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

[up-country_sinclair]

The "honest answer" is that Schumer is hurting his political career, by not backing the president and his party, no matter what. He is doing the right thing. A lot of his party know what a bad deal this is, but are backing it anyway for political reasons. It is sickening.

What's sickening is that Senator Schumer swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US, not Israel.

What's sickening is that alleged Americans (you know who you are) are putting a foreign country's interests ahead of America's.

What's sickening is that many on this thread have found common cause with the most strident of the Iranian hardliners.

That's what sickening.

[stevenl]

The "honest answer" is that Schumer is hurting his political career, by not backing the president and his party, no matter what. He is doing the right thing. A lot of his party know what a bad deal this is, but are backing it anyway for political reasons. It is sickening.

Sickening is what the Republicans are doing time and time again: any White House proposal will be dismissed for political reasons.

[Jingthing]

Schumer seriously has hurt his chances of senate leadership for the D. party so UG is correct. He has gone against his party's prez.

[Ulysses G.]

The "honest answer" is that Schumer is hurting his political career, by not backing the president and his party, no matter what. He is doing the right thing. A lot of his party know what a bad deal this is, but are backing it anyway for political reasons. It is sickening.

What's sickening is that Senator Schumer swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US, not Israel.

Despite your obsessive hatred of Israel, that does not compute. Iran's ICBMs will eventually reach America with nuclear payloads. How is it not in AMERICA'S interests to prevent that?

Edited August 9, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

The "honest answer" is that Schumer is hurting his political career, by not backing the president and his party, no matter what. He is doing the right thing. A lot of his party know what a bad deal this is, but are backing it anyway for political reasons. It is sickening.

What's sickening is that Senator Schumer swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US, not Israel.

Despite your obsessive hatred of Israel, that does not compute. Iran's ICBMs will eventually reach America with nuclear payloads. How is it not in AMERICA'S interests to prevent that?

And should a nuclear bomb go off in the U.S some will blame it on the Jews anyway, as happened with 9/11. When someone states repeatedly that they want to kill you it is is wise to take them seriously.

[Ulysses G.]

The "honest answer" is that Schumer is hurting his political career, by not backing the president and his party, no matter what. He is doing the right thing. A lot of his party know what a bad deal this is, but are backing it anyway for political reasons. It is sickening.

Sickening is what the Republicans are doing time and time again: any White House proposal will be dismissed for political reasons.

In 2007, when he was beginning his run for president, Senator Obama said that the world must work to stop Irans uranium-enrichment program. The Republicans have rejected this crazy deal, because it does not do what Omama said it was going to do in the first place.

[stevenl]

The "honest answer" is that Schumer is hurting his political career, by not backing the president and his party, no matter what. He is doing the right thing. A lot of his party know what a bad deal this is, but are backing it anyway for political reasons. It is sickening.

Sickening is what the Republicans are doing time and time again: any White House proposal will be dismissed for political reasons.

In 2007, when he was beginning his run for president, Senator Obama said that the world must work to stop Irans uranium-enrichment program. The Republicans have rejected this crazy deal, because it does not do what Omama said it was going to do in the first place.

Yes, when you don't like questions or remarks, pretend to answer the issue.

[Jingthing]

Face it many of the Israel demonizers also hate the good old USA. After all that's where the Jews are.

[MisterTee]

Face it many of the Israel demonizers also hate the good old USA. After all that's where the Jews are.

It could be said that the USA Is the real 'homeland' of the Jews.

They were never - with one brief exception during the Civil War - expelled or persecuted in America.

[Jingthing]

It's a little more complicated than that but to go into it would be off topic.

[up-country_sinclair]

Iran's ICBMs will eventually reach America with nuclear payloads. How is it not in AMERICA'S interests to prevent that?

You forgot to add "mushroom clouds".

You and your fellow clan members certainly do enjoy drama, don't you?

Here's something you're unfamiliar with: a genuine, loyal American and his thoughts on the deal:

The top U.S. military officer supported a proposed nuclear deal with Iran on Wednesday, saying it reduced the risk of Tehran developing atomic arms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-iran-nuclear-pentagon-idUSKCN0Q32PU20150729

But I'm sure you'll tell us that you know better than Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let me guess, he's an anti-semite, Nazi, Holocaust denier engaging in blood libel.

Edited August 9, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[chuckd]

Iran's ICBMs will eventually reach America with nuclear payloads. How is it not in AMERICA'S interests to prevent that?

You forgot to add "mushroom clouds".

You and your fellow clan members certainly do enjoy drama, don't you?

Here's something you're unfamiliar with: a genuine, loyal American and his thoughts on the deal:

The top U.S. military officer supported a proposed nuclear deal with Iran on Wednesday, saying it reduced the risk of Tehran developing atomic arms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-iran-nuclear-pentagon-idUSKCN0Q32PU20150729

But I'm sure you'll tell us that you know better than Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let me guess, he's an anti-semite, Nazi, Holocaust denier engaging in blood libel.

None of the above...as an Obama appointee, he is serving his master.

Edited August 9, 2015 by chuckd

[up-country_sinclair]

Iran's ICBMs will eventually reach America with nuclear payloads. How is it not in AMERICA'S interests to prevent that?

You forgot to add "mushroom clouds".

You and your fellow clan members certainly do enjoy drama, don't you?

