Woolsey Evades Questions by Insulting Jan

[FatLibertarianInOkc]

God this is a good one. Woolsey acts so smug and arrogant, but he got OWNED here.

[Watchdawg]

Just like Stefan Molyneux says, you have to break it down into real language and not let them use their language which they use to make things sound softer.

[Deb1inFla]

I'd like to know why he was asking such a ridiculous question in the first place. The CIA director is not the one who decides if the US "invades" another country or not, so what does it matter if he has "a principle" about when we do it? "desperate attempt to evade the question"? I think he just thought the question was stupid and I so agree,and the interviewer is the worst I've ever seen, too.

[janhelfeld]

@Deb1inFla Woolsey promoted the war every day BUT HAD NO PRINCIPLE TO DIRECT HIM.



[pr0f3550r]

@Deb1inFla No, but a director would be someone that advises a president.

THE DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE (DI) analyzes all sources of information to produce timely, accurate, and relevant intelligence that helps the President and others charged with protecting America and advancing U.S. interests make informed decisions.

The DI also is the largest contributor to...the PDB is given only to the President, VVP, and to those Cabinet-level officials the President designates as recipients.

cia.gov

[jimbo4261]

Another CIA jerk that needs to be eleminated from the USA

[olga2415]

"You're really one of the worse interviewers..." translates to, "You're one of the best at trying to get at the facts. I must insult you." lol

[Hostile]

@janhelfeld you need to get this documentary out, blow it up online (huge business in alternative docs online) and then hire a producer. Your videos are fascinating but they look like they were made in the mid-80's, and a lot of people in my age bracket will unfairly distrust anything that doesn't have an HD CGI gleam to it... which is a tragedy because this information is exactly what people my age need to be discovering.

[olga2415]

This is how politicians function folks! They insult the public's ability to understand the very complicated issues only they understand. Most politicians are in the business of selling out their constituents the moment they see money and power flashed before their eyes.

[andrewh817]

Even if this guy never opened his mouth he'd come across as an evil prick.

[Justwannalogon]

His criteria is so complicated mere mortals like us could never comprehend it.

[Aryaba]

The one negative vote is James Woolsey. :-)

[bxlxix69]

This CIA schmuck is unbelievable; he's busted.

[Harlingtonjnr3]

Actually the guy is right. There is never a simple single principle for attacking another country. It could be defence, it could be to gain land for houses or it could be to secure oil, or simply just to crush another persons religion and bring them peace.

[crunchem7399]

@Harlingtonjnr3 and Woolsey could have simply said what you just said. But he didn't, because he's an ass...

[Harlingtonjnr3]

@crunchem7399 You didn't really read what I said eh?

[slickfists]

Jan the man :P

[Mom2BTJ]

You are the worst interviewer because you're not kissing his ass, like other reporters do.

The people you have interviewed are so use to the press kissing their behinds they get offended when asked real questions.

[malaketh]

@Mom2BTJ maybe where you are from, but im british and this is fairly common place. but yeah he is way too agressive with his questions

[coosoorlog]

fail @ logic

[capitalist4life]

He said he was "single minded". I don't know what that means.

[soundmoneyfan]

hahaha, our greatest logical thinker to ever hold a camera is simple minded, classic line for a CIA hack

[AristophanesNow]

The Catholic Church is not afraid of such questions as they have principles (in writing) regarding when wars are necessary and when they are not. This Mother Fucker gets to help decide who and how many die without being able to have a conversation regarding the thought process behind the decision to go to war?

[bigdogphoto]

I love it, all these bright people are asked questions by a simpleton yet they can't answer a question! The truth cuts like a knife doesn't it?

[sjohn274]

Well excuse me. Then why don't you explain to my simple mind how exactly you do decide. Or am I just so fucking retarded I will never understand. Fuck You Woolsey, rot in hell.

[lumpfish99]

i agree completely.......until people are no longer afraid to criticize israel and zionists for their actions for fear of being called anti-semitic we will continue to be at their mercy....

[dgdeckard]

He has an elitist principle...he knows better than you and it is not worth his time answering your inane line of questioning, because you are too simple minded to understand the answers I would give.

Go away, kid, you're bothering me.

[niffweed17]

woolsey is totally justified in the entirety of the discourse we've seen here.

[AFRIKTODAY]

If that country has a lot of oil and they don't want to use our toilet paper dollars, they consist a threat to our National security and to the profit margin of our NATIONAL EXXON MOBIL company; therefore, 5000 American citizen should be sacrified for a few banksters and corporatist to make their usual billions. Ameerka!!!! looooooool

[Vodka2389]

The principle should be "if the other country poses a threat or is violating the rights of Americans." It's that simple.

[lumpfish99]

poses a threat to america of course?

[australiamatters]

A "principle guiding" the CIA...well, start with the first four DCI's ~ they were all wall street banksters.

Their principle guiding them (the banksters) is a "new world order". In 2009, change the word "nation" for 'world'...

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws." Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

The Iraq "principle" was about what we see today, making room for "Greater Israel". See former NSA guy, 'The Wayne Madsen Report' has more details about that.

[WOLF333999]

Helfeld is questioning a real piece of shit here -- a dangerous piece of shit.

[wkruk1979]

my bad that was for someone else

[098uiokjh]

Hi jan,

It would be a good idea to conduct some interviews with politicains that actaully do have principles.

It would make for some good contrast so that we can see how they answer questions compared to people like Pelosi and Reid.

[mailer666]

lock these guys in a room with Jan until they are cold, sweaty, and lying on the floor in the fetal position hugging themselves.

hahahaha....

[kevindanielbrown]

Great interview. When someone won't answer a simple question it clearly shows they doubt there own positions. Keep it up Jan.

[Koldkut09]

Woolsey doesn't doubt his position.

He's just smart enough to realize that reasonable people with morals would be revolted if he truthfully expressed that position.

[JimTL1000R]

I like this guy but he reminds me of Borat! LOL

[fjfjvmvm]

Woolsey is murderous lying war profiteer. But frankly he beat the shit out of you and your idiotic simple minded questions.

[eesloan4]

It's not really a stupid question he asks. He just wants to know if there is a principle guiding the cia director or is it just about what he can get away with (pragmatism).

[stick1to2the3issue]

Seems to be a recurring theme here with the interviews...all the politicians are condescending elitist pricks. This is what liberals do not understand...this is what government inherently will always be (corruption of power combined with arrogance) which is why it should be minimized.

[shroomingnewman]

exactly. liberals believe that if only THEIR guys had all the govt power, the country would be better off. the interview with pelosi and reid show that these people are true egotistical nimrods, whose only objective is to preserve their power. human nature doesn't recognize political ideologies!

[timbosforporn]

What liberals believe is that govt should be able to control all aspects of our lives. Just look at the so called stimulus package they passed. Its 800 billion that is suppose to inject spending into the economy but they wont do 800 billion in tax cuts that would do the same because the control on how that money gets spent would be put in the hands of citizens. Thats the real motive behind 90% of what liberals do in everything they do.

[mre2u2]

@stick1to2the3issue : I tend to agree, but I think you're simplifying it too much by saying it is only the liberals do not understand this. Bush certainly didn't Reagan didn't.. and most 'reasonable persons' would agree that these two characters were far from liberal.

[stick1to2the3issue]

@mre2u2

You're confusing the issue. In general, liberals have a much stronger trust in government but they fail to realize that those in office (democrat or republican) will do whatever it is that is politically profitiable (say building a bridge to nowhere - republican). The issue therefore is to make it politically profitable for politicans to do the right thing. I.e. the tea party is making it politically profitable for politicans to endorse less spending and smaller government.

