Hillary Clinton

Former CIA Head Supports Clinton over Trump for All the Wrong Reasons

It's important to be the right kind of war hawk.


Hillary Clinton
Beth S/ZUMA Press/Splash News/Newscom

The word "Libya" appears nowhere in former CIA Acting Director Michael Morrell's endorsement of Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in the New York Times today. In fact, he spends much more time on Trump's dangerous deficiencies than he does Clinton's competencies.

And when he does, here's what he has to say about her decision-making:

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.

Trump has argued (and evidence actually supports) that America's meddling in Syria (including efforts by the CIA) actually helped create the foothold for ISIS to grow stronger in the country. And there's no mention of how the Clinton-endorsed "smart power" of military intervention in Libya helped hasten that country's destabilization and decline.

That's because Clinton is the right kind of war hawk: She shares the same belief in noble intentions driving foreign policy interventions that matches guys like Morrell and other CIA and foreign policy leaders. Morrell argues that because Clinton is "thoughtful and inquisitive" that makes her preferable to Trump, whom Morrell blasts for his "carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law."

Oh, there's no mention of her little problems with her private email servers and her stubborn and untruthful handling of the scandal, which makes that list of critiques of Trump rather ironic. He does accuse Trump of being an unwitting Russian agent for "endorsing Russian espionage against the United States" but not the context in which it happened (revealing Clinton's hidden emails).

But the critique of Trump isn't wrong. The horrible reality of this presidential cycle is that we know that Clinton has made many bad decisions and is one of the more openly military interventionist Democrats to pursue the presidency in modern times. But the alternative of Trump leaves us with an extremely unpredictable president who says he will be less of an interventionist, but he's so openly and obviously reactionary to both appeals to his ego and attacks upon them that it's really impossible to trust his policy positions as an indicator of what he'd do in office.

That a former CIA head is openly endorsing Clinton in a major newspaper would be, in a completely different election cycle, a cause for concern among big chunks of the electorate.

NEXT: Judge Quashes Gary Johnson/Jill Stein Debate Lawsuit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


    *runs around flapping arms*

  2. I guess which is worse, someone who comes to the wrong conclusions through reactionary thinking and narcissism, or one who does it through thoughtfulness and inquisitiveness?

  3. Of course Hitlary is terrible. But Trump is terrible-squared. He will quickly commence WW III against the middle east with his buddy Vlad. He gets obvious delight with “Bomb the hell out of ISIS!” and “We need to bring back torture and more, folks” and the Trumpkins cheer. “I will restore law and order on Jan 20”. It is truly frightening what he has in store for us. Fortunately he will lose. As for Clinton, yes she’s a hawk but she chose relatively dovish Tim Kaine as VP. And the anti-war contingent of the party is gaining its voice. I could almost see myself voting for them if they keep up the good work. (Though, shreek has some reservations, but I’ll let him speak for himself.)

    1. I hear what you’re saying, but…I don’t know. I can see Hillary starting a war. I don’t think she really cares about the cost in lives or treasure, and I can see her starting something just to “prove” that she’s as tough as a man.

      1. I hear what you’re saying, but… Hillary does everything ‘for the children’. So the key is to convince her that “We must destroy ISIS for the sake of the children!” is a lie. But yes she does have to ‘prove’ she’s as tough as a man. I seen her peeing standing up, I tell ya.

        1. the key is to convince her

          If by “convince”, you mean send a $10 million check to the Clinton Foundation, then maybe. But you won’t be the only one trying to “convince” her.

    2. Is this satire? Any other site I would pretty much have to assume you were 100% serious, but I still have enough faith in the Reason comentariate to give benifit of the doubt.

  4. Michael Morrell’s

    Not a single mention of the fact that Mike Morrell was the guy who re-wrote the Benghazi talking points *over* the objections of CIA director petraeus?

    IOW – the guy who said, “loyalty to the lies of the executive come before the integrity of the CIA”

    its one thing for the CIA to obfuscate for the sake of international counter-intelligence; its quite another for them to do so in the service of domestic political parties.

