Congratulations Washington Liberal Pundits and Elites:

LowDown · May 6, 2016

You're all a bunch of suckers. We know because the White House just told us so.

Tough break. You did everything you could for Obama, but he and his staffers still have no respect for such cheap dates.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran Deal

According to a David Samuels New York Times Magazine article to be published Sunday and already posted to the website, [Deputy National Security Adviser Ben] Rhodes, like Barack Obama, is contemptuous of "the American foreign-policy establishment." What Obama calls the "Washington playbook" dictating the sorts of responses available to American policymakers, Rhodes calls the "Blob."

The Blob includes "editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker," etc. It also encompasses, according to Rhodes, Obama's former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, and the administration's first defense secretary Robert Gates. Presumably Leon Panetta, former Pentagon chief and CIA director, who goes on the record to criticize Rhodes and the president, is also part of the Blob, alongside "other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East." In other words, the emotion driving the administration's foreign policy is contempt—contempt for allies, colleagues, and the generations of American policymakers who built the post-WWII international order, ensuring relative global stability, and peace and prosperity at home.

And check out Rhodes assessment of the New York Times and its reporting.

I've never heard of this guy, but in 2011, he was on Time magazine's "40 Under 40" list of powerful and prominent young professionals. He is said to be the one who counseled Obama to withdraw support from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and was a chief advisor for the Arab Spring, and we know how that turned out.

cpwill · May 6, 2016

LowDown said:
You're all a bunch of suckers. We know because the White House just told us so.

Tough break. You did everything you could for Obama, but he and his staffers still have no respect for such cheap dates.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran Deal

And check out Rhodes assessment of the New York Times and its reporting.

I've never heard of this guy, but in 2011, he was on Time magazine's "40 Under 40" list of powerful and prominent young professionals. He is said to be the one who counseled Obama to withdraw support from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and was a chief advisor for the Arab Spring, and we know how that turned out.

This is completely unsurprising, except for the fact that the media is (belatedly) coming to the realization that the Obama administration didn't return their fervent love, but instead saw them as useful puppets.

Iran is our enemy. The determined effort on the part of this administration to refuse to recognize that has made us and the world significantly less safe.

TheDemSocialist · May 6, 2016

LowDown said:
You're all a bunch of suckers. We know because the White House just told us so.

Told us what? Their communication strategy in the foreign policy realm?

Tough break. You did everything you could for Obama, but he and his staffers still have no respect for such cheap dates.

No respect? What are you talking about?

Obama’s Foreign Policy Guru Boasts of How the Administration Lied to Sell the Iran Deal

So they have contempt for the establishment at the time, which in the New York Times article meant, "editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, who at first applauded the Iraq war and then sought to pin all the blame on Bush and his merry band of neocons when it quickly turned sour... He referred to the American foreign-policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties" this means they dont like our allies? I mean for ****s sake having a differing opinion about post 9/11 foreign policy, the war on terror, does not mean you are turning your back on allies and (this is the best hyperbolic bull**** phrase) "the generations of American policymakers who built the post-WWII". New flash, everyone was not unified around one set of foreign policy agenda post-WWII.

Also part of his job is a speech writer and lead communication team for the President in areas of foreign policy, and this may come as a shock to you but that means shaping a narrative from the White House, AKA presenting the Iran deal to the public. Every President has a communications team in this realm to assist him in "selling" their policies, initiative, etc to the public. Also where is this evidence that they "lied"? If anything the Weekly Standard per usual quotes select parts and then makes a claim, usually an assumption that its a "lie"... I mean read the NY Times article. If anything its about the strategy how they wanted to present the deal, how they wanted to come out ahead of criticism, etc.

LowDown · May 6, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
Told us what? Their communication strategy in the foreign policy realm?

No respect? What are you talking about?

