Obama Advisor Ben Rhodes Exposes Corrupt Liberal Media by Jesting About His Lies on the Iran Nuke Deal


As a conservative fed up with how so-called “mainstream” reporters and national security experts have been in the tank for President Obama’s disastrous foreign policy but relentlessly attacked President George W. Bush’s, I’ve been experiencing a bit of schadenfreude as I watched some of these journalists and experts squirm after David Samuels’New York Times profile of Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

I also was very pleased that Samuels  exposed the extreme partisanship of a liberal journalist who falsely accused me in 2005 of being the source in the Valerie Plame scandal.

Rhodes confirmed to Samuels what most Americans already believed: that the Obama administration misled them to sell the nuclear agreement with Iran. Rhodes also bragged to Samuels about how he manipulated the news media into publishing stories supporting the White House on its nuclear diplomacy with Iran by relying on “legions of arms control experts [who] began popping up at think tanks and on social media” and became “sources for hundreds of clue-less reporters.”

According to Rhodes, this crop of newly-minted experts cheer-led for the nuclear deal and “were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

Arms control expert Joe Cirincione, whose Ploughshares Fund was cited by Rhodes as one of these arms control groups, rushed out a Politico article on Monday in which he insisted he had not been misled by Rhodes about the Iran deal and defended the agreement by citing letters signed by Americans who support it.

Probably reflecting new talking points from Rhodes, Cirincione failed to mention that 840 U.S. rabbis, over 200 U.S. generals and admirals, and 56 leading US nuclear weapons, arms control and intelligence experts signed other letters opposing the Iran nuclear agreement. Cirincione also omitted that a majority of Congress voted against the Iran deal and that when Congress voted on it last September, the American people opposed the agreement by a 2-1 margin and 64% believed President Obama and Secretary Kerry had misled the public about the deal.

I agree with Cirincione’s claim that he wasn’t deceived by the Iran deal – given his background, I am confident Cirincione fully understood how weak this agreement would be but supported it anyway because he shares President Obama’s radical views on conceding a nuclear weapons capability to Iran as part of a strategy to improve Iranian behavior and U.S.-Iran relations.

Based on Iran’s ballistic missile tests, continued sponsorship of terrorism, intervention in Syria and Yemen, and its recent threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to U.S. shipping, it is obvious this strategy has been a dismal failure.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for The Atlantic, also was named by Rhodes as one of the journalists he used to “retail the administration’s narrative” for a nuclear agreement with Iran. In a May 9 Atlantic rebuttal to the Samuels story, Goldberg disputed this and claimed he was “not been an overly enthusiastic advocate of the Iran deal.”

However, because of two massive articles Goldberg wrote based on lengthy interviews he did with President Obama in 2016 and Secretary Clinton in 2014, I find it hard to take his complaints about the Samuels piece seriously. This administration has a track record of rarely doing interviews with objective journalists. It is therefore no accident Goldberg snagged major interviews with both Obama and Clinton.

For me, Samuels’ biggest bombshell was when he singled out arms control expert and Al-Monitor journalist Laura Rozen as being such a reliable shill for the administration’s line on the Iran talks that an NSC official told him: “Laura Rozen was my RSS feed. She would just find everything and retweet it.”

In a May 10 Weekly Standard article on the Rhodes profile, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Lee Smith noted that Rozen’s employer, Al-Monitor, “is a news organization owned by a Syrian-American businessman who supports Bashar al-Assad” and “is the only U.S.-based media organization that has a pro-Hezbollah correspondent reporting from the Hezbollah front lines in Syria.”

In response to the Rhodes profile, the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington, DC arms control think tank that was very critical of the Bush administration’s Iran policy, posted a tweet on May 7 saying that it tried to warn Rozen, ACA (the Arms Control Association), and the Ploughshares Fund that Obama administration officials were overselling the nuclear deal to them and they should be more critical.

However, like Cirincione, I believe Rozen deliberately published White House talking points on the Iran deal that she knew were false. For example, in July 2015, Rozen repeated the administration’s line putting much of the blame for Iran’s nuclear program on the Bush administration when she wrote:

Iran’s nuclear program had grown from fewer than 200 centrifuges in 2003 to thousands of centrifuges during the decade in which the international community demanded it entirely halt domestic uranium enrichment.

As someone who had been writing on nuclear issues for at least ten years, Rozen knew this was extremely misleading because most of the increases in Iran’s nuclear program took place after Barack Obama became president. Although Iran barely had enough enriched uranium to make even one nuclear weapon in January 2009, it had enough, according to President Obama, to make up to 10 weapons by July 2015. The number of Iran’s uranium centrifuges used to enrich uranium also soared from about 5,000 in January 2009 to 19,000 in November 2013.

I took special pleasure seeing Rozen singled out in Samuels’ article not just because I believe she knowingly promoted the Obama administration’s false case for the Iran deal but because of false and defamatory stories she wrote about Ambassador John Bolton and myself during the Bush administration.