    He basically threw himself into the machinery of lies that State cooking up, and agreed to ‘certify’ them when Petraeus refused.

    I seem to recall he also came pretty damn close to perjury in congressional testimony. Its hard to find a quick link that isn’t from some firebreathing internet-political-commentary source, but this sums up the case ok – basically, that testimony that he gave congress in April 2013 were directly contradicted by documents released in court-orders from the White House not long thereafter.

    If i recall, he quit ASAP in order to avoid any further questions, and immediately went to work directly for Obama/Hillary-connected entities. and still does. the fact his endorsement is being treated seriously by the media is a fucking disgrace.

    1. Most of the CIA is a disgrace.

      1. It has been going downhill since Jim Greer died.

        1. You work fer Jim Greer? Then I imagine you’ll tell me what awl th’ hubbub’s about.

    2. the fact his endorsement is being treated seriously by the media is a fucking disgrace.

      The media is the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party. I have yet to find a fact that would falsify this explanation.

      1. Just assume they are Democratic operatives with bylines, and it all makes sense.

    3. Pundtitution?

    4. Let’s not forget that the lies were being so carefully orchestrated because if the public knew the truth, it might turn them against the president right before an election. IOW, the CIA (or, at least the Clintonista traitors within it) lied to sway an election, just like the IRS delayed applications to sway an election, just like the DOJ and FBI whitewashed serious crimes against the public and national security to keep a candidate in an election. Tell me again how the system isn’t rigged, Block.

      1. Block


        nooooooooooooooooooooo (breathe) oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

        1. tee hee

  5. Something that continues to surprise me is that Hillary supporters continue to cite her support for Libyan intervention a a qualification for office.

    1. I have heard lefties flip-flop between excoriating Iraq for being an “Illegal” intervention, then praise Hillary/Obama for executing an illegal intervention which was done “quickly and efficiently”

      ‘principals’, etc.

      1. Isn’t that the shreek take?

        Illegally attacking and overthrowing a government, setting up a new failed state and the ongoing wave of migratory colonization of Europe by barbarians, is perfectly alright as long as no US soldier actually sets foot in the country we are at war with?

        1. yes, i was going to cite PB as being one of the notable ones to frequently switch rationale on convenience.

          the fact that people are able to completely ignore their own hypocrisy means they’re either entirely comfortable being intellectual dishonest (*& unethical)… or that they’re too stupid to recognize their own inconsistencies.

          or “both”, of course.

      2. Randomly looking thought things… this one is notable for praising the libya intervention… because it was “Run by Women” – take that, glass ceilings! I am woman, hear me bomb.

        That a diplomatic team led by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power advocated military action against Gaddafi may be a footnote in the Libyan conflict?but it is a significant mark of our nation’s evolution, argues John Avlon.

        Whether the Clinton-, Rice-, and Power-led argument for intervention was branded “emotional” or not, their moral arguments apparently triumphed over “the cold language of interests.”

        Funny that “the moral argument” seems to have been quietly slipped back into a desk drawer.

        1. Whether the Clinton-, Rice-, and Power-led argument for intervention was branded “emotional” or not, their moral arguments apparently triumphed over “the cold language of interests.”

          This is supposed to be a good thing?!

    2. Her decision was ipso facto presidential.

  6. e.g.

    Beacon Global Strategies, Morell’s employer, is a ten-person firm whose co-founders include Philippe Reines, a senior counselor to Mrs. Clinton when she ran the State Department. Reines is still her spokesman, serving in that capacity in what New York magazine calls ‘a second full-time job.’

    ‘And if she runs again ? he claims he doesn’t know if she will ? Reines will be onboard,’ the magazine concluded in February.

    Meaning that Morell, as a senior official at Beacon, will also likely be part of the Clinton spin machine.

    A senior staffer to a Republican House Intelligence Committee member told MailOnline after the morning hearing concluded that ‘a bunch of us are bothered by Morell’s changing stories, and by his use of Washington’s revolving doors.’