[mre2u2]

@stick1to2the3issue : To clarify, had Jr believed that, truly, we wouldn't be in 2 concurrent wars, we wouldn't have totally new and even more uncontrollable mega-bureaucracies in the name of 'security' when the system that was in place could have been fixed, rather than supplanted. Spending? All I can say is two words STAR WARS

[Hostile]

@stick1to2the3issue Government is always inherently bad, therefore it should be minimized? That's not the logical conclusion. If something is always inherently bad then it should be abolished outright. The concept of a 'necessary evil' is only possible when your goal is something other than the moral good.

[stick1to2the3issue]

@Hostile Interesting point. I will rephrase. A minimal amount of government is necessary to curb evil, not that evil in governemnt does not exist, but that a greater amount of evil will exist with out a limited government.

[Hostile]

@stick1to2the3issue But if we agree that coercion is evil, and that government is inherently coercive, how can one use evil to to 'curb evil', especially by institutionalising it with a total monopoly on legal force? Further, where is the evidence to suggest that 'a greater amount of evil will exist' without statism? Markets do not become more evil when laws are liberalised and evil is curbed. Why shouldn't this be true for all human affairs?

[stick1to2the3issue]

@Hostile I'll clarify my point, and you may disagree. Althought individual human beings are capable of doing good, humans are still inherently evil and I think the history of man brings this to bare. Therefore any organization of humans (including government) will include elements of that evil. That being said, it is my contention that a greater amount of evil would exist without a limited, non-intrusive government whose role it is to protect the rights of indiviuals from those who would abuse.

[Hostile]

@stick1to2the3issue I see no historical evidence that man is inherently evil. Terrible crimes have been committed throughout human history but only by a small minority of the human population. War and empire has become far less common in the modern era, which suggests that either human nature has changed or that humans were never inherently evil, only ignorant and scared.

I think you're arguing that the ends justify the means. I disagree; you cannot protect people from abuse by abusing them.

[olga2415]

@stick1to2the3issue Inherently, more members of the human race are decent. It's the few who are totally amoral and evil who control the rest by any and many means at their disposal; the most salient is fear. Today, because science and technology is so developed , the evil ones have even more tools at their disposal. As for your argument about government; I totally disagree. Govt. is the most evil entity on the planet. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Govt. is too large.

[CynicKnowsBest]

Either you have one or you don't. Sorry Woolsey, that's just how reality works.

[jcarter557]

That was absolutely hilarious, Jan you need to get a hold of these politicians and start them with cookies and milk and then maybe they will answer your Great questions

[WOLF333999]

Cookies and milk? You are too kind. I suggest a gun to the heads of these people.

[jcarter557]

I agree but these politicians are just a bunch of hypocritical phonies and they pacify each other's ego's and also pad each other's pocket's out of expense of the taxpayers

[wkruk1979]

go bomb another abortion clinic you right wing terrorist

[dgdeckard]

You suck!

Go be like ZerObama's buddy Bill Ayers who participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972.

Expressing 1st Amendment right to free speech isn't terrorism.

But anyone that would oppose ZerObama's Socialist agenda is defined, by default, a terrorist.

I think you are losing and that scares you. There, there...you'll still be able to protest the Right Wing after it returns to power.

[zaboomafroo]

In other words, all government action is completely arbitrary and at the sole discretion of the person in power.

[JonasAbrahamLind]

Awesome!!!:D

[Deoptics8]

That was great!

[leafwatch]

Jan, you are a hero and a delight.

[Seiku]

Well that does sound like a trick question. I would have asked, "Do you have a guideline or set of rules" etc.

[libertyeconomics]

Jan, you describe people at the VA. I wrote some WELL-WRITTEN, POLITE letters to the VA giving a play-by-play of something the VA had done to me, only for my letter to be completely ignored, but then described by the VA as "threatening." This then got me "flagged" by the VA, and the VA has security guards follow me around if I were to check in for an appointment.

[jdmac44]

"I'm not going to say that I don't have a principle" (but I don't!) lol