Mike Morell joined the CIA in 1980. He was chief of the CIA‘s division on Asia, Pacific and Latin America.
Morell managed the staff that produced the Presidential Daily Briefings for President George W. Bush. Morell was Bush’s briefer during the September 11, 2001 attacks, and has been quoted as saying, “I would bet every dollar I have that it’s al Qaeda.” Morell was also a trusted asset to President Barack H. Obama II in the Osama bin Laden raid on May 2, 2011. Before his 2010 nomination as deputy director, Morell served as director for intelligence, a position he had held since 2008. Before that, he served as the CIA’s first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008.
What you can take from Morell’s background is that he is no dummy and had plenty of experience in the CIA.
So one of two things happened with the Bengahzi talking points:
1. He did not NEED a direct order to cook the books. It could have been understood
2. OR because he took the analyst’s at Langley assessment, over the field assessment,they got it wrong.He totally disregarded all those reports. From what i heard today, zillions of them.
I find it hard to believe that a person with his experience took the assessment from Langley over the zillions of reports from the field.Unless he took the Langley reports deliberately;making it possible for him to at least say that the analysts report attributed the murders to a video[ causing a protest]. There were several contradictions in his testimony. At one point he said they could not come up with a motive. In the next breathe he was willing to say it was 1 of 3 motives so you couldn’t be sure-yet,he went with the report that it was a video causing a protest[similar to the Egyptian protests]. What was it then? They could not get a motive or they could get a motive? Forget motive. He said it was possibly a protest turned into an attack. Nope. An attack is well planned. The reports show that it was planned in advance. It couldn’t be both.A SPONTANEOUS attack that escalated into an attack. It had to be either a spontaneous protest over a video or a planned attack. All the evidence points to a planned attack.He knows better.Everyone but the CIA and the WH then knew it was a terrorist attack.
You don’t have to have the WH saying cook the books either. All you have to have, is that it’s UNDERSTOOD you cover Obama’s butt.
If that’s not true then it was very sloppy work from an experienced CIA director who knew it was Osama behind the 9/11 attack;and who deliberately took a sloppy report from his analysts totally discrediting his field officers. If you’re going to do that why bother having field officers?
I find it hard to believe. I think he UNDERSTOOD that he had to cover the WH butt and handed them the “it was video causing a protest report.” Even though he ADAMANTLY kept saying they could not know the motive without talking to the perpetrators.BTW, NONE of which they’ve gone after because the WH is STILL not willing to admit they’re al-Qaeda militants. It just happened to be on 9/11. Yeah,right.
Not buying any of it.
Post Script: State Dept next people. Question them.