So they have contempt for the establishment at the time, which in the New York Times article meant, "editors and reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and elsewhere, who at first applauded the Iraq war and then sought to pin all the blame on Bush and his merry band of neocons when it quickly turned sour... He referred to the American foreign-policy establishment as the Blob. According to Rhodes, the Blob includes Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties" this means they dont like our allies? I mean for ****s sake having a differing opinion about post 9/11 foreign policy, the war on terror, does not mean you are turning your back on allies and (this is the best hyperbolic bull**** phrase) "the generations of American policymakers who built the post-WWII". New flash, everyone was not unified around one set of foreign policy agenda post-WWII.

Also part of his job is a speech writer and lead communication team for the President in areas of foreign policy, and this may come as a shock to you but that means shaping a narrative from the White House, AKA presenting the Iran deal to the public. Every President has a communications team in this realm to assist him in "selling" their policies, initiative, etc to the public. Also where is this evidence that they "lied"? If anything the Weekly Standard per usual quotes select parts and then makes a claim, usually an assumption that its a "lie"... I mean read the NY Times article. If anything its about the strategy how they wanted to present the deal, how they wanted to come out ahead of criticism, etc.

What was the lie, you ask? He lied about the nature of the Iranian regime. He admits he knew that they were not reformers interested in peace and that reaching an agreement was no guarantee of peace. He also lied about the president being serious about Iran never getting a nuclear weapon.

"We created an echo chamber," [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. "They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say."

In Rhodes's "narrative" about the Iran deal, negotiations started when the ostensibly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president, providing an opening for the administration to reach out in friendship. In reality, as Samuels gets administration officials to admit, negotiations began when "hardliner" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was still president. It was Rhodes who framed the Iran deal as a choice between peace and war, and it was Rhodes who set up a messaging unit to sell the deal that created an "echo chamber" in the press.

"They were both interested in the answer to the question, 'Is the president serious?' " Panetta recalls. "And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they're developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen."

Panetta stops.

"But would you make that same assessment now?" I ask him.

"Would I make that same assessment now?" he asks. "Probably not."

Yes, I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and Zarif” — Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister — “are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American. But we are not betting on that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/m...o-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=0

And also in the New York Times Magazine:

Rhodes finally admits that what he did was bad for the country, but he excuses himself because to do it honestly would be "impossible". Here's a clue for the little thug: If the administration can't do something they want to do in the normal and honest way it means that it should not be done.

When I asked whether the prospect of this same kind of far-reaching spin campaign being run by a different administration is something that scares him, he admitted that it does. “I mean, I’d prefer a sober, reasoned public debate, after which members of Congress reflect and take a vote,” he said, shrugging. “But that’s impossible.”

TheDemSocialist · May 6, 2016

LowDown said:
What was the lie, you ask? He lied about the nature of the Iranian regime. He admits he knew that they were not reformers interested in peace and that reaching an agreement was no guarantee of peace. He also lied about the president being serious about Iran never getting a nuclear weapon.

None of those quotes you just pulled prove any of that. If anything it proves the opposite of what your claiming, "Yes, I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and Zarif” — Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister — “are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American."

Also the "hardliner" quote you pulled just states that negotiations started when Ahmadinejad was still president.

If anything those quotes just show their strategy for presenting the deal and how they covered it during the negotiations...

And also in the New York Times Magazine:

Rhodes finally admits that what he did was bad for the country, but he excuses himself because to do it honestly would be "impossible". Here's a clue for the little thug: If the administration can't do something they want to do in the normal and honest way it means that it should not be done.

Ummm that quote does not imply that... Where are you getting this conclusions from?

LowDown · May 6, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
None of those quotes you just pulled prove any of that. If anything it proves the opposite of what your claiming, "Yes, I would prefer that it turns out that Rouhani and Zarif” — Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister — “are real reformers who are going to be steering this country into the direction that I believe it can go in, because their public is educated and, in some respects, pro-American."

Also the "hardliner" quote you pulled just states that negotiations started when Ahmadinejad was still president.

If anything those quotes just show their strategy for presenting the deal and how they covered it during the negotiations...

Ummm that quote does not imply that... Where are you getting this conclusions from?

I don't know what to say when someone denies the text says something it clearly says.

