Bill Clintons' CIA Director James Woolsey: You Cant Trust Hillary With The White House

originally posted by: butcherguy

Bill Clinton's CIA Director and long time Democrat is another way of describing him.

Perfect example of the truth being to hard to swallow
for most Hillary supporters.

The Clintons ignore national security. Bill appointing this guy as CIA director then shelving the CIA, typical anti American actions that endangered the country. It is no wonder that Al Qaida rose to power under Clinton and even declared war on the US which Bill hid from the American public. Terror rose under Bill, it rose under Obama and it would rise to new heights under a Hillary regime.

We need a Trump to clean up their mess again. The press can have a field day hating on him the whole time just like Bush jr, but it needs to happen so it will.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP It is no wonder that Al Qaida rose to power under Clinton and even declared war on the US which Bill hid from the American public. Terror rose under Bill, it rose under Obama and it would rise to new heights under a Hillary regime.

Indeed, my views on 9/11 have come to include the Clintons as a
major factor, if not THEE major factor in the attacks.

Looking at all of the money connections between The Foundation,
and the countries that sponsor and fund terrorist attacks is downright
frightening. Add to that Bill had no interest in capturing Bin Laden,
when he had his chances he conveniently passed.

There were also huge sums of money from terrorist supporting
countries that donated to him after he took the White House.

Its time to end this abuse of power, it really is a matter of
lives at this point. We do not have to suffer under any more
9/11's or Benghazi's to know the Clinton's are part and parcel
of the problem!

Supporting evidence to my last post here:

From Judicial Watch in 2008....

Judicial Watch Obtains New Information On What Clinton Administration Knew About Bin Laden Threat

The more we uncover about the Clinton administration’s response to the bin Laden threat, the worse it looks for Bill Clinton.



Over five years before 9/11, the Clinton administration was warned about bin Laden’s murderous intent – including specific threats to attack U.S. interests through suicide car bombings in London. And yet the Clinton administration took no meaningful action against bin Laden. As a result of this inaction, not only did 9/11 come to pass, but so did massive suicide bombings in London’s Underground in 2005.

www.judicialwatch.org...

www.judicialwatch.org...

www.judicialwatch.org...

www.judicialwatch.org...

Is "No Duh" an acceptable response?

Or do I HAVE to extrapolate?

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Sremmos80
A Trump advisor saying his opponent can't be trusted? Shocking.

Is the fact that he was Clinton's CIA Director lost on you?

Yes it is. He is hardly coming from an objective stand point.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Indigo5

Lots of CIA assets died under his tenure.

Lots being 1 or 2 people? Or no one actually?
Care to name a name? Or even a circumstance?

In court, Ames admitted that he had compromised "virtually all Soviet agents of the CIA and other American and foreign services known to me" and had provided the USSR and Russia with a "huge quantity of information on United States foreign, defense and security policies."[38] It is estimated that information Ames provided to the Soviets led to the compromise of at least a hundred US intelligence operations and to the execution of at least ten US sources

en.wikipedia.org...

Not only was this under Woolsey's watch, but when reporting to Congress Woolsey refused to be accountable and said no one at CIA would be demoted or fired for the lapse..

Clinton demanded his resignation..

Since then he has worked for the McCain campaign and now Trump...

a reply to: Indigo5

Clinton was all for the reduction of HUMINT,it screwed with deniability.
Woolsey was all for it as I recall.
DEMS all want equipment not men.
NOCs die,but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep more of them so the skill stays true as well as information.

Oh man you all are hilarious! Guess we need to act like just because he was appointed by a Clinton that he owes them some allegiance.

He is working for Trump, of course he is going to say things to put his boss in a better light than Hillary. It is a fantastic appeal to authority.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Indigo5
During his 3 years before forced resignation under Clinton he never even met with Clinton once alone and had only two meetings total where other advisors were present.

And your point here is?
Are you saying this is the fault of The Director, or Clinton?

My point is precisely what I responded to?

Clinton only met with him twice in three years and not alone...By all accounts did not trust or like the man.

Thus making your BS below invalid?

How did "fault" enter in that exchange?

originally posted by: burntheships

I'll admit there are other factors to this I find equally compelling,
intriguing, such as his current connections and his intimate
knowledge of The Clinton's.

a reply to: Indigo5

According to wikipedia as a "source" that claims
an estimated 10 "sources". Those could have been Russian
for all we know, as no names. This does not equate anyone
lost a life!

