DescentBB

I don't get this one.

Why did the State Department feel the need to lie about Kerry being on his boat when things went south in Egypt? WHY? I don't get it. It wasnt that big a deal, and yet they lied about it.

It seems that, thats all this administration can do is lie. EVERY controversy with them ends the same way. WTH?

CUDA wrote:I don't get this one.

Why did the State Department feel the need to lie about Kerry being on his boat when things went south in Egypt? WHY? I don't get it. It wasnt that big a deal, and yet they lied about it.

It seems that, thats all this administration can do is lie. EVERY controversy with them ends the same way. WTH?

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain! The Great and Powerful Obama has spoken!

Reflex…instinct.

No good for an organization, Spidey. They must have had a reason.

Organization is a term I would use very loosely.

Much like Benghazi, the gate keepers don't want the world to see what dilettante's their bosses are. It would seem people like Kerry and his boss have forgotten what a work ethic means.And also remember, Kerry is on a 7 million dollar yacht he keeps parked where he doesn't have to pay 500,000 in taxes. Perhaps Kerry didn't want to remind people of that either.

woodchip wrote:Much like Benghazi, the gate keepers don't want the world to see what dilettante's their bosses are. It would seem people like Kerry and his boss have forgotten what a work ethic means.And also remember, Kerry is on a 7 million dollar yacht he keeps parked where he doesn't have to pay 500,000 in taxes. Perhaps Kerry didn't want to remind people of that either.

Ya know? I agree with you. Kerry's just another rich pig who's second entertainment in life is being SecState. That's why they lied, embarrassment. What's the world coming to. I bet could probably go out and actually find people willing to work at the job.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/05/state ... pt-crisis/

But why lie.what was the benefit? Was it just to save face by not being available with what was happening in Cairo?

CUDA wrote:But why lie.what was the benefit? Was it just to save face by not being available with what was happening in Cairo?

Because they operate under the proven premise that the media won't challenge them on it. Therefore they have nothing to lose. The dumbmasses that vote for them will stay on the plantation. They have never needed to provide substance merely send out their prefered narrative and let the complicit media outlets provide the cover.

Because it looks bad for SecState to be playing on his uber expensive yacht toy while an important ally (I think they're an ally ), Egypt, is melting down into chaos. It's not like the powers to be didn't know what was continuing to go down over there and that it was very important to keep an eye on it, was it? As for embarrassment, isn't going after the wealthy an Obama favorite political tactic? It's one of mine. In that case, Obama probably decided he'd better hide that little detail that his very own SecState pick is part of that same said rich club out playing instead of working that he likes to attack so much for political capital.

As for the media Will, they're too preoccupied with that airliner that crashed in SFO.

So you're saying that they lied to protect an inept foreign policy?

Thats seems to me the most logical answer so far

tunnelcat wrote:As for the media Will, they're too preoccupied with that airliner that crashed in SFO.

"fun" fact (though not funny) there was Jet of the exact make and model that had an engine fire in Greece just 5 minutes prior to the SF crash.

BTW TC, nice sum-up of topic.

CUDA wrote:So you're saying that they lied to protect an inept foreign policy?

Thats seems to me the most logical answer so far

no, they lied to protect Kerry, politically. Remember, Kerry did(and still does, trust me) want to be President. He knows full well how well cruising on yachts looks come election time(he must've seen a few anti-Romney ads), and yes, it makes him look less serious in/about his job. I don't think it in any way reflects any ineptitude in a foreign policy that has been pretty sound in the region, given the upheaval(and this process is far from over, kids, until Saudi Arabia gets opened up a bit). Just about Kerry and his appearance and self-created persona. He would have to run against Hillary in a primary, and there aren't(that I know of) any extant pics of her yachting......

callmeslick wrote: He would have to run against Hillary in a primary, and there aren't(that I know of) any extant pics of her yachting......

