Michael Morell’s Misguided Benghazi Defense

Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA, has been out pimping his book The Great War of Our Time in which he spends 47 pages massaging the issue of Benghazi. I have not read the book, but I did read his recent column in Politico. If his book is anything like his column then it is clear we still need to dig deeper as to what happened and what was done by the U.S. government.

Morell did not stoop as low as Julian Castro, current HUD secretary and prospective running mate for the anointed Hillary, in his comments about what happened. Castro practiced being a political hack by attacking Trey Gowdy, Chair of the Select Committee on Benghazi, and stating that Benghazi had been investigated to death (no pun intended). Yet I still have unanswered questions and I am sure Chairman Gowdy does also.

Morell started his column by attacking the press for their lack of understanding and sophistication regarding how things work in the “Intelligence Community.” He chided the press for their analysis of a report just released through the efforts of Judicial Watch that brought a conclusion that the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) knew ten days in advance of the potential attack on Benghazi. He then defines the chaotic nature of the attack as proof there was no long-term planning.

He may be correct about that analysis – or he may not. What he does not say and I asked over a year ago was what was done in preparation for attacks on any of our facilities in the Middle East on 9/11/12. He has never answered that question nor has the former Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton. If they had a clear plan to defend our facilities, all they have to do is roll out the directives that were issued to state that a list of procedures should have been done to heighten security and protect our personnel. If you buy Morell’s explanation that what happened in Benghazi was not a planned, coordinated attack, then he should be able to explain how a group of ragtag misfits were able to overrun an American facility housing the Ambassador to Libya on 9/11/12. Yet he has not nor has anyone else.

Then Morell goes on to speak about the attack itself and the indictment of the one person (Abu Khataala) who has been charged in the attack on the Benghazi facility. It speaks of the fact that a Grand Jury did not cite any planning prior to 9/11/12 in the charges against him. He states that the “Intelligence Community” concluded that attackers were motivated by the attack that happened earlier in the day in Cairo.

Whether that was the reason or others that Morell cites, including the infamous video, the next major question that has never been answered comes to the fore. There was a violent disturbance in Cairo related to our embassy. It was 9/11. The fear we have of a group using the date as an excuse to threaten our personnel and facilities had already been manifested. Exactly what communications went out to our embassies around the world, and particularly in the dangerous areas in the Middle East? What procedures were put in place? Why was our ambassador in Libya (right next door) not put on lockdown as it was obvious that the Cairo attack might metastasize throughout the region?

It would only make sense that someone from the Administration and/or Secretary Clinton would produce communications that directed protection of Americans. Yet, they have not as of two and one-half years later, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that inadequate measures were taken. Certainly Morell does not state anything in defense of the Administration or State Departments’ actions. Clinton’s wild statement “What difference does it make” has relevance for protection of our other personnel in Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco and Nigeria.

I interviewed Jaime Manzano, a retired professional from the diplomatic corps. Manzano was a long-time family friend of Chris Stevens (he went to college with Stevens’ parents.) Prior to Stevens’ murder, Manzano had corresponded with Stevens about Manzano’s detailed thoughts of how the use of embassies and the foreign service needed to be updated as resources are being spent all over the world in much the way we have done so for the past 100 years ago.

Manzano told me Stevens did not agree with all the points made in a memo sent to him, which information was provided to me in a like memo. Stevens stated he wanted to chat about it upon his next trip to the states which unfortunately never occurred.

What happened in Benghazi still has many unanswered questions. Chairman Gowdy still has a list of his own. These are not trivial or partisan. They are questions affecting the future of our diplomatic missions and the defense of our personnel. Manzano’s questions about what our purpose should be comes from someone with first-hand experience and need to be answered as well.

Sweeping this under the rug will harm Americans in the future and the truth needs to come out about what happened. We have waited too long because certain people are more interested in their political positions than the safety of our diplomats.

An excerpt from my essay “Stonewalled in Obama’s Garden of Beasts.”

4. OUR HOPELESSLY CORRUPT INTELLIGENCE SERVICES

A glaring example of the log-rolling and back-scratching occurring between the Obama Administration, the media and the “three-letter” intelligence agencies may be found in the strange case of Mike Morell, who was the deputy director of the CIA under General Petraeus during and after the 9-11 Benghazi attacks. You will remember the constant evolution of the so-called “Benghazi talking points,” which were the administration’s attempt to manipulate the media into accepting a false narrative rejecting the terrorist origin of the attacks, and the prior warnings about the Benghazi diplomatic facility’s dangerously weak security.

