↓
 
Home » Putin: Kerry is lying

Putin: Kerry is lying

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, of course he is. He’s moving his lips.

I know, it’s a cheap shot. But anyone who has followed the career of John Kerry can’t help noticing he’s a frequent liar.

I knew it back in the early 70s, and I was a liberal Democrat then. I had a visceral reaction to the man during the Vietnam years and it has only gotten worse over time.

I started blogging back in 2004 when Kerry was running for president. At the time I could hardly imagine a worse candidate for the Democratic Party to have nominated. Now, of course, I realize that this was a major failure of imagination on my part. But still, it came as no surprise recently that Kerry and Obama might be kindred spirits and that Kerry was chosen by Obama to replace Clinton as Secretary of State, a position for which Kerry has been angling his whole life.

And no, I certainly don’t believe everything Putin says, either. He has his own agenda, to say the least. But when Kerry claims that the “rebels” in Syria are moderates, it’s a lie on the order of “the Benghazi attack was in response to a video.” In other words, it would be laughable if it weren’t so sad.

The left is nothing if not consistent, however. The Ayatollah Khomeini was a moderate before he came to power. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, likewise. And for Kerry, back in the day, the North Vietnamese were moderates too, when he made this prediction:

There is no interest on the part of the North Vietnamese to try to massacre the people once [we] have agreed to withdraw.

History has proven Kerry to not have been the greatest prognosticator on these matters.

[NOTE: One of my very first posts on this blog was about Kerry’s habitual lying.]

Comments

Putin: Kerry is lying — 40 Comments

  1. Putin = alpha male, KGB official

    Obama = beta male, community organizer

    Kerry = beta male, trust fund husband

    I’d bet that the smart money is on Putin to win.

  2. Hope you don’t mind, Neo, but those death stats are worth posting here, I think.

    “Up to 155,000 refugees fleeing the final NVA Spring Offensive were killed or abducted on the road to Tuy Hoa in 1975.[60]

    Sources have estimated that 165,000 South Vietnamese died in the re-education camps out of 1-2.5 million sent,[61][62] while the number executed could have been as high as 200,000[63] (Jacqueline Desbarats estimates an absolute minimum of 100,000 executions[61][64]).

    Rummel estimates that slave labor in the “New Economic Zones” caused 50,000 deaths (out of a total 1 million deported).[61][65]

    The number of Vietnamese boat people who died is estimated between 200,000 and 400,000, out of the 2.5 million that fled.[66]

    There were also tens of thousands of suicides after the North Vietnamese take-over.[67]

    Including Vietnam’s foreign democide, Rummel estimates that a minimum of 400,000 and a maximum of slightly less than 2.5 million people died of political violence from 1975-87 at the hands of Hanoi.[65] In 1988, Vietnam suffered a famine that afflicted millions.[68]

    Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge killed 1-3 million Cambodians in the killing fields, out of a population of around 8 million.[69][70][71] The Pathet Lao killed some 100,000 Hmong people in Laos.[72][73]”

    I sent the preceding to my niece, who has very occasionally voted Republican. With the heading “A little history.” I’m sure she’s never heard of any of it. (She’s 25.)

  4. I think neo’s 2004 election post nailed it by identifying Kerry’s narcissism:

    “An exaggerated sense of self-importance…“.
    “Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes”

    Kerry’s tediously slow, deliberate, booming and tendentious way of speaking just reeks of an “arrogant, haughty and patronizing” “exaggerated sense of self-importance.” Like the voice of God himself thundering down from the heavens to enlighten His children.

    Ah, let’s savor this golden oldie:

    “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.”

    Yeah, you’re John Kerry and nobody gives a sh** aside from the fervent wish that you’d just shut up and go away.

  5. Once again I agree with Neo one hundred per cent. Kerry turns my stomach; he has since his despicable performance in 1972. My antipathy goes beyond his betrayal of American fighting men before the Senate. Every time I see a Purple Heart recipient with missing arms or legs I flash back to Kerry corrupting the system. Ugh!

    Change of topic, but associated thoughts after listening to the Weasel(s); and Putin.

    The excuse for not going to the UN apparently is that Russia would veto any action. Well, so what? If what Assad has done is so terrible, and it is if he actually did it, why not put Russia and Putin on the spot? Make them go on record as supporting the criminal activity. Instead, we are rushing toward unilateral action.

    A basic question is why the Democrats, and other anti-war constituencies calling for Obama to present the case to the International community?

    Well, I suspect the reason goes well beyond Russia’s anticipated opposition. I strongly suspect that Obama, Kerry and the rest of their merry band know that they would be able to get damn little, if any, international support for any meaningful action against Syria. They are afraid to risk it.

    Dishonesty writ large.

