Well . . . This interview clip can be our introduction (or re-introduction to some) of Woolsey. Woolsey makes me Woosie. He also got himself a new job, probably because he did such a great job on that Committee on the present danger, headed by Senators Liberman and Kyle in which it was determined that Iran's military (Iranian Revolutionary Guard) was to be called terrorists. And the Committee on the Present Danger, as some of you are no doubt aware, is a TAD too happy to push like hell for regime change in both Iran and Syria, and for the singularly evil thesis of the Project for a New American Century, which is the immoral, unethical and illegal use of American military might to reshape the world.
It will likely come as NO shock to nobody that Woolsey has been accused of both profiting from and promoting the Iraq War.
Welcome to John "The World is OURS" McCain's Foreign Policy team . . . Jim Woolsey and his buddy on that same Committee on the Present Danger, Randy Schoenberg. Here's an interview with the McCain Foreign Policy Advisor (Link to Interview) that should easily reveal how these people think:
INTERVIEWER: Are you convinced this is Iran and Syria?
JIM WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Oh, certainly. I think Iran is the puppet master, and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas to varying degrees are the puppets. This is really about Iran versus the US, and Israel is in the way.
INTERVIEWER: Woolsey, are you saying that we should be hitting Syria, we should be hitting the airport, we should be hitting Bashar Assad's office?
WOOLSEY: Yes. The last thing we ought to do now, I think-.
INTERVIEWER: Well, you mean we the United States, not Israel.
WOOLSEY: Yes. Yes. I think the last thing we ought to do now is to start talking about ceasefires. This is a very serious challenge from Iran, and we need to weaken them badly, and undermining the Syrian government with air strikes would help weaken them badly.
INTERVIEWER: If undermining Syria, if taking Syria down a peg or two by actually hitting them with air strikes would be effective, why not hit something in Iran?
WOOLSEY: Well, you know, one has to take things to some degree by steps.
Be afraid people . . . these congenital liars, corrupt miscreants and filthy, vile people are leading this nation into another in a series of military machinations that could involve another War if we're lucky . . . if we're not . . . a World War . . . They did not get this close to their goals to give up and walk away. And anyone can see McCain was bought off . . . this is not the same McCain by ANY stretch of the imagination.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
is my favorite diplomat. In the movie "The Diplomaniacs" he and team mate Bert Wheeler played barbers on an Indian reservation who were sent to represent the tribe at an international peace conference in Geneva. It's a fine movie and makes as much sense as a lot of international politics, especially as espoused by people like the other Woolsey.
Wow. You mean a person who slips up once during the world record scorched earth campaign is not better than someone who does NOT slip up and says what he thinks even if he thinks we need to attack more and more countries in the middle east? Brilliant.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
There's a surprise!
The insult to the American public that getting us involved in another war is a good idea in order to maintain the Republic status quo.
Let's hope that backward thinking does not bear fruit. The republicans sure as snot won't get there with me.
We are the people that will see the end.
The constellation of warmongers and delusional idiots around McCain deserves wider recognition.
The number of kooks around McCain continues to increase as he still feels compelled to appease Republicans who detest him.
But curiously, he's never even been to Iraq one time.
Kinda makes you go "hmmmmmm", doesn't it?
That's some guy you Lefties have there..............
Enjoy the Democrats diversion as long as it lasts, all you guys looking for an aged daddy.
When the McCain record begins to be examined - there will be a whole world of explaining to do.
Corruption, cronyism, his extreme anti-abortion agitation, the 100 years in Iraq - the country is moving away from him on all of these issues.
What a crock.
Iraq did not attack us, Mostly Dim Plutocrat.
The "terrorists" have no dog in our Presidential election. If anything, Binb Laden has been encouraging greater US intervention abroad.
Bin Laden is the biggest booster of the failed Bush strategy of anyone in the world.
Osama believes our foreign wars will bankrupt and exhaust us.
So far, he has been far more often correct than Bush.
I've popped some popcorn. I'll just sit back here and enjoy.
Apparently, it is the only thing that has lodged in her mind (apart from the bogus claim that Hams endorses Obama! - just love how fearful and uneducated people create compelling "arguments") .
McCain narrowly avoided indictment (by throwing himself on the mercy of the Senate) for his shoddy money-grubbing habits.
Remember the Keating Five !
He is a changed man, now, of course.
He married an heiress (to Anhauser Busch) who can personally make all the illegal campaign contributions that he needs.
All the folks clamoring for Hillary's financial records were curiously silent about the dubious "gifts" of Cindy MCain.
It is going to be a great ride to Election Day.
It doesn't.
When I see article on McCain and other Republicans, it's the same old type of thing but not the same old thing. Note the difference.
"Oh please, Obama makes a mistatement while McCain proclaims that anyone could go strolling through the outdoor markets in Baghdad.
Well, he did when he was there, Peter.
What did Obama do when he was in the Baghdad market talking to troops?
Enjoy the Democrats diversion as long as it lasts, all you guys looking for an aged daddy.
I'll enjoy Leftist backbiting as long as it continues. However, the "Democratic party" is now gone, with Hillary's virtual demise. Only the "New Left" remains.
When the McCain record begins to be examined - there will be a whole world of explaining to do.
Wimsey, the guy has been around for 25+ years as a politician. He and Hillary are the most thoroughly vetted people in DC. The skeletons in McCain's closet are all out and on display. However, Obama's a newbie greenhorn. His skeletons are still yet to be explored.
Corruption, cronyism, his extreme anti-abortion agitation, the 100 years in Iraq - the country is moving away from him on all of these issues."
He's so much better than the Socialist alternative, in just about every way imaginable. That's why a discussion of the issues will be Obama's downfall. Especially when he starts talking about how he'll pay for everything he's advocated on barackobama.com.
And the "57 states" comment is appropriate anytime you're talking about a President. And the video is hilarious too.
Don't worry, Bret. He's creating new skeletons every day he sells his soul out to Bush supporters like you. By the time November rolls around he'll be sleeping with Laura! He was probably next in line to give away Jenna. I used to have some respect for his centrist views and his experience, but no more. He's proven to be a total sell-out. Imagine someone with military experience who went through years as a prisoner of war, who was a staunch anti-torture spokesperson, turning around to be pro-torture?
Screw that kind of experience. Hitler built up experience within Germany before invading the rest of Europe and Russia. I'll take intelligence, morals, ethics, and honesty with (dare I say it?) MUCH more experience than G.W. had when he got elected. But, most of all, I'll take someone who realizes that this country is FOR the people and BY the people. You Bush maniacs have been brainwashed to think that the dictator in office right now is the way that real democratic governments should be run. Hopefully, Obama will be able to bring you back to the reality of representative government.....the way things were before the oil tyrants took hold of DC.
McCain is about as transparent as a candidate can get after being in the white-hot spotlight for 25+ years. And yet, he's running neck-and-neck with the current equivalent of Elvis. How is that possible in a year where we should be beating the Republicans to death?
Sheryl, whenever somebody has no more ammunition politically, they start talking about Hitler or Stalin. Stop, please. It makes you look ignorant - and I know you aren't.
However, you're pissing up a rope there with that argument. We look for experience because it adds value to whomever has spent the time, money, and effort to attain it.
And that is why we also devalue anyone with a lack of experience.
Yeah . . . the body, but not the soul. The McCain on display now is not the politician you refer to. He was against torture before he was FOR torture . . . remember? He was against Bush before he took to lip-locking with him every opportunity. And at 72 yrs. old...his running mate will be something even more important to consider.
Well done Bret . . . classic way to skirt the issues and turn the conversation from the discomfort you feel everytime you get to support this filthy bunch of criminals. Sheryl is spot-on. McCain is not McCain . . . He's been Bushified. and you can play around and change the subject but it remains true.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Surely, Sheryl, you know the type Bret admires: quantity, not quality.
No Democrat since 1916 has lost WVa and gone on to win the White House. Obama was blown-out there.
No candidate from either party has lost Ohio and gone on to win the White House. Obama was handily defeated there.
No Democratic candidate since 1920 has lost Pennsylvania and gone on to win the White House. Obama was beaten easily there.
Are you guys even watching the numbers?
Your guy is in deep trouble.
What a load of crap.
History is clear: Any Presidential candidate from Arizona will lose the election in a landslide.
Are you guys even watching the numbers?
Your guy is in deep trouble.
History is clear: No Republican with a 'Mc'name has won the office since McKinley in 1897! Over 100 years ago!
What the hell were your guys thinking to nominate this man?
Your guy is in deep doo doo!
Why don't we analyze the two foreign policies approaches proposed by the democrats and republicans. These are serious questions. George Bush approach has taken nowhere and McCain has endorsed it. This is a serious problem.
I don't hold it against your guy, too much....LOL
Look at the history. Look at the demographics. Obama doesn't have either one in his corner. If you believe in a scientific method to voting, then you'll see that Obama's demographics don't look good in November.
If he keeps losing these "bedrock states" by large amounts you can only come to one conclusion : another loss for another Liberal Democrat in November.
I thought I felt a hemorrhoid coming on..............then you show up. How appropriate.
Any of them won it in the primary and lost it in the general??????????????
Of course you don't consider that angle. You just run with what the Clinton campaign feeds you with.
For example if Clinton were the nominee and lost WVA and the general, the streak will continue. No democrat would still not have won WV and won the GE. However that makes her argument meaningless. The win of WVA in the primary does not mean you would win WVA in the general. Didn't John Kerry won WVA in primary and lost it in the general. That argument is plain stupid.
By the way, no black man has ever won the nomination. So what? What can we infer about the chances of a black man becoming president.
You arguments fail basic tests of logic.
This is fallacious reasoning. You're using general election data and applying it to primaries. Losing a state in the primary does not mean it will be lost in the general!
