Emperor blocks Rhodes from testifying before congress on why he misled reporters and the public about Iran nuke treaty
Two weeks ago the New York Times Magazine ran a long, adoring interview with the emperor's deputy national security advisor for communication (or some such six-word title), Ben Rhodes, in which Rhodes bragged about misleading reporters and the public over the terms and effect of the emperor's nuclear non-treaty treaty with Iran.
Let's be very clear here: Rhodes admission was NOT the result of a probing cross-examination by the obviously super-friendly interviewer. Instead, Rhodes volunteered the information, apparently quite proud of his ability to fool reporters he said were naive, inexperienced and ignorant.
It's impossible to read the interview and not get the strong impression that Rhodes holds reporters and the public in contempt because they were so easily fooled.
Oddly, a couple of members of congress--among the dozen or so who aren't actively kissing the emperor's ass to avoid charges of raaacism--apparently felt this was less than a great way for an administration to operate, so they asked Rhodes to explain in live testimony before a House committee.
Well you know what happened next, because you watch the network "news", and they always tell you important things like...well, they tell you who won The Voice and what the newest hot movie is. I guess that's what passes for news today. In any case, even if they didn't tell you, you can guess what happened, with absolute certainty.
The emperor has decreed that Rhodes won't testify. Executive privilege.
A mental exercise for ya: If a Republican prez had made a treaty with a mortal enemy nation, governing nuclear weapons, but had refused to disclose the terms--indeed, seems to have actively tried to mislead the public about those terms--and then had conspired to avoid the Constitutional requirement that treaties would only bind the U.S. if ratified by a 2/3 vote of the senate; and now when congress wanted to hear from the point-man doing a big chunk of the misleading; and if the president claimed executive privilege to prevent that man from testifying...how large would the typeface be on the top of the front page of all liberal papers, shrieking about how awful this was?
Double-standard, anyone?
Let's be very clear here: Rhodes admission was NOT the result of a probing cross-examination by the obviously super-friendly interviewer. Instead, Rhodes volunteered the information, apparently quite proud of his ability to fool reporters he said were naive, inexperienced and ignorant.
It's impossible to read the interview and not get the strong impression that Rhodes holds reporters and the public in contempt because they were so easily fooled.
Oddly, a couple of members of congress--among the dozen or so who aren't actively kissing the emperor's ass to avoid charges of raaacism--apparently felt this was less than a great way for an administration to operate, so they asked Rhodes to explain in live testimony before a House committee.
Well you know what happened next, because you watch the network "news", and they always tell you important things like...well, they tell you who won The Voice and what the newest hot movie is. I guess that's what passes for news today. In any case, even if they didn't tell you, you can guess what happened, with absolute certainty.
The emperor has decreed that Rhodes won't testify. Executive privilege.
A mental exercise for ya: If a Republican prez had made a treaty with a mortal enemy nation, governing nuclear weapons, but had refused to disclose the terms--indeed, seems to have actively tried to mislead the public about those terms--and then had conspired to avoid the Constitutional requirement that treaties would only bind the U.S. if ratified by a 2/3 vote of the senate; and now when congress wanted to hear from the point-man doing a big chunk of the misleading; and if the president claimed executive privilege to prevent that man from testifying...how large would the typeface be on the top of the front page of all liberal papers, shrieking about how awful this was?
Double-standard, anyone?
posted by SF at
2:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home