  6. Oh, come on, proof read before clicking the submit icon, fellow.
    I hope it is obvious,although not stated, that I meant to pose the question of why the Pacifist crowd ARE NOT calling for Obama to present the case…

  7. For all the hate you guys have for Democrats and liberals it is amazing how much you have in common with them in opposition to a Syrian war. Good to see you guys coming around. Of course, if the president were a Republican you would likely be leading the chant for war. Times change. At least the left if consistent in opposition to war.

    That said, have you any plans to get rid of Assad? Or should we just let him continue to brutally suppress any kind of protest against his gov’t?

  8. MDL,

    Nice try at deflection. Want to actually, you know, address the points above?

    The idea that a communist-sympathizing war protester could eventually become SOS in the U.S. shows how far the country has fallen. And MDL’s knee-jerk reaction to that hard truth only fortifies that fact.

  9. MDL:

    Point is: does Obama have any plans to get rid of Assad? Preferably in small-ish pieces.

    Commander-in-Chief job’s description is to decide who to terminate with extreme prejudice> Obama will not make this decision…I think because he IS afraid that he, in turn, will be terminate with extreme prejudice. In aforesaid small pieces…

    O is a very Beta Male, y’know.

  10. MDL, you must have missed the excerpt from Obama’s 2002 speech on the subject of ridding the world of atrocious Despots. Neo printed it. It resonates now. I copied it below.

    I have to paraphrase the line that immediately preceded this quote; Obama said he did not object to war, he only objected to dumb war. Then this–
    ” Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed (and used) chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

    By the way, I posted just above a question as to why Obama and his Administration are not bringing charges in the UN before they take “vigilante” action. The Democrats always champion the UN when a Republican is President. In the “dumb” war that Obama railed against the UN was heavily involved; and it was in fact the violation of multiple UN sanctions that was used to justify removing Saddam–lest you forgot.

  11. Gary @ 3:54 wrote:

    “An exaggerated sense of self-importance…“.
    “Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes”

    Kerry? Here I thought you were describing Barack Obama . . . Nancy Pelosi . . . Anthony Wiener . . . Dick Durbin . . . Barbara Boxer . . . . . . . . .

  12. “He’s moving his lips.”
    Some politicians have learned how to text message and they can lie without moving their lips.

  13. I Callahan
    I won’t deny Kerry is a liar. So were most of the people in the Bush admin. Some day maybe you’ll come around and realize that all politicians lie. Doesn’t matter if they are on the left or right. Those are just arbitrary labels. People in power have an agenda and pockets to line.

    What I am saying is that at least people [not politicians] on the left – over the past 40 years or so – have always been opposed to war. The right isn’t always opposed to war. It depends who is president. Since Obama is president there is no way you guys would support a war he wants. I’m not supporting it either. But not because Obama wants it.

  14. As to consistency, so where are all the anti-war celebrities taking a stance against interfering in the Syrian civil war?

    (crickets chirp, crickets chirp, crickets chirp)

  15. Under the reality of The Gods of the Copybook Headings….

    Didn’t they always tell us that lying was the worst thing you could do? That your reputation was everything?

    The Rubicon of lying has been crossed by Obama, Kerry, every member of his administration and all liberals everywhere basically. Lying is what they do, or at least it is their preferred tactic for getting to do what they do.

    Obama, the IRS, Benghazi, the NSA and our whole wicked and ontologically corrupted Bureaucracy are power grabbing liars…and nothing more really.

    So now we are to believe them?

    What if they are telling the truth this one time? Who knows? Who should trust them for anything?

    And the problem with that is that we all get hurt; the USA gets hurt and all of us in it.

    People who voted for these moral reprobates have done perhaps the greatest damage possible to our once great country – they have degraded the reputation and meaning of “America”.

  16. This entire administration has lied openly and shamelessly from the beginning. They don’t even mind getting caught.

    I never thought I would see the day when I would think the leader of Russia is more credible than any American in government, but that day has come. Nothing, no matter how important or how trivial, that this administration says can be trusted.

    I suppose we can thank the press for helping to foist this collection of wicked, lying clowns into the seats of power.

  17. “Kerry claims that the “rebels” in Syria are moderates”

    To Kerry’s way of thinking they probably are moderates.

  18. MDL Says:
    September 5th, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    That said, have you any plans to get rid of Assad? Or should we just let him continue to brutally suppress any kind of protest against his gov’t?

    As long as he’s brutally suppressing Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda types, I say have at it.

  19. As much as I dislike Kerry, I really can’t get anywhere near a warm feeling for Putin. Consider the possibility of this, for example: Did Vladimir Putin Bait a Trap for the United States in Damascus? That is, did he give the orders for the nerve-gas attack?