The bottom line is that Obama’s foreign policy is being crafted by a 38-year old failed novelist who sees reporters as pawns and dupes to disseminate whatever story he wants to tell them. He and Obama wanted one thing, Congress and the people wanted something else, so he spun and shaped the narrative to fool people and sold America a bill of goods -- the Iranian deal -- which is not as they advertized.

As Rhodes admits, it’s not that hard to shape the narrative. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” Rhodes said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

But don't take my word for it, listen to Rhodes himself, who was asked what he thought of the idea that some future administration might use his methods. Does that scare him? He admitted that it does.

TheDemSocialist · May 6, 2016

LowDown said:
I don't know what to say when someone denies the text says something it clearly says.

The bottom line is that Obama’s foreign policy is being crafted by a 38-year old failed novelist who sees reporters as pawns and dupes to disseminate whatever story he wants to tell them. He and Obama wanted one thing, Congress and the people wanted something else, so he spun and shaped the narrative to fool people and sold America a bill of goods -- the Iranian deal -- which is not as they advertized.

Oh god.. :lamo Essentially all you did was put a bunch of block quotes and say "see! See!".. And literally they dont say anything your claiming. I mean this is just plain pathetic.

But don't take my word for it, listen to Rhodes himself, who was asked what he thought of the idea that some future administration might use his methods. Does that scare him? He admitted that it does.

I did. I read the article and also read your **** Weekly Standard article who essentially is using the same tactics you are using here. Post some quotes and say, "see this is proof of lying". No wonder that rag is only popular amongst a few conservative hack voters.

LowDown · May 6, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
Oh god.. :lamo Essentially all you did was put a bunch of block quotes and say "see! See!".. And literally they dont say anything your claiming. I mean this is just plain pathetic.

I did. I read the article and also read your **** Weekly Standard article who essentially is using the same tactics you are using here. Post some quotes and say, "see this is proof of lying". No wonder that rag is only popular amongst a few conservative hack voters.

Remember when Obama claimed that the Iran deal would mean that Iran got rid of it's nuclear materials? That we avoided war? That Iran would never get the bomb?

That was the lie. None of those things were true.

Obama's Iran Deal Is a Fraud

Now Iran is testing missiles with a range of greater than 2000 km. They aren't doing this to put monkeys into space.

Obama claimed that the JCPOA had strong verification, the "strongest verification provisions in history". This was also a lie. The IAEA can't even visit Iranian military facilities.

You seem to think that it's fair to deceive the American people about the provisions of the treaty, that misrepresenting it is just part of selling these policies to the people. That to fool them into thinking that we are safer is OK. This is what Rhodes was doing.

Μολὼν λαβέ · May 6, 2016

Anyone who thinks the Iran deal accomplished anything to make the world a safer place is fool.

TheDemSocialist · May 6, 2016

Μολὼν λαβέ;1065840358 said:
Anyone who thinks the Iran deal accomplished anything to make the world a safer place is fool.

Substance?

Mithrae · May 6, 2016

LowDown said:
He is said to be the one who counseled Obama to withdraw support from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and was a chief advisor for the Arab Spring, and we know how that turned out.

Possibly one of the most ignorant statements ever to grace this forum: Someone from a country whose own struggle for representative self-governance lasted over eight years declaring that after scarcely five years, other regions' similar struggles are a failure, a done deal and "we know how that turned out."

LowDown · May 7, 2016

Mithrae said:
Possibly one of the most ignorant statements ever to grace this forum: Someone from a country whose own struggle for representative self-governance lasted over eight years declaring that after scarcely five years, other regions' similar struggles are a failure, a done deal and "we know how that turned out."

So you think that Libya turned out well? Egypt remains in the hands of the oligarchs and the military. This is good? The revolt in Bahrain resulted not in elections or new leaders but in 3,000 arrests, an epidemic of torture and innumerable crushed souls. This is good? Bahrain has eliminated Shia Muslims from professional and labor positions in the country. This is good?

The Obama-Rhodes doctrine appears to be that there is nothing worth fighting for. No doubt the Middle East will take care of itself if America does nothing, but that would not guarantee that we or our allies will be left alone.

Μολὼν λαβέ · May 8, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
Substance?

