Presidential assistant Ben Rhodes admits Odumbo, et al, lied:

[I B Hankering]

Recognizing that the 21st century MSM no longer staffs foreign journalists, Presidential assistant Ben Rhodes admits they spoon fed propaganda about so-called Iranian "moderates" to the talking heads in the media to "#Gruber" the American people once again via Twitter and Facebook. Oh, how Orwellian!

“Presidential speech writer [Ben] Rhodes’s innovative campaign to sell the Iran deal is likely to be a model for how future administrations explain foreign policy to Congress and the public. The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Odumbo administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal….

"Framing the deal as a choice between peace and war was Rhodes’s go-to move — and proved to be a winning argument….

"By applying 21st-century data and networking tools to the white-glove world of foreign affairs, the White House was able to track what United States senators and the people who worked for them, and influenced them, were seeing online — and make sure that no potential negative comment passed without a tweet….

"‘We created an echo chamber,’ he [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.’ ….

"Rhodes nodded. ‘In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,’ he said. ‘We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.’ He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal….

"The idea that there was a new reality in Iran was politically useful to the Odumbo administration. By obtaining broad public currency for the thought that there was a significant split in the regime, and that the administration was reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America, Odumbo was able to evade what might have otherwise been a divisive but clarifying debate over the actual policy choices that his administration was making. By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries, which would create the space for America to disentangle itself from its established system of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. With one bold move, the [Odumbo] administration would effectively begin the process of a large-scale disengagement from the Middle East.

I [reporter David Samuels] him [CIA Director Leon Panetta] about a crucial component of the administration’s public narrative on Iran: whether it was ever a salient feature of the C.I.A.’s analysis when he ran the agency that the Iranian regime was meaningfully divided between ‘hard-line’ and ‘moderate’ camps.

“‘No,’ Panetta answers. “There was not much question that the Quds Force and the supreme leader ran that country with a strong arm, and there was not much question that this kind of opposing view could somehow gain any traction.’” [The CIA never delivered intel reports suggesting that ‘moderates’ were in control in Iran; in fact, per Panetta, the CIA reported exactly the opposite.]

“As secretary of defense, he tells me, one of his most important jobs was keeping Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, from launching a pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. ‘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.’”

“…. it was also true as a result that more people are dying there on his [Odumbo's] watch than died during the Bush presidency, even if very few of them are Americans.” (NYT)

[flghtr65]

You're a little late IBH. Your buddy and the #1 Bush worshiper on ECCIE, J.D Barleycorn already started a thread on this. http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1710242

[DSK]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

You're a little late IBH. Your buddy and the #1 Bush worshiper on ECCIE, J.D Barleycorn already started a thread on this. http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1710242

Wouldn't you agree it is a serious situation, though?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

You're a little late IBH. Your buddy and the #1 Bush worshiper on ECCIE, J.D Barleycorn already started a thread on this. http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1710242

Note how JD didn't quote or cite the actual NYT article, flighty.

[CuteOldGuy]

Don't you ever get tired of the government lying to you? Why do you keep electing and re-electing liars? America is all but dead, and it's because we accept and enable our leaders when they lie to us. It's like the Stockholm Syndrome on a nationwide scale.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Don't you ever get tired of the government lying to you? Why do you keep electing and re-electing liars? America is all but dead, and it's because we accept and enable our leaders when they lie to us. It's like the Stockholm Syndrome on a nationwide scale.

Apt analogy - Stockholm Syndrome...why can't Assup ever think of anything original and entertaining to say?

Is he just hopeless, as well as gay?

[Yssup Rider]

Wow! Ouch!!!

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Wow! Ouch!!!

assup, stop pummeling yourself in the face with your bare hooves and the pain will stop.