    ‘He would be a lot more believable if his paychecks weren’t signed by Hillary Clinton’s right-hand man,’ the aide confided

    I just find it shocking that anyone could mention this guy’s name, and somehow skip past the story which made him a household name = lying to congress to help protect Hillary

  7. I couldn’t bring myself to read it.

    Just remember, kids- Hillary is the sensible, mature candidate. She’s the most qualified to be Commander-in-chief.
    Like, ever.

  8. Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice

    WRONG. Let’s be clear. He was not “brought to justice” . He was assassinated.

    1. Shot while resisting arrest.

      1. There was never any intention of taking him alive. It was a kill mission.

        And rightly so.

        1. The SEALs basically had standing orders to shoot him if they found him. Hillary didn’t do jack shit.

          1. How pathetic is it that their claimed big courageous decision was to kill bin Ladin? Really?

            1. Do you remember the media playing this up as a “risky” call for Obama? First, I don’t see how it’s risky: if he’s not there, he’s not there. Second, I suspect the SEALs were at more risk than Obama was.

              1. They did conduct a raid in an allied nation without consent. So, pretty “risky.”

                1. Well, the current administration routinely bombs people from drones in allied countries. Those countries hate it. And most of the US seems to not care.

                  So while out was a potential risk in that if Bin Laden wasn’t there and people there died, there could’ve been some backlash.

                  Given the nonreaction to having a Nobel Prize winning President with a kill last in which drones are used against civilians who aren’t immediate threats in any country we wish, I doubt there was any real risk.

                  As even if not Bin Laden, if uncovered, it would’ve been terrorist/family/supporters deserving of their fate.

                  Or if uncovered and unpopular, deflect blame on Republicans or intelligence or whatever.

                  And no news outlet would question their version.

                  So no, I don’t think there was ever any real risk, just that Barack’s, Hillary’s, and others’ appear much stronger, more morally righteous, etc, only if this decision is risky.

                  IE – it’s all about their legacy.

                  Disclaimer: call it murder, assassination, or whatever, but I agree Bin Laden needed to die and have no qualms if the Seals were told not to take him prisoner. Further, I think if Bin Laden had caused similar damages in other countries, but not the US, I would believe in their rights to carry out a similar mission.

                  But even though I agree with the mission, doesn’t mean it was a risk.

        2. So it was a police action?

    2. I love how he says that advocating the Bin Laden raid is supposed to be a mark in her favor, as if she was going against the informed decisions of everyone else in the administration.

  9. C’mon, guys. You do a good job of showing us incredibly unflattering pics of Trump (although there has been some slacking off on that front lately), and we get soft-focus PR pics of Hillary? Entertain us with a different terrible pic of each candidate for each article, pls. C’mon – if this is going to be an epic shitshow, lets treat it like one. The intertoobz has a bottomless supply of embarrassing pics of candidates – let’s see the curated Reason collection, por favor.

    1. Uh, how would that serve Bablyon’s interests?

    2. Free market, RC.

      Bad pictures of Trump can actually be clickbait: “Haw Haw. Lookit the doofus!”
      Bad pictures of Clinton drive people away in droves like faces of death.

  10. Former CIA Head Supports Clinton over Trump for All the Wrong Reasons

    Are there any “right” reasons for any CIA official to support a candidate that has demonstrated complete, blatant, and willful disregard for securing state secrets?

    1. I remember when Valerie Plame was a big deal.

    2. Sure. Said CIA official has enough dirt on the candidate to ensure phat budgets and a free hand if they are elected.

      Do you even bureaucrat, bro?

  11. Hillary Clinton is possibly on the hawkish side of Democrats.

    Trump is an unwitting dupe of the Russian intelligence service in addition to being a completely uninformed moron.

    So pretty much the same.

    1. Hillary Clinton is possibly on the hawkish side of Democrats.

      and a completely uninformed moron who, by her own admission, is incapable of realizing that she is trafficking in classified information.

  12. There is no “right” reason to support Hilary. So anybody supporting her is doing it for wrong reasons.

  13. Ah the welfare warfare state in support mode for Clinton.

  14. i get paid over ?79.91 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?9185 a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,…… http://www.CareerPlus90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.