    …the chain of military command inside Syria doesn’t end with the country’s president. The idea that Assad gave the order to carry out such a massive and politically dangerous attack without the approval of his Russian and Iranian advisers is also absurd–given the regime’s near-total reliance on Russian and Iranian strategic planning, supplies, fighters, and diplomatic backing for its week-to-week survival.

    and

    While Obama was making his calculations about staying out of Syria–calculations that appear in retrospect to have been both reasonable and false–Putin was making his own calculations about the power vacuum that Obama had left behind in the Middle East. His first conclusion from studying that vacuum appears to have been that Obama wasn’t serious about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb–since that would mean involvement in another shooting war in the region. His second conclusion was that the best way to make that conclusion obvious was by crossing Obama’s “red line” in Syria–in response to which the U.S. president would probably do nothing, or next to nothing. What made the “red line” a perfect target for a provocation was that the line was never serious; it was a fig-leaf for excusing American inaction in a bloody civil war while keeping alive the president’s stated commitment to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

    and

    Only time will tell whose evil is worse–Putin’s or Obama’s. While Putin delights in using the old-school KGB playbook to consolidate his one-man rule, and to expose the empty moral posturing of the West, Obama believes that he can talk his way into a workable accommodation between his own sense of morality and global reality. But the lesson of Obama’s fig leaf is that it is better to be honest about what we are doing in the world and why. If Putin baited a trap for the United States in Damascus, it was Obama who walked right into it. If Obama had stood up and declared that the United States had no vital interest in Syria but would stop Iran from getting nukes–and would prosecute the authors of the nerve-gas attack at The Hague–then Putin would have been trapped. The same would have been true if Obama had said nothing and blown up two or three of Assad’s palaces. But he did neither.

    The whole piece is worth a read.

  20. Liar and scumbag that he is, there’s something comical about him too.
    I cannot watch him without thinking of Thurston Howell III. Especially when he wears his little sailor cap, and hangs out on the yacht with Mrs Lovey Kerry.
    It’s really is amazing this guy clown gets a pass when you remember the way the media treated Romney’s wife. Kerry’s the prototypical aristocrat, and somehow the media manages to ignore it because he calls himself a Democrat.

  21. southpaw Says:
    September 5th, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    Liar and scumbag that he is, there’s something comical about him too.

    A couple of days ago a commenter at Ace of Spades called him “Secretary of State Easter Island Head”. I lol’d.

  22. You guys quit insulting Thurston Howell III. He and Lovey were wonderful and I loved them. Thurston would have some very droll things to say about Kerry who I doubt would understand any of them.
    Oh, I remember Kerry’s 8mm epic. There were some places I have loved to have seen him do the same act.

  23. I’m sorry Ann. Although I agree with the validity of the premise that Putin could have ordered and enabled the chemical attack, the article is schmaltz. That may not be the exact right word, but consider:

    “The appointment of Samantha Power as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was icing on the policy cake, ensuring that the Pulitzer Prize-winner would be too busy explaining Syria policy to her fellow delegates and Ivy League grads to write a book denouncing Obama as an accomplice to genocide.”

    What?

    Or this:

    “A compelling answer can be found in the nature of the attack itself. A Sarin gas attack like the one in Damascus requires days of preparation so that the chemical agents can be mixed and loaded into specialized delivery systems by trained handlers and troops in the region can be issued gas masks and other protective clothing.”

    That’s no compelling answer. It’s a non sequitur. The “rebels” have days to prepare and have already distributed the chemical gear.

    Or finally:

    “For Washington policymakers on both sides of the aisle, Obama’s new direction for Mideast policy made plenty of sense. . . The president’s Syria policy was therefore an entirely coherent example of his larger approach to the region:”

    This article is nothing more than a puff piece absolving Obama and blaming Putin, a strategy you seem to fall for over and over again.

  24. James Says:
    September 5th, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    Thurston would have some very droll things to say about Kerry who I doubt would understand any of them.

    Kerry was a Yale man, and Thurston generally had a low opinion of them.

  25. Shame MDL. What evidence do you offer that people on this forum oppose war simply because Obama wants it? You paint with an excessively broad brush.

    It is true that few here trust Obama and Kerry to prosecute a war successfully. They both have a history. (Were you awake in 1972 when Kerry tried to undercut a President in time of war? Have you noticed that Obama has abandoned the war that he declared “essential” when he was running for office?) Our lack of confidence is one thing, it is not the same as questioning the basic rationale for entering a civil war.

    There is a process for situations such as this. Obama is a bit late, but he can try to catch up. You go to the UN. You demand sanctions, or, in an emergency, you seek authority for more direct action. Then you follow the will of the international community. That is what Democrats have called for in every international crisis during my rather lengthy life.

