That may sound complicated, but in fact, I’ve oversimplified things a bit in the headline. You’ll see.
Let’s review the chronology.
On May 5, the New York Times Magazine published an interview with Obama’s chief creative writer Ben Rhodes. The article said that the Obama administration’s story about beginning talks with Iran in 2013 was a bit of creative writing itself:
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.
Obama had wanted to do the deal since at least 2012, and indeed since 2009, sources said — but Rhodes did some creative writing and spun a narrative that started everything in 2013:
In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program.
But that was horseshit.
So: the Obama administration lied.
But hey, according to Rhodes, those reporters are young, ignorant, and therefore easy to fool. Rhodes is quoted in the article as saying:
The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.
Fox News reporter James Rosen read that article, and thought: hey! I remember asking State Department spokeshole Jen Psaki in 2013 whether it was the State Department policy to lie about stuff like the Iran negotiations. And she admitted they had lied! Here’s the exchange:
Rosen: Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation of the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?
Psaki: James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. I think this is a good example of that.
So: the Obama administration lied, and a spokesperson for the State Department admitted they lied.
So, earlier this month, in light of the Rhodes interview, Rosen went back to look for the video of that exchange. But when he found it . . . poof! the exchange was gone, replaced by a white flash.
So the Obama administration lied, and a spokesperson for the State Department admitted they lied, but then they deleted the video admitting they lied.
Upon Rosen’s discovery, Fox News contacted the State Department, which blamed the video edit on a “glitch”:
UPDATE, 3:00pm ET: The State Department blamed a “glitch” for Rosen’s questions being removed.
“There was a glitch in the State Department video,” spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said.
Nobody believed that.
So: the Obama administration lied, and a spokesperson for the State Department admitted they lied, but then they deleted the video admitting they lied, and then lied about deleting the video proving they lied.
With me so far? Good, because it gets better. And even more confusing.
Today, it was revealed that: 1) the State Department has admitted that they indeed did delete the video showing the admission of lying, but 2) the person who did the deletions supposedly doesn’t remember who told them to do it.
So, hey, nobody can really be held accountable, on account of forgetfulness and such.
Nobody believes that.
So: the Obama administration lied, and a spokesperson for the State Department admitted they lied, but then they deleted the video admitting they lied, and then lied about deleting the video proving they lied — and now they are admitting that they lied about the coverup of the earlier lie, but simultaneously lying about who ordered the video edit that covered up their admission that they had lied.
Is that confusing? I don’t see why. It’s perfectly clear to me!
And they say Trump is a huge liar! (And he is. So they’re telling the truth about that.) (Now that’s really confusing.)