Bruce.
"Any of them won it in the primary and lost it in the general??????????????"
It has never happened in modern times (since Lincoln). Definitely no one has ever lost ALL the states Obama has : Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky.
"For example if Clinton were the nominee and lost WVA and the general, the streak will continue. No democrat would still not have won WV and won the GE. However that makes her argument meaningless. The win of WVA in the primary does not mean you would win WVA in the general. Didn't John Kerry won WVA in primary and lost it in the general. That argument is plain stupid."
1) Voting statistics just don't work the way you're projecting, Jared. Its a pretty static set of data. When one candidate does well in the WVa Democratic primary, for instance, they usually do well in the general election too. Especially with the overwhelming numbers Hillary had in a state like WVa.
2) What you're suggesting has never happened, and is highly unlikely to happen any time in the future. If you think Obama can beat those long odds, maybe you should gather up a few thousand dollars and bet on him. If you win, Obama could make you a millionaire.....LOL
Do you have anything to add to the conversation?
Or are you just going to be a mosquito again?...............like you usually are.
What you're talking about has no statistical possibility of happening, given voting as we know it..............at least not in modern times.
Obama must win those 5 states to have any chance at all of winning in November. If he loses even two of them, he's sunk.
If he's to win, he has to appeal to the Centrist voters in those states. The only way that could happen is if he pulls dramatically back to more Centrist positions on the issues between now and November.
Bret, dear, every time we do something new, we haven't seen it happen before. That' why it's a precedent. Hence the term, "new."
We just have to patient with Bret and his ilk.
We often discuss the value of History and learning from our mistakes, but people who profess doing the research become mired in and focused upon the Trends and Statistics. Neither of these is a controlling force -- they are simply observations made and completely subject to change. They are given undeserved clout here.
Or, to put it another way, the only constant is Change. We are in for a good one.
"Bret has long demonstrated his inability to think logically. He believes that, as he is of the same species as creative and inventive individuals, that makes him superior to others."
Stephanie, I think you've come to a point where you can't argue the well-founded research, and without logic or reason in your corner, you're conjuring up "hope" and "change" as your answers - much in the way Obama does the exact same thing.
"Bret, dear, every time we do something new, we haven't seen it happen before. That' why it's a precedent. Hence the term, "new.""
Hahahaha, good one Steph.
But is that really the best you can come up with?
I mean, if this were the elections of 1820, you'd have a good point - there'd be almost no history to go on. But this is the election of 2008, and we have TONS of history to refer to.
Obama needs to overcome some major deficits in his demographics. He can't do that by being as Far Left as he currently is.
He just can't win the bell-weather states unless he has, at minimum, a Centrist point of view. Just look at Hillary's 41 point blow-out of Obama in the latest race (West Virginia) as proof.
The past is just the past. We can learn from it, but there's no reason to believe the future cannot change for the better.
My question to Bret is this: if Obama is "far left", what do you call Kim Jong-il? Castro? You know, communists, Maoists and the like? By any reasonable standard, Obama is just slightly left of center. Why is it so hard to be truthful in applying these labels?
"My question to Bret is this: if Obama is "far left", what do you call Kim Jong-il? Castro?"
Political labels are relative to the types of governments they represent. Let me give you an example :
In 1987, most of the old-line Soviet leadership would have been called VERY Conservative...............Conservative for a Communist, that is.
In the American system, any of those old-line Soviets would have been considered WILDLY Left Wing - which they were.
Does that help re-frame your question a little better?
In a Communist system like North Korea, Kim Jong-il is a Conservative.
In a Communist system like Cuba, Fidel and Raul Castro are Conservatives.
However, in our political system, all 3 are WILDLY Left Wing.
Aniko, Obama is not "just slightly Left of Center"................he's FAR Left, and has the kudos from many Left Wing magazines for his views. The most memorable one is The National Journal, who has a yearly Liberal ranking of Senators and Congressmen, based purely on their voting record. Wonder who ranked as this year's #1 most Liberal Senator? Yep, you guessed it : Barack Obama.
That alone puts him at the farthest Left extreme on the American political scale. Hillary was ranked #16.............which actually puts her in the "slightly Left of Center" category, where you erroneously thought Obama belonged.
There's the truth for you, Aniko.
For more, go here :
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=
281474977347736&nav=Namespace
But you are perhaps right that it would be better to use US examples. So--if Obama is far left, what would this guy be?
I don't confuse Castro.
He's a Communist. When you talk about larger, international systems use terms like "Communist", "Socialist", "Capitalist", etc.
If someone believes in increased 'Entitlements', higher taxes, less free trade, and more government control over the means of production and distribution.................well, feel free to call that person Barack Obama.............ooooops, I mean "a Socialist".
Considering your link to Ward Churchill :
He's a disgraced liar. Who cares what his political beliefs are now?..............even though his radical Leftist beliefs really were the spark that led to his downfall.
I consider him, and people like him to be clowns.