Schumer, No. 3 US Senate Democrat, to oppose Iran nuclear deal

[Jingthing]

Enough already with the Israeli polling question. It's obvious most Israelis are against the deal. Deal with the reality of it, for whatever it's worth either way.

Back to the topic. I agree with THE TABLET on this:

What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or ofselling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have beenshaken by it.

We do not accept the idea that Senator Schumer or anyone else is a fair target for racist incitement, anymore than we accept the idea that the basic norms of political discourse in this country do not apply to Jews. Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry—no matter who does it. On this question, we should all stand in defense of Senator Schumer.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192751/crossing-a-line-to-sell-a-deal

Edited August 11, 2015 by Jingthing

[MrMuddle]

No surprise jewish americans are against the deal - if the deal goes ahead the zionist jews won't get the war that they crave.

[Jingthing]

No surprise jewish americans are against the deal - if the deal goes ahead the zionist jews won't get the war that they crave.

Jewish Americans are largely split on the deal. That goes against your hate agenda, though, doesn't it?

People posting inflammatory BIGOTED garbage like you just did aren't interested in FACTS though. That's obvious.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Jingthing

[MrMuddle]

Nothing to see here, move along. Next....

[Chicog]

Personally I don't give a flying f---- what Israelis think of the deal.

It's between Iran and the P5+1.

[chuckd]

When two entirely different questions are asked, it is very likely there will be two entirely different sets of results.

You must have noticed that the second poll was to informed people, because they explained the deal first.

Thanks for confirming that the second poll has the more reliable result.

I didn't overlook anything. The so called "informed people" were informed thusly, according to your own link...

"The second, a Washington Post/ABC News survey, first explains the agreement (“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have announced a deal to lift economic sancagainst Iran in exchange for Iran agreeing not to produce nuclear weapons. International inspectors would monitor Iran’s facilities, and if Iran is caught breaking the agreement economic sanctions would be imposed again.”) before asking whether respondents support or opptions ose it. (sic)

It would seem to most thinking persons, the question as stated does not take into account the restrictions placed on the international inspectors monitoring Iran's facilities by the side deals between the IAEA and Iran.

The question goes on to omit how difficult, or even impossible, it would be to put the sanctions back in place, when one considers most of the P5+1 will have no interest whatsoever in placing the sanctions back into effect. The EU, Russia and China will have no incentive to place sanctions back on since they will be on their knees attempting to get business deals out of the $100-150 Billion in ready cash being made available to Iran.

Perhaps it might do you some good to join the "informed people" category for a change. Try reading your own link beyond the headlines.

From your own Politico link, in particular notice the last quoted sentence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A Pew analysis chalked up the differences to the wording of the question.Because no two polls are exactly the same, it’s difficult to say which is most reflective of public opinion. But the latest WSJ/NBC poll is helpful to a certain degree on this front.

According to the Journal, the question asked in the latest poll is “very similar” to one conducted in June. Between then and now, the level of support for the agreement has stayed the same, but the level of opposition has risen — a warning sign for the Obama administration as it tries to rally support in Congress for the agreement.

Gerstein, however, noted that even looking at those two polls isn’t entirely an apples-to-apples comparison because the first poll was conducted before the 100-plus page agreement was unveiled in mid-July.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/public-polls-iran-nuclear-deal-support-oppose-120953.html#ixzz3iTqY7uyr

Thanks for pointing out the last quoted sentence, which clearly indicates that if the first poll also was conducted AFTER the agreement was unveiled, the result most probably would have been similar to the second poll.

So another clear sign that the first poll was conducted among UNINFORMED people, since they couldn't have been informed about the agreement details yet.

This will be my closing argument with you on this subject. You may now have the last word, which is so important to the liberal mindset.

From the post above, the portion you chose to ignore is repeated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A Pew analysis chalked up the differences to the wording of the question.Because no two polls are exactly the same, it’s difficult to say which is most reflective of public opinion. But the latest WSJ/NBC poll is helpful to a certain degree on this front.