Evidently, General Petraeus did not agree to scrub the Al Qaeda references from the CIA’s original report, the basis for the Benghazi talking points. His CIA deputy, Mike Morell was much more willing to do the administration’s bidding, and Morell was quite strangely given authority to edit the talking points that had supposedly been approved by the director of the CIA.

Enter the infamous Paula Broadwell infidelity scandal. Atkisson: “Fast-forward a week to November 6, the day of the election. Someone at the Justice Department, we’re told, has finally decided to tell Director of National Intelligence Clapper about Petraeus. (How good of a chief intelligence officer are you if you don’t know the head of the CIA had been under investigation by your FBI for months? And Republicans on the Hill know before you do?) Clapper calls Petraeus the same day and urges him to resign. It’s a stark reversal of the FBI’s pre-Benghazi determination that there was no harm in Petraeus staying on the job.”

Then, we are supposed to believe that Obama didn’t learn about the Petraeus scandal until November 7th when he read about it in the news media. The president “reluctantly” accepted the resignation of his CIA Director.

Deputy CIA director Mike Morell was called once again to a congressional hearing on the changing talking points memo eighteen months after 9-11, and his once fuzzy memory about the talking points were suddenly clear. Atkisson puts it this way: “Though he hadn’t offered up the information early on, he now tells Congress that he was the primary editing force behind the talking points. And that there were no political motivations behind removal of references to terrorism and prior warnings given to the State Department. That’s just the stuff of conspiracy theorists and right-wing crazies.”

Morell changes his testimony, and falls on his sword for the administration, but he is forgiven. Benghazi is a tired old story, water under the bridge. CBS and the rest of American Pravda gives a collective ho-hum to Morell’s admission that he had originally lied to Congress under oath. It’s time to move on. For American Pravda, it’s much more important to report the latest celebrity scandal, or outbreak of stormy weather, or product recall, than to report about the bald-faced duplicity of the CIA’s deputy director, acting behind his own director’s back.

Only one thing is consistent about Mike Morel: his ability to change stories while retaining the appearance of total sincerity. From Congressional hearing to hearing, the basic facts of his story changed in blatantly contradictory ways. First he solemnly swore that he had no idea who changed the Benghazi talking points. A year and a half later it changed to sure, I edited the talking points. So what?

Morell is more than just an Obama administration team player, he is literally willing to take one for the team. But not-to-worry about his future. Morell’s loyalty and flexibility in matters of truthful testimony was handsomely rewarded. He soon accepted a plum job at a Washington public relations firm that Atkisson says is “dominated by Hillary Clinton loyalists: Beacon Global Strategies.” A firm that essentially serves as an open funnel for Hillary Clinton slush funds disguised as payments for P.R. services rendered.

But wait, there’s more! From Atkisson’s book:

5. CBS HIRES BENGHAZI FIGURE

“In January 2014, Morell, the ex-CIA deputy director was hired as a consultant for CBS news. At the same time, the government was still very much embroiled in controversy over its monitoring of citizens and journalists, targeting of whistleblowers, and the handling of Benghazi. The hire drew immediate commentary from some of my sources.”

“CBS is employing one of the most controversial figures of the Benghazi controversy. Are you comfortable with that?” one asked.

“Once in the CIA, always in the CIA,” said another. “And now he’s in your newsroom.”

Atkisson took her concerns to the CBS ethics department. At the very least, Morell’s connections must be disclosed when he appeared as an expert consultant on CBS News. Her concerns were dismissed, and “former” spook Mike Morell began to appear on CBS news reports with no disclosures that he worked for the pro-Hillary public relations firm, or mention of his consistently inconsistent congressional testimony over the infamously malleable CIA talking points.

But the hiring of Mike Morrell at the CBS affiliate of American Pravda should not come as a shock. Not when CBS president David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, the deputy white house national security assistant. It was Ben Rhodes who collaborated with Mike Morell (and, one must believe, Obama’s long-time “Rasputin,” Valerie Jarrett) on editing the security lapses and terrorism links out of the Benghazi talking points.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.