General Discussion

starroute

(12,977 posts)

18. Could it have something to do with James Woolsey?

Reply to nashville_brook (Original post)

Sun Jun 16, 2013, 12:19 PM

Jun 2013

In 2002, Neocon and PNACer James Woolsey joined Booz Allen Hamilton as head of their Global Strategic Security Practice, which had been created specifically to chase after War on Terror contracts in the wake of 9/11.

Woolsey had been CIA director under Clinton in 1993-95 -- but according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._James_Woolsey,_Jr.), the two of them never got along, and Clinton had chosen him only to pay back the neoconservatives who had supported his campaign.

Wikipedia states that "Woolsey has been known primarily as a neoconservative Democrat[13][14] — hawkish on foreign policy issues but liberal on economic and social issues. He endorsed Senator John McCain for president and served as one of McCain's foreign policy advisors.[15] He has called himself a "Scoop Jackson Democrat" and a "Joe Lieberman Democrat", with "social democratic" domestic views. He regards the label 'neoconservative' as a 'silly term'."

It wouldn't explain the BAH support of Obama in 2008, though.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

47 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Booz Allen Hamilton sees a HUGE difference btwn Dems and Repubs [View all] nashville_brook Jun 2013 OP

Makes One Wonder Who Is Carrying The Water For Whom - Rest Assured It Is Not The American Citizens cantbeserious Jun 2013 #1

this just really blows my mind. nashville_brook Jun 2013 #2

As Is Always Said - Follow The Money - Not The Distracting Side Stories cantbeserious Jun 2013 #4

Republicans are NATURAL supporters..it takes MONEY to change an opponent angstlessk Jun 2013 #42

I Am At The Point That Most Politicians Are Corrupted By The Surveillance State Threat And Money cantbeserious Jun 2013 #43

I totally agree..and I am sure the money spent by Booze Allen angstlessk Jun 2013 #44

Follow. The. Money. (nt) DirkGently Jun 2013 #3

It could be that the ability to have total information awareness Vinnie From Indy Jun 2013 #5

this data indicates to me that Obama and Hillary were competing for $$ nashville_brook Jun 2013 #7

I know, I KNOW... his vote to shield the TELCOS nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #14

interesting. hmmm. nashville_brook Jun 2013 #20

Maybe Obama received more simply because he won the primary. Jarla Jun 2013 #29

Cui Bono Aerows Jun 2013 #6

Yet some here try to make Snowden, not the NSA or BAH, the villain of the piece. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #8

when you're operating on this level, is anyone not a villain? nashville_brook Jun 2013 #10

Hold your friends close, your enemies closer Fumesucker Jun 2013 #9

in the case of Bush v Kerry, the numbers are too disparate nashville_brook Jun 2013 #12

I'm fond of the "tip of the iceberg" theory, if you see something obvious there's probably more Fumesucker Jun 2013 #15

Are they our Halliburton? annabanana Jun 2013 #11

that is a very good question. who is whose client. nashville_brook Jun 2013 #13

They're selling "cyber security services" to Dubai. Maybe? DirkGently Jun 2013 #16

That is spare change ... kentuck Jun 2013 #17

Could it have something to do with James Woolsey? starroute Jun 2013 #18

ah -- this is a decent explanation of the coolness toward Hillary nashville_brook Jun 2013 #19

There's probably more to it than personal relationships, though starroute Jun 2013 #21

I'm glad someone noticed that these are EMPLOYEE donations. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #23

Interesting that Booz Allen made its nut with no-bid gov't DirkGently Jun 2013 #25

But that was during the Bush administration. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #27

This is Executive Branch stuff. Meet the new boss... DirkGently Jun 2013 #28

Aha. So Booz Allen *did* want to sell UAE it's own NSA DirkGently Jun 2013 #22

how can it be okay to sell a version of the NSA to the UAE? nashville_brook Jun 2013 #24

Well that almost sounds like a conflict of interest, DirkGently Jun 2013 #26

this is why national security should never be for profit...one reason, at least nashville_brook Jun 2013 #32

Nothing supposedly about life & death should be. DirkGently Jun 2013 #39

But look at contributions of the Carlyle Group, who are the OWNERS of BAH, Jarla Jun 2013 #30

you Booz, you lose nt markiv Jun 2013 #31

K & R !!! WillyT Jun 2013 #33

You keep using "they" and "their" as if the corporate treasury wrote out a check. You do realize tritsofme Jun 2013 #34

Agreed, but some were probably through a corporate-controlled PAC Jim Lane Jun 2013 #37

Certainly a possibility, I generally agree with all that, although the color code in the OP charts tritsofme Jun 2013 #40

I interpreted the color code differently. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #47

Rec'd and bookmarked. Thank you for finding this. n/t Catherina Jun 2013 #35

Can anyone do one minute's worth of research and stop the fu##$n anti-Obama, anti-Government, okaawhatever Jun 2013 #36

sometimes $170,000 is just $170,000 nashville_brook Jun 2013 #41

Government contracts are the primary cash cows for most major American corporations. Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #38

BAH is actually trying to diversify into providing NSA capabilities to the UAE nashville_brook Jun 2013 #45

You are of course absolutely correct. Unfortunately, I believe that this place is a fairly Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #46