The Ben Rhodes Confession: Apparently The Corruption And Dishonesty Of The Obama Administration Isn’t Even News Any More

I would at least think the revelation that The Simpsons' Nelson Muntz was a White House foreign policy advisor would be news...

I would at least think the revelation that The Simpsons’ Nelson Muntz was a White House foreign policy advisor would be news…

From today’s Washington Post:

“One of President Obama’s top national security advisers led journalists to believe a misleading timeline of U.S. negotiations with Iran over a nuclear-disarmament agreement and relied on inexperienced reporters to create an “echo chamber” that helped sway public opinion to seal the deal, according to a lengthy magazine profile.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, told the New York Times magazine that he helped promote a “narrative” that the administration started negotiations with Iran after the supposedly moderate Hassan Rouhani was elected president in 2013. In fact, the administration’s negotiations actually began earlier, with the country’s powerful Islamic faction, and the framework for an agreement was hammered out before Rouhani’s election.

The distinction is important because of the perception that Rouhani was more favorably disposed toward American interests and more trustworthy than the hard-line faction that holds ultimate power in Iran.”

In other words, the Obama Administration manipulated the news media to deceive the American public. The objective was to make the public less concerned about the trustworthiness of the Iranian government and the motives of the Obama administration regarding an agreement that resulted in Iran receiving billions  of dollars in exchange for a promise to do what it has never done before, adhere to an international nuclear treaty.

Since this information arrived in the form of a boast from Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor, in a tone reminiscent of the revelations of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, it qualifies as a smoking gun indictment of the President’s integrity, honesty, competence and transparency.

Let me correct that: another smoking gun.

Yet the Post published this in its Style section, with the movie reviews, gossip columns and crossword puzzle. The Rhodes profile itself was published by the New York Times Magazine, not the newspaper itself. In other words, the two major U.S. dailies that were among the news sources duped by Rhodes and Obama, think this is interesting, entertaining even. They don’t perceive it as news and apparently they don’t think it is wrong.

Who thinks it’s wrong and newsworthy that an anti-American regime that has pledged and continues to pledge that it will destroy Israel to be misrepresented as moderate and trustworthy so Obama could burnish his “legacy”? Conservative media, websites and pundits, by definition: if you are not willing to accept that whatever President Obama does is wonderful and beyond reproach no matter how incompetent, reckless and dishonest it appears on the surface, then you are, by definition, a conservative. Probably a racist, too.

Several published opponents of the deal figured out what was going on. Mosaic’s Michael Doran spelled out the deceptive strategy a year ago, but they were all marginalized in the mainstream media as blind supporters of Israel or hysterics, much as the opponents of Obamacare were derided when they tried to explain that the legislation was a badly-drafted con. (“If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep your plan. Period.”) Now  one of the architects of the Iran fiasco has, apparently smugly, confirmed the truth of those warnings, just as Jonathan Gruber confirmed that the individual mandate that the Administration swore wasn’t a penalty but a tax (in order to avoid getting the whole law overturned as unconstitutional) was a penalty, was designed as a penalty and was intended to be a penalty.

But that’s not news, not worthy of the A section.

How did President Obama explain the Gruber admission? He implausibly denied that one of the primary insiders responsible for the form and substance of the Affordable Care Act knew what he was talking about.

Now the Ben Rhodes “We fooled you all-aren’t we clever?–hahahahahahaha!” piece in the Times’ magazine is getting just a bit too much attention  and attracting a little  too much venom (Foreign Policy’s blunt headline:A stunning profile of Ben Rhodes, the asshole who is the president’s foreign policy guru” to ignore, so White House paid liar Josh Earnest was trotted out to deny the undeniable. Asked about Rhodes’ revelations, Earnest offered a classic  Jumbo (“Elephant? What elephant?):

“I haven’t seen anybody produce any evidence that that’s the case. I recognize there might be some people who are disappointed that they did not succeed in killing the Iran deal. Maybe these unfounded claims are the result of sour grapes. The truth is, the administration, under the direction of the president, engaged in an aggressive campaign to make a strong case to the American people that the international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon enhanced the national security of the United States.”

What? What does he mean he hasn’t “seen anybody produce any evidence that that’s the case”? The President’s chief foreign policy advisor just boasted in print that it was the case, the he was a primary force in making it the case, and that he’s proud of it!

Yet millions of compliant Democrats will nod and accept that self-evident lie, blame “Faux News,” and re-read Rolling Stone’s recent proclamation that Barack Obama is the greatest President since President Sliced Bread.

Gee, what could all those Trump and Bernie voters be so angry about?


Sources: Foriegn Policy, Washington Post, Legal Insurrection




12 thoughts on “The Ben Rhodes Confession: Apparently The Corruption And Dishonesty Of The Obama Administration Isn’t Even News Any More

  1. Absolutely staggering arrogance. How did that kid get his job? I couldn’t read more than a fourth of the article. I did read as far as the part where he asked his mother’s friend for a job at some policy think tank when he was twenty-six and writing short stories. Presumably living off one of his trust funds. Staggering. At least we’ll have peace in our time.

  2. Fine article. Could the Rhodes-Gruber approach be extended to also include “any Obama press secretary” to make a well deserved Liars Triad.

  3. It is hard to get that worked up over this because everybody knew the administration was full of crap at the time. The Democrats who played along were not genuinely duped — they just wanted to play along. Its a little like learning that the fortune teller can’t tell fortunes.

      • I think “enabling” might be the correct term. So the decision to invade Iraq was also just based on a bunch of baloney that no one believed? And all the decision makers knew that and played along? That’s how the country works?

    • Reminds me of an piece in the New York Times I read justifying Obama’s “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” line after it had become obvious that this wasn’t the case. Of course Obama was speaking figuratively, only an idiot would think he meant it literally. I interpreted that as saying “look at all the rubes who didn’t know that Obama is lying SOB”. Needless to say, my liberal friends were not amused.

  4. Today Ben Rhodes published How We Advocated for the Iran Deal (

    in this article he writes,
    “Third, there was no shortage of good reporting and analysis — positive, negative, and mixed — about the Iran deal. Every press corps that I interacted with vetted that deal as extensively as any other foreign policy initiative of the presidency. A review of the press from that period will find plenty of tough journalism and scrutiny.”

    Amusing to read, while in the New York Times Magazine article he was reported to say,

    “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he 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.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.