Is there anything definitive there?
I don't see it if so.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Guess we need to act like just because he was appointed by a Clinton that he owes them some allegiance.

Why would he owe any allegiance to Clinton?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Indigo5

Clinton was all for the reduction of HUMINT,it screwed with deniability.
Woolsey was all for it as I recall.

Woolsey over-saw more HUMINT assets getting killed than almost any other time in history...as Aldrich Ames sold them to the Russians.

And as far as "Deniability" that is exactly what Woolsey did...

FLASHBACK 1994
Woolsey Resigns as CIA Director : Intelligence: Espionage chief was under fire for his handling of the Ames spy case. He lacked strong support in the White House and Congress.
articles.latimes.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

AGAIN, I said HE WAS copacetic with the idea.

originally posted by: Indigo5


FLASHBACK 1994
Woolsey Resigns as CIA Director : Intelligence: Espionage chief was under fire for his handling of the Ames spy case. He lacked strong support in the White House and Congress.
articles.latimes.com...

I think he was smart to get out of that cesspool.

Also, as mentioned before, Clinton had crippled intelligence
operations, so when your Commander in Chief is sabotaging
the country, might as well get out eh?

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Indigo5

According to wikipedia as a "source" that claims
an estimated 10 "sources". Those could have been Russian
for all we know, as no names. This does not equate anyone
lost a life!

Is there anything definitive there?
I don't see it if so.

1997

LANGLEY, Va. — The damage caused to U.S. intelligence by convicted turncoat Aldrich Ames was far more widespread than has been previously disclosed, according to the CIA's chief investigator in the case.

Jeanne Vertefeuille, who led the CIA team that eventually caught Ames, said in an interview that Ames provided his Soviet handlers with the names of hundreds of foreign agents working for the U.S. around the world, not just the 20 to 25 in the Soviet Union who were killed or imprisoned after he betrayed them during nearly a decade of selling CIA secrets to the KGB.

articles.chicagotribune.com...

Again when Woolsey went before Congress to explain how Ames, a member of his inner circle, went undetected until one investigator went rogue against Woolsey's wishes...Woolsey said it wasn't his fault and no one at CIA would be demoted or lose their job..

It was a BIPARTISAN call for Woolsey to resign.

a reply to: burntheships

He doesn't...

Which is why I am saying it isn't shocking that now that he is working for Trump he is saying Clinton isn't trustworthy. Which you all got up in arms about since he worked for Bill.

You guys just want act like this is some major development when it is nothing but a guy working for Trump saying Clinton is bad.

a reply to: Indigo5

On March 10, 1994, the Committee heard testimony in executive session from Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey, about the interim actions he was taking in light of the Ames case. This testimony was supplemented by a letter from the Director on March 24, 1994, advising the Committee that he

would not promote, advance to a more responsible position, or provide any job- related recognition to, those responsible for supervising Ames or for dealing with issues related to the Ames investigation until the Inspector General had submitted his report on the case. Additional steps to tighten security at the CIA were also outlined in the letter.
fas.org...

You have really need to look at the big picture,
Ames was operating for a very long time before Woolsey was director.

Adding details to the damage done by the spy case of Aldrich H. Ames, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said today that from 1986 to 1994 the Central Intelligence Agency passed on to Presidents and Pentagon officials a total of 95 reports from foreign agents whom it knew or strongly suspected were controlled by Moscow.
www.nytimes.com...

And finally Woolsey was not alone in the sting by the KGB.

In 1995, the CIA admitted that for eight years since 1986, it produced highly classified intelligence reports derived from “bogus” and “tainted” sources, including 35 reports that were based on data from double agents, and 60 reports compiled using sources that were suspected of being controlled by Moscow.

The false information reached the highest levels of government, including three presidents—Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton.

The CIA’s inspector general urged reprimands for several senior CIA officers and directors William H. Webster, Robert M. Gates, and R. James Woolsey freebeacon.com...

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Which is why I am saying it isn't shocking that now that he is working for Trump he is saying Clinton isn't trustworthy.

Yes, I am aware you are overlooking the fact that he is bipartisan
in politics as far as National Security is concerned.

a reply to: burntheships

I wouldn't trust Clinton nor Trump in the White House. We're screwed either way!!!