Well in this vid she seems to be sailing off the Isle of Lesbo's:

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2012/08/09/ ... nce-floor/

Duper wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:As for the media Will, they're too preoccupied with that airliner that crashed in SFO.

"fun" fact (though not funny) there was Jet of the exact make and model that had an engine fire in Greece just 5 minutes prior to the SF crash.

Nope. It appears it may be pilot error. The pilot in control was in training and had only landed a Boeing 777 9 times. Ooopsie. Makes you wonder what the experienced pilot, who was supposedly watching over things, was doing during this time, twiddling his thumbs? I ask that because he waited until 1.5 seconds before impact to hit the throttles for a go-around. You'd think he would have seen that the altitude was too low long before that. Even though the ILS glideslope was non-functioning, there are runway PAPI lights that can tell a pilot landing VFR that he is too low or high on approach. On another note, it appears that an emergency vehicle may have run over one of the 16 year old victims who had been thrown from the plane on impact. Sad.

Duper wrote:BTW TC, nice sum-up of topic.

Not only that distraction, but now Kerry's wife was rushed to the hospital with some serious undisclosed illness over the weekend. You think the press will question the impropriety of Kerry's-yachting-fun-instead-of-doing-his-job now?

Don't those ungrateful Egyptians realize that it is sailing season! They have no respect for us at all scheduling protests and takeovers during what are truly hectic times for our beloved upper crust yachtsmen.
And what the hell is wrong with the underlings at State?!? Didn't Hillary clearly lay out the proper protocol for them? everyone knows the proper statement when challenged is "What does it matter?!?"
At least Kerry's wife had the good sense to go to the hospital! She apparently was paying attention to Hillary's methods...

That's kind of cruel don't you think Will? At least we can faithfully disparage Hillary because of HER husband's past dalliances. Bill was a playboy jerk who didn't take his job seriously.

don't sell Bill Clinton short, TC....he is smarter than hell, and a VERY hard worker. Does he have his indiscretions? Sure, but ask ANYONE who ever worked with him, or for him, he works long hours and expects his staff to do likewise.

Oh, he's very smart, I'll give him that. But between sitting around his desk getting those BJ's and giving cigar whatevers??? instead of paying attention to his wife and the job we elected him to do AND giving away the farm to the Gingrich Crew during his second term, he's not very high on my list as the definition of a good liberal. Too bad he didn't use those smarts for a better result back when he had the chance. He's just another greedy, corrupt politician who's past actions helped create some of the problems we have now. No, I'm not a Clinton believer. If we elected his wife, we'd get more of him running things in the background.

tunnelcat wrote:Oh, he's very smart, I'll give him that. But between sitting around his desk getting those BJ's and giving cigar whatevers???

with those criteria, you dismiss a ton of truly great men who had dalliances. Was FDR unfocused during his nearly two decades in office?

instead of paying attention to his wife and the job we elected him to do AND giving away the farm to the Gingrich Crew during his second term, he's not very high on my list as the definition of a good liberal.

as with Obama, that may be why I respect him. He WASN'T a 'good liberal', he was a thinking man who was capable of seeing complex issues in their full complexity, from all angles, not simply black and white.

Too bad he didn't use those smarts for a better result back when he had the chance. He's just another greedy, corrupt politician who's past actions helped create some of the problems we have now. No, I'm not a Clinton believer. If we elected his wife, we'd get more of him running things in the background.

like I say, IMO, you sell him short. Way short. My beef with Hillary 6 years ago was that I thought she needed a bit of the attitude of 'this is my destiny' worn off by reality, and it was. I'm not at all sure that we couldn't, in 3 years, do FAR worse than the two Clintons running things. Just wait and see what emerges from the ooze on the other side.......

You're all Washington, Slick. Just because they sell Clinton short (I don't have any problem believing your description), doesn't mean that ★■◆●/liar/womanizer needs to be at the head of the country. I don't care how hard working he is, or how smart, I just have higher standards than that.

