I first posted this August 18, 2016. It illustrates just how politicized and progressive the leadership of our intelligence agencies has become. If Mike Morell and Hillary Clinton had prevailed, does anyone think ISIS would be hiding in the shadows? That Americans would be embracing massive, unvetted immigration? That our economy would be the strongest its been in many decades?
Mike Morell, a former deputy director and intelligence analyst at the CIA, was on the Charlie Rose Show, commenting on his scathing New York Times op-ed assessment of Trump, his recent new book (The Great War of Our Times) and his endorsement of Don Hillary.
Mike is also a former CBS National Security commentator. He is certainly an expert on the War On Terror.
He recently resigned his post in order to make his political preference public. He makes no bones about his dislike for the Republican candidate. I appreciated his concerns that the millions of Americans who support Trump have very legitimate anger over the direction of the country. In fact, during the interview he listed all of the failings of our current leadership to reign in terror, to coordinate domestic and international security, to secure our borders, to garner multinational coalitions, to effectively lead any sort of massive worldwide effort to squeeze radical Islam financially. He was pretty hard on the Obama administration and it's seemingly duplicitous alignments with all of the Eastern European and Middle East regions affected by Jihad.
So it is inexplicable how he could conclude that more of the same will have different results.
His answer must be that continuing to move like a glacier would be preferential to making an all out assault on Jihad, because we just don't have the resources, the coalitions, and the resolve of the American people, despite the subject matter of his book, which recognizes Jihad as the number one threat to all of civilization.
After bantering the international issues with Rose, Morell then attempts to characterize the movement for Trump. Describing his suspicion of the motives for those supporting Trump: "Whites are scared by the browning of America."
There is a grain of truth there. But just as the CIA has pretty much botched the war on terrorism, Mike misses the major point altogether. Like many quasi-liberals, Morell places criticism of Obama policies on the President's race and projects American's concerns to inherent white American racism.
But he overlooks the obvious question: How did the CIA get everything, from the WTC attacks to the absence of WMD's in Iraq, to the formation of ISIS and the vote to end the EU so wrong? Now he is getting the anger and disgust of much of America just as wrong.
I am sure that the CIA is a patriotic operation and most of the employees have nothing but the best intentions, but when will it occur to these people that massive, bureaucratic, politically correct operations are rarely effective? The bigger, slower to adapt and more clumsy they get, the more vital they claim to be?
The man has tons of credibility on international activities, but when did he spend any time on a Nebraska corn farm, or attend a town hall meeting in Alabama? Isn't it important to know where you are coming from in order to best determine how you get where you are going?
What white America is worrying about is the decaying of the American ideology. Whether those who want to fundamentally change America are white, brown, green, yellow or black is of no importance. What is important is that the 'changing' of America is in the wrong direction. There is an attempt to make America more like every other country. Mike epitomizes the globalist view that by dropping our borders, 'diversifying' our moral standards, and socializing major industries, the world will be friendlier and we will all learn to be happy inhabitants of a One World Community.
How else can one explain Progressive's efforts to open our borders, to destroy any semblance of voter ID, to dumb down our students, to marginalize marriage and our Judeo-Christian cultural values, to erase distinctions between the sexes, to eliminate patriotism, to create an enormous underclass of government dependent inner city captives, and to redistribute the wealth of our industries like the socialists in bankrupt countries all over the planet?
I understand little of this is in play with regards to what motivates ISIS, Al Qaeda, or Vladimir Putin. I am sure Mike has most of that right. But all of that must be put into the context of what is it that motivates everyday, working class, family-raising Americans.
The Progressive vision for America is scaring the living daylights out of a growing number of Americans. Just because many whites feel like their comfort zone is under assault doesn't mean they're racist. It means they're proud of what has been established here in America and are not willing to cede it to wild eyed ideologues who worship egalitarianism. And they are tired of being blamed for all of the misguided mistakes of the PC bureaucracy.
Mike has it right, there is fear. But it is not about race. That is a wedge only elitist intellectuals and left wing politicians use. Voters are almost always motivated by fear; the old saying is that people 'vote their pocketbooks'. Why? Because they fear their pocketbook is about to be redistributed to someone or something they have no control over. That their time, work, and family future is about to be wasted for some pie in the sky theory about being fair.
In America today, Trump supporters fear that their country is about to be remodeled into something they don't recognize and that would be antithetical to the country they were born into.
As for Trump's shortcomings? Whatever they are, they pale in comparison to the threat that our homeland could be so drastically deconstructed as to be rendered impotent on the world stage. Besides, no one man or woman would ever 'run' the country by themselves. Not in America. Our system is such that once a leader is put into office, a series of administrative changes occur, and an enormous team of advisers, both domestic and international, kick into action. We have two other branches of government to straighten out the kinks.
Mike Morell would likely be a part of that team under Trump, except that he abdicated that possibility to buy into Clinton's progressive, One World vision.
That's too bad. I like Mike. I just disagree with his appraisal of the personality requirements for the Oval Office. He is, in my mind, a perfect example of why our government, and much of our culture, is so lost.
* * *
Interesting, huh? Amazing how intuitive voters are and how much has been accomplished since August, 2016.