Why the Ben Rhodes profile in the New York Times Magazine is just gross.

A lot of lefty bloggers think Samuels intentionally made Rhodes look bad because of his own opposition to the Iran deal (which goes unmentioned in the article).

 

Samuels was also out to make Jeffrey Goldberg look bad:

 

Wasn't long ago when the NYT / Judith Miller was used by Ahmed Chalabi / White House
to sell the WMD story.

 

So much talk about this article:

 

Stan McCrystal was fired for less.

 

Doesn't this support my theory that it's actually a brilliant takedown disguised as flattery, one that Rhodes would read and jerk off too, never understanding how moronic he looks?

 

Yes your theory was spot on.

 

Separate Rhodes quotes from the author's prose and surround them with standard AP style. They look normal and boring, the usual Washington guy delighted to think somebody else thinks he's important. It's not a particularly clever hatchet job. It's just overwritten horseshit, another of the endless Times magazine string of stories where the protagonist is the author, not the subject.

 

It does. Still trying to figure it out.

 

Rhodes had so much success manipulating the media that he fooled himself into thinking that he could control this story

 

The blowback seems a lot stronger than anything the story generated, so maybe Rhodes did just that.

 

I love this. Everyone wants to weigh in on this: