B-Man Posted May 10, 2016 Posted May 10, 2016 The press isn't mad that BEN RHODES LIED TO THEM, They're mad that someone wrote a story about it: “And now, the echo chamber is mad—but not at Ben Rhodes for what he said. They’re mad at Samuels for getting the story they didn’t—or didn’t even see was there, and they’re mad at him for what he reported. The Washington Post has published three different pieces on Samuels, none favorable, including one by the editor of the book section. The Post is mad of course because the Samuels piece publicly shamed the paper—after all, its main brief is to cover the local industry—the workings of the government of the United States. And yet as the article makes plain, Post reporters and especially columnists got spun and conned about the Iran deal.
Doc Posted May 10, 2016 Posted May 10, 2016 The press isn't mad that BEN RHODES LIED TO THEM, They're mad that someone wrote a story about it: “And now, the echo chamber is mad—but not at Ben Rhodes for what he said. They’re mad at Samuels for getting the story they didn’t—or didn’t even see was there, and they’re mad at him for what he reported. The Washington Post has published three different pieces on Samuels, none favorable, including one by the editor of the book section. The Post is mad of course because the Samuels piece publicly shamed the paper—after all, its main brief is to cover the local industry—the workings of the government of the United States. And yet as the article makes plain, Post reporters and especially columnists got spun and conned about the Iran deal. That's because, well, they're stupid. Just ask Ben Rhodes.
Keukasmallies Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 Probably dishonest because it reflects poorly on Democrats in general, the sitting POTUS in particular, and...well, just because Tiberius doesn't want it to be honest...Yeah, that's it....
DC Tom Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 This is dishonest While he's creating a narrative that's technically untrue, as far as lies go it was a pretty tiny one. So it shouldn't bother you in the least.
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2016 Author Posted May 11, 2016 While he's creating a narrative that's technically untrue, as far as lies go it was a pretty tiny one. So it shouldn't bother you in the least. And it shouldn't bother you I pointed it out. His lie was a harmless one for sure Some people won't even admit they lie.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 Some people won't even admit they lie. Yup. Like you.
Tiberius Posted May 11, 2016 Author Posted May 11, 2016 Yup. Like you. I've told lies. What human hasn't? Oh, I mean some people won't say they do, though. You are such a d-bag
Deranged Rhino Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 I've told lies. What human hasn't? Oh, I mean some people won't say they do, though. You are such a d-bag No, a douche bag brags about his lies and runs from them when he's proven to be a liar. That's you. You have the moral fiber of a bag of wet hair, and the intelligence to match. If you would ever cop to your lies you might get more respect. But since you repeatedly choose to double down on your lies and hypocrisy at every turn, that just makes you a trolling asshat. Now, go on... come back at me with one of your witty "double dumb ass on you" retorts.
B-Man Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE MISSING IRANIAN NUKE TALKS VIDEO AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT: Watch the video disappear in a flash and then—presto-chango!—magically reappear! .
DC Tom Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 THE CURIOUS CASE OF THE MISSING IRANIAN NUKE TALKS VIDEO AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT: Watch the video disappear in a flash and then—presto-chango!—magically reappear! . The State Department has no idea how it happened, but at some point, that key exchange between Psaki and Rosen curiously went missing. Maybe it was hiding from an offensive youtube video on Hillary's email server.
Doc Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 The State Department has no idea how it happened, but at some point, that key exchange between Psaki and Rosen curiously went missing. Does anything more need to be said?
CommonCents Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 http://nypost.com/2016/05/17/details-of-irans-capture-of-us-sailors-will-shock-nation-congressman/
truth on hold Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 They're right .... Iran seeks money from U.S. over 1953 coup that empowered American-backed shahhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/17/iran-parliament-demands-reparations/84480582/
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 They're right .... Iran seeks money from U.S. over 1953 coup that empowered American-backed shahhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/17/iran-parliament-demands-reparations/84480582/ How much are they asking for from the British? Y'know, the people who actually planned and initiated the coup, to keep BP from being nationalized? And how much are they asking for from the Saudis, for supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war? And how much are they asking for from Israel, for supporting...oh, wait, Israel actively backed Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.
/dev/null Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 How much are they asking for from the British? Y'know, the people who actually planned and initiated the coup, to keep BP from being nationalized? And how much are they asking for from the Saudis, for supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war? And how much are they asking for from Israel, for supporting...oh, wait, Israel actively backed Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. And what kind of compensation are they offering to the hostages they took during their Revolution and the following years?
Tiberius Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 How much are they asking for from the British? Y'know, the people who actually planned and initiated the coup, to keep BP from being nationalized? And how much are they asking for from the Saudis, for supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war? And how much are they asking for from Israel, for supporting...oh, wait, Israel actively backed Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Ummmm....Pretty sure Kermit Roosevelt planned and carried out the operation for the CIA.
B-Man Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 (edited) The Weekly Standard’s Chris Deaton captures the quote of the day from Senator Tom Cotton speaking with Hugh Hewitt on Hugh’s syndicated radio show this morning: Arkansas senator Tom Cotton hammered the president’s foreign policy staff Tuesday morning, explaining why he’s become “public enemy number one at the White House” over his opposition to the Iran deal. “I guess I became public enemy number one at the White House because I’m telling the truth about the Iran deal. Look, what you just played, and some of the coverage of Ben Rhodes is what happens when you put van drivers and campaign flaks and failed novelists in charge of foreign policy and national security,” Cotton told radio host Hugh Hewitt, after Hewitt played a clip of White House press secretary Josh Earnest rejecting Cotton’s arguments about the Iran deal. “ And that chump may think that subsidizing Iran’s nuclear program with millions of dollars is a laughing matter. I don’t think it’s that funny. And if he or anyone else over there had ever been man enough to put on the uniform and pick up a rifle, and have to lead men in dodging Iranian-made bombs, they might not be laughing, either,” the freshman senator added. Iranian Parliament Passes Law DEMANDING Compensation From The U.S. http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/05/18/iranian-parliament-passes-law-demanding-compensation-u.s./ . Edited May 18, 2016 by B-Man
B-Man Posted May 22, 2016 Posted May 22, 2016 J Street Tries to Defend Selling Iran Deal for Obamainn ^ The leftist American Jewish group J Street on Sunday issued a response to the revelation that it received more than half a million dollars to advocate for the Obama administration's controversial nuclear deal with Iran. The expose, revealed by Associated Press, noted that the Ploughshares Fund was named in an explosive New York Times profile of Obama aid Ben Rhodes, in which the President's chief propagandist listed the central groups responsible for creating an "echo chamber" in order to promote the deal. J Street was listed as receiving $576,000 to sell the deal, in a sum greater than that of any other group. In response, the group that claims to be "pro-Israel and pro-peace" did not deny that it received the money to sell President Barack Obama's deal with Iran. In a statement it said that it "acted in order to advance the nuclear deal with Iran out of faith that it was an important deal, that it had a great contribution also to the security of Israel." "(This) faith is shared by us as well as many sources, both in the American government and in the Israeli security establishment, as well as among the Jewish public in the US, most of whom supported the nuclear deal." The statement comes despite that fact that Israel's government fiercely opposed the deal, warning repeatedly that it paved Iran's way to a nuclear arsenal either by allowing it to cheat the deal which forbids international inspectors from checking Iran's covert nuclear facilities such as Parchin, or else by waiting for the limitations of the deal to expire in 15 years. (Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Recommended Posts