Rozen wrote a series of stories smearing John Bolton when he was nominated to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2005. I was Bolton’s chief of staff when he held his previous job as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and was also attacked in Rozen’s pieces on the Bolton nomination.

It was clear at the time these false stories originated from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Democratic members and staff and, just like Ben Rhodes would do in the Obama administration, these stories were fed to sycophantic journalists like Rozen who eagerly published them verbatim.

After Bolton was given a recess appointment as UN ambassador, Rozen in the fall of 2005 was one of several liberal journalists and bloggers who tried to drag me into the Valerie Plame scandal by falsely accusing me of being the source for Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003 Washington Post column which leaked Plame’s covert CIA employment. Several reputable journalists, including NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, were aware of this allegation but refused to put it on the air because they thought it was completely groundless. (I remain grateful to Mitchell for her professionalism in this matter.) We now know Novak’s source was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

In the aftermath of the Samuels profile of Rhodes, Laura Rozen had her media friends post tweets praising Rozen for her reliability and honesty as a journalist. Aaron David Miller, Vice President of the Woodrow Wilson Center who served as a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations, said in a May 7 tweet: “Laura and I don’t agree on Iran deal. But she’s an incredibly hard working reporter. WH not Laura was arrogant/dishonest.”

Given her record of partisan journalism, shilling for Democrats and smearing conservatives, I take a different view. Maybe Mr. Miller will too after he reads this article.


Source :  Center for Security Policy


  • Acecool

    Nice write up. Knock one down, ten more pop up in there place. Crazy as it seems, mankind has proven himself to be lower than the animals.

    • Miss Annie

      Could you please shoot me an email? If you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to ask ya somethin’! 🙂 admin@stumpinfortrump.com

      • Acecool

        One thing that rarely ever gets talked about, is how the Government is doing everything they can to unify division between Judaeo Christian values and Muslim beliefs, regardless of Islamic extremities being a threat to all who oppose it, open borders, decriminalizing illegal entry and lax background checks, including bigotry against sexual preference, regardless of it’s true nature born from mental illness, unconscionable perverse choice, the freedom to decide whether or not to abort a human life form, anti-gun laws and disarming it’s citizens, etc, etc, etc, and at the same time, a strong agenda unifying borderless countries for economic unification of corporate structure, which will eventually call for equal fair wage distribution regardless of country and labor laws (notice a slowly shrinking middle class) and why?

        As evidenced. Once upon a time, and not so long ago, most people viewed atheism or Islamic beliefs as Anti-Christ or even demonic, once viewed homosexuality and transitional sex change as an ungodly abomination, where those who practiced it felt shame and guilt, both of which have and are becoming more socially acceptable, and without the belief of God, no reason to feel the guilt.

        Most are unaware, America’s values are slowly becoming more akin to the the same political and social values as what we see within the UN, and maybe too rapidly, where the majority of Americans are already feeling pushed or forced to accept these values.

        It doesn’t stop there! As we’re now witnessing, hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants are strangely being allowed safe haven all over the world under the philosophy of racial/religious acceptance, and even more strange, at the risk of Islamic terrorism. But why? In short, One Religion, One God, One Government. The consequences will eventually remove all conservative christian values and with it, the freedom of voice against a tyrannical government, the U.S. Constitution? a thing of the past, viewed as old outdated standards as is the Bible itself.

        It is also my strong opinion, that Iran is no exception and only being supported by the U.S. (under shadow govt) to gain political power over the middle east, not to mention, for it’s vast oil resources. Proof is in the pudding, as evidenced, unbeknownst to most, IRAN has already become somewhat democratized. A revised Islamic state that is more a Republic than a dictatorship with a slowly disintegrating God base, being taken over with man-made laws more in line with the will of it’s people, eventually and over time, a democracy, as planned for all the world.

        When those who lose the memory of a once sovereign way of life, and those who easily succumb to the only one they are born into, knowing nothing else, will naturally cling to it, and with this new way of life, easily persuaded and ruled by the higher class, eventually become slaves to it’s higher masters. Now without protest or division, but rather replaced with fear of it’s new laws, becoming good and obedient slaves that have no God, nor the need of God, as those who rule, have become their Gods.

        • Miss Annie

          Personally, I believe the times we are in are biblical. All you say above is true, and I believe it is all relative to the times we are in.
          2Tim 3 about the morality. Daniel and Revelations speak volumes about what we are seeing with Islam.

          • Acecool

            I love that passage as it truly describes the present self centered entitlement witnessed throughout this world. Things have changed so much since the 70’s, even the Woodstock festival of 1999 turned into a major fiasco. I could write a book about how so much has changed.

            A firm believer in the book of Revelation and we see it happening all around us. This is why I have such a great respect for Donald Trump. Truly a brave soul, who like us, is sick n’ tired of what’s happening to this country. Realizing how much he loves his family, will do what ever it takes to make this a better world without all the chaos.

            When others denounce him as pure evil and most don’t even know why, merely represents a projection of their own debauched mentality, too confused to see the forest through the trees.

            It’s good to know I am not alone. Bless you for saying that lil Miss Annie.