According to the Journal, the question asked in the latest poll is “very similar” to one conducted in June. Between then and now, the level of support for the agreement has stayed the same, but the level of opposition has risen — a warning sign for the Obama administration as it tries to rally support in Congress for the agreement.

[chuckd]

Personally I don't give a flying f---- what Israelis think of the deal.

It's between Iran and the P5+1.

I'm quite certain the Obama/Kerry negotiating juggernaut is in complete agreement with your opening sentence.

[Harry2]

Well another American senator who happens to be Jewish has just come out (unfortunately) for the dodgy deal.

Brian Schatz of Hawaii now joins Feinstein & Boxer.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-senator-becomes-latest-backer-of-iran-deal/

So at present, for those keeping a specific scoreboard of American senators who happen to be Jewish, it is 3 for and 1 against.

Al Franken is v likely also to be 'for' and Bernie Sanders - although Indep is also for. The 'Zionist war' faction has clearly got the wrong script.

[Jingthing]

Nothing to see here, move along. Next....

Yes, we already saw your Jew baiting post ... so that's done and dusted.

[Seastallion]

Personally I don't give a flying f---- what Israelis think of the deal.

It's between Iran and the P5+1.

I'm quite certain the Obama/Kerry negotiating juggernaut is in complete agreement with your opening sentence.

And good on them, too. Why should they worry about a nation with a government that tries to manipulate the US constantly? Look what happened when the idiot Bush listened to Israel's assertions of WOMD in Iraq...how many Americans died there...and counting? For what? To appease Netanyahu.

[Chicog]

Personally I don't give a flying f---- what Israelis think of the deal.

It's between Iran and the P5+1.

I'm quite certain the Obama/Kerry negotiating juggernaut is in complete agreement with your opening sentence.

I would hope so, since they are supposed to representing America's interest, not Israel's.

[chuckd]

Personally I don't give a flying f---- what Israelis think of the deal.

It's between Iran and the P5+1.

I'm quite certain the Obama/Kerry negotiating juggernaut is in complete agreement with your opening sentence.

And good on them, too. Why should they worry about a nation with a government that tries to manipulate the US constantly? Look what happened when the idiot Bush listened to Israel's assertions of WOMD in Iraq...how many Americans died there...and counting? For what? To appease Netanyahu.

You think the Iraq war was fought to appease Netanyahu???

What are you Aussies putting in your water down there? That's one of the dumbest statement I have heard on this forum in quite a while.

One of my old programmers would call that the classic I D Ten T error.

[Jingthing]

Israel demonization follows no normal rules of logic.

[MrMuddle]

Israel demonisation follows all normal rules of logic - they have no right to be in Palestine, a land they lost over 2,000 years ago. it's like allowing the Romans to rule over Europe, because they did that a long time ago, it's ridiculous.

[Ulysses G.]

Actually Israel has every right. The UN gave them the land and they won numerous wars against the Arabs who refused the UN offer for their own land. The Palestinian Arabs are the ones that turned having their own country down.

[Steely Dan]

Israel demonisation follows all normal rules of logic - they have no right to be in Palestine, a land they lost over 2,000 years ago. it's like allowing the Romans to rule over Europe, because they did that a long time ago, it's ridiculous.

Your avatar is most appropriate.

[MrMuddle]

Insults instead of answers - how typical.

[Jingthing]

Insults instead of answers - how typical.

Very well deserved in some cases. (See above.)

[up-country_sinclair]

Personally I don't give a flying f---- what Israelis think of the deal.

It's between Iran and the P5+1.

Exactly right!

[MrMuddle]

Not as funny as you and your friends pitiful attempts at justifying the evils committed by israel - now that is comedy gold.

[stevenl]

Not as funny as you and your friends pitiful attempts at justifying the evils committed by israel - now that is comedy gold.

IMO there is too much Israel can do no wrong and all Israel criticism is anti Semitic here on the forum, but your jokes and attitude towards Israel and posters here are IMO tasteless.

