- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

Benghazi, David Petraeus, Michael J. Morell and the Destabilization of the Obama Administration


Michael J. Morell


Bosom Bud­dies: Karl Rove and Paula Broad­well, 6/11/2012

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. [3] (The flash dri­ve includes the anti-fas­cist books avail­able on this site.)

COMMENT: The ginned-up non-scan­dal sur­round­ing the Beng­hazi attack is begin­ning to clar­i­fy, and our rumi­na­tions con­cern­ing the Petraeus affair [4] and the suc­ces­sion of Michael J. Morell to the posi­tion of act­ing CIA direc­tor are becom­ing increas­ing­ly pre­scient.

It seemed appar­ent that Petraeus was set up to fall. (This is not to say he was­n’t a damn fool to take the bait–i.e. for­mer counter-ter­ror­ism inves­ti­ga­tor Paula Broad­well.) [5]

Some of the bul­let points that we made in the con­text of the Petraeus affair:

 Since that analy­sis was post­ed, we have learned that Morell is of Ger­man-Amer­i­can extrac­tion. One won­ders if his ances­tors might have been part of the large Ger­man-Amer­i­can Fifth Col­umn in the Unit­ed States, encom­pass­ing such orga­ni­za­tions as the Steuben Soci­ety and the Ger­man Amer­i­can Bund. (Under Cov­er [9] by John Roy Carl­son, avail­able for down­load on this web­site, details that milieu.)

The thrust of the GOP charges in the Beng­hazi inci­dent are alle­ga­tions that the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion denied that the attack was a ter­ror­ist inci­dent and delet­ed ref­er­ences to CIA warn­ings in their report.

It has now become clear that it was none oth­er than Michael J. Morell who delet­ed the ref­er­ences to the ter­ror­ist warn­ings! He was opposed by David Petraeus in this attempt!

Do not fail to note that Petraeus was then sacked, leav­ing Morell in charge of the CIA! (Again, it was Morell who gave George W. Bush his intel­li­gence brief­in­gs and was actu­al­ly with him at the time of the 9/11 attacks.)

As the desta­bi­liza­tion of the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion takes form, do not fail to note that the head of the IRS when the Tea Par­ty fronts were tar­get­ed was a George W. Bush appointee! [10]

At the same time, the whored-out Amer­i­can media are up in arms over the Jus­tice Depart­men­t’s seiz­ing of reporters’ phone records. The phone records con­cern a sto­ry that con­tained leaked mate­r­i­al about a counter-ter­ror­ism sting in Yemen.

Who leaked that mate­r­i­al? Might it have been Michael J. Morell, or some­one else linked to the Bush administration/GOP/Underground Reich?

We note that that seizure of phone records could be pre­cise­ly cal­cu­lat­ed to inflame the media. 

The sus­pi­cion in these quar­ters cen­ters on the 2012 leak as part of the pre-cal­cu­lat­ed desta­bi­liza­tion of Oba­ma.

“Ear­ly E‑Mails on Beng­hazi Show Inter­nal Divi­sions” by Mark Landler, Eric Schmitt and Michael D. Shear; The New York Times; 5/15/2013. [11]

EXCERPT: E‑mails released by the White House on Wednes­day revealed a fierce inter­nal jostling over the government’s offi­cial talk­ing points in the after­math of last September’s attack in Beng­hazi, Libya, not only between the State Depart­ment and the Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency, but at the high­est lev­els of the C.I.A.

The 100 pages of e‑mails showed a dis­agree­ment between David H. Petraeus, then the direc­tor of the C.I.A., and his deputy, Michael J. Morell, over how much to dis­close in the talk­ing points, which were used by Susan E. Rice, the ambas­sador to the Unit­ed Nations, in tele­vi­sion appear­ances days after the attack.

Mr. Morell, admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials said, delet­ed a ref­er­ence in the draft ver­sion of the talk­ing points to C.I.A. warn­ings of extrem­ist threats in Libya, which State Depart­ment offi­cials object­ed to because they feared it would reflect bad­ly on them.

Mr. Morell, offi­cials said, act­ed on his own and not in response to pres­sure from the State Depart­ment. But when the final draft of the talk­ing points was sent to Mr. Petraeus, he dis­missed them, say­ing “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” adding that the heav­ily scrubbed account would not sat­isfy the House Demo­c­rat who had request­ed it.

“This is cer­tainly not what Vice Chair­man Rup­pers­berger was hop­ing to get,” Mr. Petraeus wrote, refer­ring to Rep­re­sen­ta­tive C. A. Dutch Rup­pers­berger of Mary­land, the top Demo­c­rat on the House Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, which had asked Mr. Petraeus for talk­ing points to use with reporters in dis­cussing the attack on Beng­hazi.

The White House released the e‑mails to reporters after Repub­li­cans seized on snip­pets of the cor­re­spon­dence that became pub­lic on Fri­day to sug­gest that Pres­i­dent Obama’s nation­al secu­rity staff had been com­plicit in try­ing to alter the talk­ing points for polit­i­cal rea­sons.

While the e‑mails por­trayed White House offi­cials as being sen­si­tive to the con­cerns of the State Depart­ment, they sug­gest that Mr. Obama’s aides most­ly medi­ated a bureau­cratic tug of war between the State Depart­ment and the C.I.A. over how much to dis­close — all under heavy time con­straints because of the demands from Capi­tol Hill. The e‑mails revealed no new details about the administration’s evolv­ing account of the Sept. 11 attack, which killed four Amer­i­cans, includ­ing Ambas­sador J. Christo­pher Stevens. . . .