Charade: a blatant pretense or deception, especially something so full of pretense as to be a travesty.

Charade | Define Charade at Dictionary.com

Enjoying a bonanza of billions of dollars from the nuclear deal, Khamenei is busy purchasing high-tech Russian arms for the IRGC and the Bashar Assad army. A large number of helicopter gunships, warplanes and T-90 main battle tanks are amongst these consignments. This shows that following the nuclear deal Iran, itself fixated on weapons of mass destruction, has pledged to carry a large portion of the bill on arms purchased by Assad from Russia. (Another reason Moscow will continue to block any significant peace effort in Syria).
The roughshod activities adopted by Iran are a clear vindication that change will not come from within. And thus, engagement of any type will not shift policies for the top brass. In fact, it will play into the mullahs’ hands and open the Iran Pandora’s Box. The nuclear agreement and the recent elections, both developments boasted in the West as triumphs for Iran and victories for the pro-rapprochement camp, will render nothing positive for the suffering nations of Iran, nor the entire Middle East for that matter. Anti-Americanism and an anti-West mentality, in general, are pillars of Iran’s official state ideology and quest, not going away any time soon.

While experts may caution Iran will not change very quickly, recent signs show this regime will not improve for the better at all and has taken long strides and egregious actions in the opposite path headed to nefarious ends.

https://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/45068/No-Change-in-Iran%E2%80%99s-Syria-Policy-Following-Nuke-Deal-Elections

eohrnberger · May 8, 2016

It'd be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous a situation.

So Rhodes is the Gruber of foreign policy.

Once again this administration lied it's way past. Lied to all the nation and in this case, to all the world and US allies alike. The 24x7 instant verification is the pure fiction promised to everyone, and the funny part is that it was a fiction writer that no doubt recommended this course of action for the administration.

Makes one wonder if this fiction writer also recommended the ouster of Qaddafi and Mubarak, the fiction being that it would stabilize their former countries. Did he recommend the course of action that resulted in the Syrian red line that wasn't one. Or the lack of SOF agreements for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yeah, Obama's foreign policy is little more than a fiction itself.

How many more of these lying, duplicitous deals from this administration are going become uncovered?

Obama's legacy being ever more tarnished as the Machiavellian plots and lying are uncovered one by one, yet some are foolish enough to believe that Obama's a president on whom history will smile.

Yeah, right. Hardly.

How will history judge the Obama presidency? As the one that most often lied to the electorate? To the world?

ludin · May 8, 2016

LowDown said:
I don't know what to say when someone denies the text says something it clearly says.

The bottom line is that Obama’s foreign policy is being crafted by a 38-year old failed novelist who sees reporters as pawns and dupes to disseminate whatever story he wants to tell them. He and Obama wanted one thing, Congress and the people wanted something else, so he spun and shaped the narrative to fool people and sold America a bill of goods -- the Iranian deal -- which is not as they advertized.

But don't take my word for it, listen to Rhodes himself, who was asked what he thought of the idea that some future administration might use his methods. Does that scare him? He admitted that it does.

I don't know how they didn't know?
Obama is an open book on what he does. you take whatever he says do the opposite and you have his plan.

ludin · May 8, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
Substance?

read the posts actually learn something and take the liberal blinders off for a change.
you might be able to learn something about the subject.

the iran deal was a scam and it was a scam from the start and everyone knew it except for liberals, because
they have their head so far up Obama's ass they can see their own throat and that is about it.

eohrnberger · May 8, 2016

Can't think of a better summation.

Mithrae · May 8, 2016

LowDown said:
So you think that Libya turned out well? Egypt remains in the hands of the oligarchs and the military. This is good? The revolt in Bahrain resulted not in elections or new leaders but in 3,000 arrests, an epidemic of torture and innumerable crushed souls. This is good? Bahrain has eliminated Shia Muslims from professional and labor positions in the country. This is good?

The Obama-Rhodes doctrine appears to be that there is nothing worth fighting for. No doubt the Middle East will take care of itself if America does nothing, but that would not guarantee that we or our allies will be left alone.