    The exception is when there is a direct threat to the United States vital interests. In that case you go to the American people and sell your rationale for unilateral action. (Note: In the Obama speech excerpt that Neo printed, and I repeated, he did not think that Saddam posed such a threat. How could he now cite Assad as such?)

    The situation is not so terribly complex. You are trying to obfuscate. No sale.

  26. This article is nothing more than a puff piece absolving Obama and blaming Putin, a strategy you seem to fall for over and over again.

    How in the world does it absolve Obama? It shows him being outsmarted and outmaneuvered by Putin at every turn.

  27. Ann, you know the strategy of Rousseau’s “Confessions?”

    And it doesn’t show him being outsmarted at every turn, only the last one.

    There’s some stiffness, some, but it’s not genuine but on the order of the strategy mentioned above. Better to be what the article has arranged for Obama than anything closer to the truth, which truth is reflected in the statement “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet” coupled with cowardice, doubt, lack of resolve, blame, deceit, hatred of Israel and Netanyahu, and above all, politics preserving Obama not our Nation.

  28. The only question is what is to be gained by becoming involved in Syria. The answer is nothing positive. Clinton, Bush, and Putin are not the source of this dangerous situation. Its BHO narcissistic ego and his not so hidden agenda that is the problem. This, with the aid of the McCain RINOs, will not end well.

  29. @MDL: “That said, have you any plans to get rid of Assad? Or should we just let him continue to brutally suppress any kind of protest against his gov’t?”

    Coming from DemLib this is amazing. GWB just did that in Iraq, and the shouts from you despicable lot was unrivaled in the grand annals of DemLib hypocrisy.

    Since your rogue President surrendered Iraq after it was won, he can’t even impose his will from there.

    Here is the bottom line: What is bad for Obama is good for America. Long term.

    In the short term the whole world, America included, will suffer under this bully. But no external enemy can possibly hurt us as much as Obama already has and will continue to do. We can survive and recover from anything the world does to us. We will dust off our pants and rebuild. But we cannot survive you liberals. Period. You are destroyers by nature. Obama is the one you pushed forward and we all know why. But now the whole universe sees him rightly, and more importantly we see you libs rightly.

  30. “It shows him being outsmarted and outmaneuvered by Putin at every turn.”

    Not so hard for anyone with real world experience and the ability to grow a pair.

  31. Doesn’t Obama sort of maybe kind of look like Spock?

    Obams to Soros: I have been and always shall be your puppet.

  33. To quote the eminently quotable Ann Coulter,

    “It would be completely different if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible for chemical attacks on his own people. (I’m still waiting to see if it was a Syrian upset about a YouTube video.)”

  35. If Obama and the Democrats had simply supported Bush, Obama wouldn’t be having this problem now. Of course, without stoking BDS, Obama wouldn’t be President, either. That’s the trade-off.

  36. Mr Frank, Kerry voted YES to Bush’s war in Iraq. He also seemed to like the Vietnam War when it aided his career. He selected Swiftboat service, leaving a destroyer (IIRC, with respect to the type of ship) which was also serving off of Vietnam.

    I tend to think Kerry hooked up with the antiwar movement in the 70s because he saw it as a stepping stone. He followed the JFK approach of being a CO of a small, fast boat in war, but switched gears because it was the convient thing to do. Had the war remained populr I have no doubt Kerry would have stayed with Plan A.

  37. Eric Says:

    “If Obama and the Democrats had simply supported Bush, Obama wouldn’t be having this problem now. Of course, without stoking BDS, Obama wouldn’t be President, either. That’s the trade-off.”

    Note that Biden, Clinton and Kerry voted for the Iraq War in 2002 when they were Senators. They supported Bush then, and only turned when there was political advantage to doing so. Biden and Kerry even lied about their support for the Iraq War.

    But then, looked how they acted in the timeframe of 2005-2007. Look at how they, the people who voted for war, treated the general who ran their war, when he testified against them.

    Obama, who didn’t vote for the war (as a state senator he had no vote) nontheless validated their fine decision making by appointing them to VP, SoS and SoS, respectively. By that I don’t mean that Obama is showing support for the war, but he is implying that voting for it was a reasonable decision.

  38. “when he testified against them.”

    Not what I intended to write. General BeTrayUs testified on the progress of the war, which was against the interests of the Democrat Party. He didn’t testify against them, they testified against themselves by their treatment of him.

  39. The Left has many victories over america in its pockets. That’s why they shouldn’t be underestimated or considered to be comical.

    They won in Vietnam over the US armed forces. They won in Iran against American allies. They won in Cuba. They won in Rhodesia.

    They will keep winning and their enemies will keep dying. Not even Americans at the home front will do anything now.

  40. Many of John Kerry’s lies are seared, seared mto my memory and I have the cap to prove it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