[casualbiker]

A democrat with some INTEGRITY. This crazy deal should be opposed by the whole Congress and Senate.

Why?

[Anthony5]

A democrat with some INTEGRITY. This crazy deal should be opposed by the whole Congress and Senate.

Why?

Because UG says so, didn't you hear him SHOUT throughout the whole thread.

[Pakboong]

Personally I don't give a flying f---- what Israelis think of the deal.

It's between Iran and the P5+1.

Exactly right!

Actually, it is America's deal and that is what matters to me. Now, Israel has gone and embarrassed a sitting American President by addressing his legislature without executive branch approval. This is going to go badly for Israel or, I should say that it should go badly for Israel. If we have truly become an Oligarchy, it could go badly for us Americans.

[Pakboong]

Actually Israel has every right. The UN gave them the land and they won numerous wars against the Arabs who refused the UN offer for their own land. The Palestinian Arabs are the ones that turned having their own country down.

UG is correct and we don't agree often. This "who's land it is" bores me to tears. There are serious issues at play here that need serious consideration. Who actually owns the sandbox is beyond moot.

[Steely Dan]

The vote can't come quick enough for Obama and Kerry, every day brings fresh news making the deal seem even worse, if that's possible. Now the Iranians intend to veto every IAEA inspector they don't approve of.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/all-nuke-inspectors-require-approval-from-irans-intelligence-agency/#st_refDomain=t.co&st_refQuery=/2tX4MEK0o1

[Boon Mee]

Actually Israel has every right. The UN gave them the land and they won numerous wars against the Arabs who refused the UN offer for their own land. The Palestinian Arabs are the ones that turned having their own country down.

UG is correct and we don't agree often. This "who's land it is" bores me to tears. There are serious issues at play here that need serious consideration. Who actually owns the sandbox is beyond moot.

Got that right K. Pakboon.

This entire so-called 'Treaty' is nothing more than the aforementioned "Peace in Our Time"

Capitulation in our time.

[Steely Dan]

Here Daniel Greenfield nails it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259826/iran-deal-everything-bad-about-obama-one-package-daniel-greenfield

Obama’s foreign policy has been one long string of miserable disasters, but we’re expected not to acknowledge that or allow it to influence our views as he promotes his latest foreign policy disaster. Forget giving Iran the benefit of the doubt, why after a track record of horrible disasters in the region, is Obama entitled to any benefit of the doubt on Iran?

There’s nothing new about this latest disaster. Only the stakes are bigger because they’re nuclear.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Steely Dan

[TooPoopedToPop]

Here Daniel Greenfield nails it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259826/iran-deal-everything-bad-about-obama-one-package-daniel-greenfield

Obama’s foreign policy has been one long string of miserable disasters, but we’re expected not to acknowledge that or allow it to influence our views as he promotes his latest foreign policy disaster. Forget giving Iran the benefit of the doubt, why after a track record of horrible disasters in the region, is Obama entitled to any benefit of the doubt on Iran?

There’s nothing new about this latest disaster. Only the stakes are bigger because they’re nuclear.

Nonsense.

Greenfield is calling it a disaster when he has no idea of what the outcome will be.

That's just propaganda, and not unexpected considering the source.

[Steely Dan]

Greenfield is calling it a disaster when he has no idea of what the outcome will be.

So, he is not allowed to call such an obviously stupid deal a disaster until an Iranian nuke goes off. It will be way too late then.

I doubt the diehards would admit the deal is a stinker even if an electromagnetic pulse attack took out the technology enabling them to post humble pie. Here is what Democratic senator Menendez wrote about the deal.

“President Obama continues to erroneously say that this agreement permanently stops Iran from having a nuclear bomb,” he said. “Let’s be clear, what the agreement does is to recommit Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb, a promise they have already violated in the past. It recommits them to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), an agreement they have already violated in the past. It commits them to a new Security Council Resolution outlining their obligations, but they have violated those in the past as well.”

Quite devastating a critique coming from his own party.