You speak as though military action is a pretty standard go-to response, as if it's somehow unusual to reserve it for rare and extreme circumstances. On the contrary, the crime of aggression is one of the four primary and most widely-acknowledged international crimes. Even the United States is a signatory to the Rome Statute... though by failing to ratify it has placed itself in the noble company Russia, Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

TheDemSocialist · May 9, 2016

ludin said:
read the posts actually learn something and take the liberal blinders off for a change.
you might be able to learn something about the subject.

the iran deal was a scam and it was a scam from the start and everyone knew it except for liberals, because
they have their head so far up Obama's ass they can see their own throat and that is about it.

See the thing is I have. Im still missing where there is substance to the argument. Simply calling something a "scam" without offering any details is not a substantive argument.

TheDemSocialist · May 9, 2016

Μολὼν λαβέ;1065845081 said:
Charade | Define Charade at Dictionary.com

https://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/45068/No-Change-in-Iran%E2%80%99s-Syria-Policy-Following-Nuke-Deal-Elections

So the deal is a scam because Iran is purchasing tanks and helicopters from Russia? Sounds like a right to sovereignty.

DamnYankee · May 9, 2016

Μολὼν λαβέ;1065840358 said:
Anyone who thinks the Iran deal accomplished anything to make the world a safer place is fool.

Leftists hate America and they will go to any lengths to see that it is punished.

yankintx · May 9, 2016

eohrnberger said:
It'd be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous a situation.

So Rhodes is the Gruber of foreign policy.

Once again this administration lied it's way past. Lied to all the nation and in this case, to all the world and US allies alike. The 24x7 instant verification is the pure fiction promised to everyone, and the funny part is that it was a fiction writer that no doubt recommended this course of action for the administration.

Makes one wonder if this fiction writer also recommended the ouster of Qaddafi and Mubarak, the fiction being that it would stabilize their former countries. Did he recommend the course of action that resulted in the Syrian red line that wasn't one. Or the lack of SOF agreements for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yeah, Obama's foreign policy is little more than a fiction itself.

How many more of these lying, duplicitous deals from this administration are going become uncovered?

Obama's legacy being ever more tarnished as the Machiavellian plots and lying are uncovered one by one, yet some are foolish enough to believe that Obama's a president on whom history will smile.

Yeah, right. Hardly.

How will history judge the Obama presidency? As the one that most often lied to the electorate? To the world?

Na

The prize for most often to lied to the electorate, belongs to GW, hands down. Amazing how some folks have complete amnesia for the years 2000-2008.

LowDown · May 9, 2016

Mithrae said:
You speak as though military action is a pretty standard go-to response, as if it's somehow unusual to reserve it for rare and extreme circumstances. On the contrary, the crime of aggression is one of the four primary and most widely-acknowledged international crimes. Even the United States is a signatory to the Rome Statute... though by failing to ratify it has placed itself in the noble company Russia, Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

Self defense isn't aggression.

ludin · May 9, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
See the thing is I have. Im still missing where there is substance to the argument. Simply calling something a "scam" without offering any details is not a substantive argument.

There is nothing in the supposed deal that stops iran from obtaining nuclear bombs yet there is nothing.
there were also other supposed restrictions but the deal basically has no teeth and allows iran to
show where and what the inspectors see.

TheDemSocialist · May 9, 2016

ludin said:
There is nothing in the supposed deal that stops iran from obtaining nuclear bombs yet there is nothing.
there were also other supposed restrictions but the deal basically has no teeth and allows iran to
show where and what the inspectors see.

This is factually not true at all

Frequently Asked Questions About the Iran Deal - Part One | Arms Control Association

Frequently Asked Questions About The Iran Deal - Part Two | Arms Control Association
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rallies-support-nuke-deal.html#post1064995038

Congratulations Washington Liberal Pundits and Elites:

Curmudgeon

Gradualist

Curmudgeon

Gradualist

Curmudgeon

Gradualist

Curmudgeon

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Gradualist

Curmudgeon

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Gradualist

Gradualist

Curmudgeon

Gradualist

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency