How Americans--voters and congress--were conned on the Iran nuclear deal, revisited

Because McMaster has been pushing so hard for the U.S. to stay in the Iran nuclear deal regardless of Iranian violations, I thought it was worth taking a look at how Team Obama--and in particular, one of his weaselly deputy National Security Advisors, Ben Rhodes.

Rhodes had zero experience when Obama tapped him for the post.  The only thing Rhodes had to recommend him for the slot was...his brother David, who was president of NBC News.  Hmm....

Way back in May of last year the New York Times Magazine did a totally fawning, slobbering piece on Rhodes.  It was SO fawning and slobbering that it's likely that the Times editors stopped reading after the first 30 paragraphs or so, cuz how much propaganda do you need to read to get the point, eh?

But Rhodes fellator was so totally, totally swept off his feet by Rhodes' power and cleverness that he inadvertently allowed a too-candid glimpse of how the object of his adoration helped the emperor sell congress and the dumbshit voters on a "deal" with Iran that was utter shit--total dog crap--from the American standpoint, and a total surrender to Iran's demands.

This inadvertent slip was buried way down in the article.  Here's the beginning of the reveal:

The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama 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.

Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false. 

Keep in mind that the above wasn't published by a conservative blog, but by the f'n New York Times--Obama's strongest supporters outside of Democrat Underground or the HuffPo.  And they're absolutely giddy about how clever, how cunning, Rhodes and Obama were in using mainstream "reporters" and "journalists" to spread their propaganda about what a super deal this was.

The context clearly shows that the Times writer was proud of this behavior.  Proud of how mainstream reporters were able to put one over on congress and the American public.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Rhodes and Obama pounced on the fact that there had been a recent election in Iran, and the supposedly more-moderate candidate won.  If Obama could convince Americans that a new, less-fanatical regime was now in power in Iran, he could get voters and congress to accept any deal, no matter how awful its terms for the U.S.

The key points Obama wanted to push were 1) that there was a significant split in the regime; 2) that he was "reaching out to moderate-minded Iranians who wanted peaceful relations with their neighbors and with America;"  This fable was so seductive to the American Left (including all reporters for mainstream media) that it allowed Obama to evade what might have otherwise been harsher scrutiny of the terms his people were negotiating.

The Times article summarized it like this:

By eliminating the fuss about Iran’s nuclear program, the administration hoped to eliminate a source of structural tension between the two countries....

Rhodes' job was to feed friendly reporters the administration's Narrative--and then keep the mainstream media from criticizing the terms.

A key tactic was to frame an agreement with Iran as "a choice between peace and war," in which an agreement--regardless of terms--would supposedly ensure peace.  Since this was absurd on its face, it was critical that no mainstream outlet point this out or even hint at it.

And here's how they did it, quoting from the Times' fawning piece:

In the spring of last year legions of arms-control experts [self-proclaimed, perhaps?] began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters.

“We created an echo chamber,” he 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.”

When I suggested that all this...seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, 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. “We drove them crazy,” he said of the deal’s opponents.

Starting to see how you--and the equally useless rat-bastards in congress--were conned?

Yet Rhodes bridled at the suggestion that [was] anything deceptive about the way that the agreement was sold. “I would prefer that [the Iranian leaders] are real reformers.... But we are not betting on that.”

Really?  Seems to me you're deluded: you went all-in betting that the Iranians would keep their word.  And you paid them $100 Billion as a bribe to get them to make the deal you were hoping--with not a single provision for meaningful verification--that they'd keep.

Delusional.  You and your boss wanted an agreement--no matter the terms--because your vain, delusional emperor believed this would show the world he was a statesman instead of a con-artist, and that he deserved that Nobel peace prize (for which he was nominated a week after he took office, on the basis of no accomplishments whatsoever).

Now, why did I take time to pull up a 2015 article about Obama's ace propagandist Ben Rhodes?  Because the same network of Democrat/liberal propagandists is still working now, cleverly coordinating talking points, inserting lie after lie into the front pages of papers or the top stories of network "news" broadcasts, to try to remove Trump from office.

They think they're that much smarter than you.  Hell, they're absolutely convinced of it.  They didn't vote for Trump, don't want him as president, so that's all that matters to 'em.  As far as they're concerned, you don't count.  At all.

Don't know about you, but that kinda ticks me off.

And by the way:  To show you how fawning the Times article was, and how much the author was trying to ignore Rhodes total lack of qualifications to be named a deputy national security advisor, the author never raised the topic of how helpful Rhodes brother--president of NBC News--was in helping the vast Obama/Democrat propaganda machine con the American public.