Given the choices lately, I'd rather Clinton. They all lie, but at his heart he is an American. I consistently hear his presidency described as a frenetic attempt to reduce the deficit. Considering the changes our country was going through going into his term and where the world is now, I know why. At least he was trying to make us strong going into this new world/global economy we have now. The rest of them seem determined to make keep us terminally in debt.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're all Washington, Slick. Just because they sell Clinton short (I don't have any problem believing your description), doesn't mean that ★■◆●/liar/womanizer needs to be at the head of the country. I don't care how hard working he is, or how smart, I just have higher standards than that.

find me someone who meets your 'moral' standards and does the job effectively, and I'm right there. Note, that I tend to point out the best available option, and Clinton was miles in front of either of his major opponents.

callmeslick wrote:find me someone who meets your 'moral' standards and does the job effectively, and I'm right there.

That's a lie if someone met Thornes moral ground you would paint them as a loon and a bigot.

Put it this way slick. JFK was also a womanizing slimeball and so was his brother Robert. The difference is that he/they didn't get outed in flagrante delicto while in office and then go and LIE through their teeth to the whole nation about it like ol' "Slick Willie" did, dragging everyone in the nation through the whole sordid affair in a shameful impeachment trial. It's not the actual sordid acts all these politicians most certainly do in private that frosts me. Boys will be boys. It ultimately came down to the act of LYING that damned Clinton, something every crooked politician who's been run out of office has done throughout history. I would have respected Clinton far more if he'd just fessed up to his misdeeds like an honest man. If he had, I'm betting Republicans probably would NOT have had enough ammunition to start the whole impeachment circus they swarmed around like flies on a turd. By the way, that whole affair is one of the reasons why I didn't vote for Gore when he ran for office, because Gore just stood there like a sycophant in the Rose Garden right next to a defiant Clinton. He wasn't his own man right then, something important for someone who wants to be a future leader.

And as a side note, just like Obama, Clinton royally failed at health care reform.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're all Washington, Slick. Just because they sell Clinton short (I don't have any problem believing your description), doesn't mean that ★■◆●/liar/womanizer needs to be at the head of the country. I don't care how hard working he is, or how smart, I just have higher standards than that.

find me someone who meets your 'moral' standards and does the job effectively, and I'm right there. Note, that I tend to point out the best available option, and Clinton was miles in front of either of his major opponents.

Well if you consider Clintons handling of Somalia and throwing a couple of cruise missiles into the sandy wastes of Afghanistan, I'd say he was miles behind Bush the Elder. There are enough people that contend Clintons handling of Somalia led bin Laden to thinking we were weak and led to 9/11.

Who knows what happened here

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You're all Washington, Slick. Just because they sell Clinton short (I don't have any problem believing your description), doesn't mean that ★■◆●/liar/womanizer needs to be at the head of the country. I don't care how hard working he is, or how smart, I just have higher standards than that.

find me someone who meets your 'moral' standards and does the job effectively, and I'm right there. Note, that I tend to point out the best available option, and Clinton was miles in front of either of his major opponents.

Well if you consider Clintons handling of Somalia and throwing a couple of cruise missiles into the sandy wastes of Afghanistan, I'd say he was miles behind Bush the Elder. There are enough people that contend Clintons handling of Somalia led bin Laden to thinking we were weak and led to 9/11.

Bush junior wins the prize hands down for wasted money and wasted lives. Clinton was a pipsqueak in comparison.

Heretic wrote:

callmeslick wrote:find me someone who meets your 'moral' standards and does the job effectively, and I'm right there.

That's a lie if someone met Thornes moral ground you would paint them as a loon and a bigot.

"....and does the job effectively" is the key. Someone with high moral standards can either use them against those with lower standards and be a tyrant, or be a wise, just leader. I'd make no such decision, based on anything Thorne mentioned about Clinton. Someone could easily be less promiscuous and more honest and completely job-focused to the exclusion of all else(his stated issues), without being a loon or a bigot. I note that Thorne made NO claim that the leader had to share his personal likes and dislikes.