  Don’t miss the “spit-and-polish” cadenced march-in by military retirees endorsing Clinton, and Congressman Ted Lieu’s introduction.  (Part of the introduction struck me at first as super-weird.  Lieu: “When you ignore the facts people will die.”  For a moment I thought, Wow, he’s alluding to how Gen. Allen and his fellow “four-stars” have been ignoring the facts and getting thousands killed.  But, alas.)

Again, parental guidance advised.  But adults should go to the link below to watch Gen. Allen impersonate another “Marine”—“You-can’t-handle-the-truth” Jack Nicholson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYuH5fKUn_0

(11 minutes)

Trump Probably Makes Russia Nervous

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160802/1043849062/trump-russia-crimea.html

Interview of Ray by Sputnik (excerpts below)

 

Ray has taken another admittedly risky step from the contemporary mainstream, by drawing on some ancient wisdom he picked up in a college course named “Logic.”  Double-checking what he remembered from that course a half-century ago, he confirmed that the arcane procedure called a syllogism can still be applied without prejudice or opprobrium.  A far more recent scholarly book said it was still acceptable to distinguish logic from rhetoric – and even to apply, logically, a major and a minor premise to reach a conclusion.  The book noted, though, that “in everyday life, few of us bother” with premises or conclusions.  Well that much is clear, thought Ray – and sadly true.

 

Here’s the syllogism in question:

 

Major premise: Russian President Vladimir Putin wants Donald Trump to win the election.

Minor premise: The publication of documentary (email) proof that Hillary Clinton stole the Democratic nomination was aimed at helping Trump defeat Clinton.

Conclusion: Putin did it.

 

Anyone want to look up “fallacy?”  Again, if memory serves, in Logic a fallacy is a mistaken belief or conclusion based on faulty or misleading reasoning.  It is a fallacy, for example, to conclude that the sun moves round the earth, even though we can SEE the sun moving, right?  And we are equally certain that Putin prefers Trump because we can SEE everyone saying that on TV, right?

 

Alas, if the rules for logical reasoning have not been suspended, then when a major premise is not sound, you really want to have a hard look at the conclusion.  (Ray apologizes for the pedantry and his requirement for rigor in reasoning.  Chalk it up to his training at the hands of the Jesuits.)

 

Trump Probably Makes Russia Nervous (from above; excerpts)

WASHINGTON (from the Sputnik wire), August 2, 2016

 

“Former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern told Sputnik that despite widespread speculation that the billionaire businessman has become President Vladimir Putin’s favored candidate, the president unlikely wants him to win.  ‘I know a little bit about Russian and Soviet leaders,’ McGovern added.  ‘The last thing they want is somebody who is proud of being unpredictable and who gets irate at the slightest slight.’  That Putin, McGovern added, would want Trump to have his finger on the nuclear button ‘is a leap of faith that I cannot possibly make and remain sane.’ …

 

“Unfortunately, McGovern suggested, the idea that Putin supports Trump has wormed its way into a narrative being spun by Democrats and major US media outlets that back Clinton.  If the media says Putin wants Trump to win 50 times, then 95 percent of the American people will believe that to be true, McGovern added.”

 

So how and why did the Trump-Loves-Putin-and-vice-versa idea “worm its way” into the narrative.  Well, Ray’s main point was edited into a Part Two of the same interview (Part Two is not on the Sputnik wire – not yet, at least).  Here’s the edited piece Sputnik had prepared.

 

US Democrats Use Russia to Distract From Clinton Stealing Nomination – Ex-CIA Analyst

WASHINGTON, August 2, 2016 (full text)

 

“‘US Democrats have pulled off a masterful slight-of-hand by shifting the focus from documentary proof that Senator Bernie Sanders was robbed of the party’s nomination to charges that Russia leaked the documents to influence the US election,’ former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern told Sputnik.

“‘It is a classic diversion from the fact that those emails show beyond any doubt in documents, in documentary evidence, that Hillary Clinton and her pals in the Democratic National Committee stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders,’ McGovern said on Monday.

“The former CIA analyst was referring to a trove of documents provided by WikiLeaks that exposed secret efforts to exploit Sanders’ ethnic Jewish background and presumption that Sanders is an atheist, to weaken his support.

“‘Hillary and all her minions are doing their best to blacken Trump by associating him with the other bête noir, Putin, and it’s all ludicrous on its face,’ McGovern explained.

“In a weekend interview with Fox News, Clinton claimed that Russian intelligence services stole the documents, raising serious issues about Russian interference in the US election.”

And Chuck the Toady Todd (see posting directly above on pimping the “red line” on Syria) comes through for Hillary again, giving sycophancy a bad name.  Aiming for White House press secretary, Chuck?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/02/meet-press-grills-wikileaks-source-ignores-substance-dnc-emails

Quo usque tandem abutere sycophanti patientia nostra?!