Here's something you're unfamiliar with: a genuine, loyal American and his thoughts on the deal:

The top U.S. military officer supported a proposed nuclear deal with Iran on Wednesday, saying it reduced the risk of Tehran developing atomic arms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-iran-nuclear-pentagon-idUSKCN0Q32PU20150729

But I'm sure you'll tell us that you know better than Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let me guess, he's an anti-semite, Nazi, Holocaust denier engaging in blood libel.

None of the above...as an Obama appointee, he is serving his master.

So, a career military man (over 40 years of distinguished service) is going to put the safety of the nation (and its citizens) at risk for a president that is going to be in office for a little over a year.

Don't hurt yourself grasping for those straws!

[chuckd]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

Without using any of the false rhetoric (such as "wipe Israel off the map" which nobody ever said except in the reporting of it by partisan sources), what are the arguments against it?

It appears nobody is willing to do your work for you only to get parsed to death, so I am providing you a link to the Agreement.

Please read it and point out to us why you believe this agreement is so good.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf

This DOES NOT include any side deals made by any of the participating nations. Those are confidential and are not be released in the public domain.

We await your input.

[JakeSully]

Face it many of the Israel demonizers also hate the good old USA. After all that's where the Jews are.

I wonder how things would be if the Israel lobby were replaced by the India lobby.

How would we do? Would we be willing to go to war with a nuclear armed Pakistan everytime they send ISI trained agents into India looking to kill Indians?

Proof positive we're just talking about this because of money in politics and that is steering the conversation to Israel rather than other pressing matters. There is nothing for us in Iran.. nothing except sand and oil.

[Jingthing]

Face it many of the Israel demonizers also hate the good old USA. After all that's where the Jews are.

I wonder how things would be if the Israel lobby were replaced by the India lobby.

How would we do? Would we be willing to go to war with a nuclear armed Pakistan everytime they send ISI trained agents into India looking to kill Indians?

Proof positive we're just talking about this because of money in politics and that is steering the conversation to Israel rather than other pressing matters. There is nothing for us in Iran.. nothing except sand and oil.

It's not proof positive of anything. It is another example of the mindset of the Israel demonization agenda.

[Seastallion]

I think there are good arguments both for and against it. But please be honest. It's a big risk and hardly certain it is better than no deal.

Without using any of the false rhetoric (such as "wipe Israel off the map" which nobody ever said except in the reporting of it by partisan sources), what are the arguments against it?

It appears nobody is willing to do your work for you only to get parsed to death, so I am providing you a link to the Agreement.

Please read it and point out to us why you believe this agreement is so good.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf

This DOES NOT include any side deals made by any of the participating nations. Those are confidential and are not be released in the public domain.

We await your input.

That's a very weak parry, avoiding answering the question.

I have no idea what you are on about with "my work" or being "parsed to death"..although there might be an unintentional compliment to me in there.

[sdanielmcev]

Iran's ICBMs will eventually reach America with nuclear payloads. How is it not in AMERICA'S interests to prevent that?

You forgot to add "mushroom clouds".

You and your fellow clan members certainly do enjoy drama, don't you?

Here's something you're unfamiliar with: a genuine, loyal American and his thoughts on the deal:

The top U.S. military officer supported a proposed nuclear deal with Iran on Wednesday, saying it reduced the risk of Tehran developing atomic arms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-iran-nuclear-pentagon-idUSKCN0Q32PU20150729

But I'm sure you'll tell us that you know better than Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let me guess, he's an anti-semite, Nazi, Holocaust denier engaging in blood libel.

None of the above...as an Obama appointee, he is serving his master.

So, a career military man (over 40 years of distinguished service) is going to put the safety of the nation (and its citizens) at risk for a president that is going to be in office for a little over a year.

Don't hurt yourself grasping for those straws!

Just because he's in the military does not mean he's above politics. The left is much more hawkish than the right.

And, if you read the transcript, the general was not satisfied with the agreement. Only getting 1 of 5 points covered. That ain't straw.

[Pakboong]

This one just keeps getting more interesting.

AIPAC has been reported as spending $20 million on adds against the deal. That number was mentioned by a very pissed off president.

"The next day in a speech at American University, Mr. Obama denounced the deal’s opponents as “lobbyists” doling out millions of dollars to trumpet the same hawkish rhetoric that had led the United States into war with Iraq. The president never mentioned Aipac by name, but his target was unmistakable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/world/middleeast/fears-of-lasting-rift-as-obama-battles-pro-israel-group-on-iran.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

I have never been an Obama fan but, in a pushing match between him and AIPAC,the American president will be my default position and AIPAC will have to convince me in the strongest manner and with serious facts, to get me to come off that position. The faliure here, in my opinion, is if there were 10 hypothetical dog fights between a pro-Iraeal dog and an anti-Isreal dog, there will be a handful on his forum who will go with the 10 pro-Israel dog every fight. The problem is, if the anti-Israel posters go with the anti Israel dog every time, they are Israel demonizers. That is nowhere near how it should work but it works out exactly that way each and every day. A pretty lame example I know but anyone who wants to get the point, can.

Someone in the Obama staff also mentioned that 60 lobbyists from AIPAC visited Shumer last week. This is crazy at best. I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

[Pakboong]

"Ultimately it is very clear, one way or another, Iran’s military nuclear program must be stopped,” Ya’alon said. “We will act in any way and are not willing to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. We prefer that this be done by means of sanctions, but in the end, Israel should be able to defend itself."

In an interview with the German-language Der Spiegel, Moshe Ya'alon said that he bore no responsibility "for the life expectancy of Iranian scientists."

[sdanielmcev]

This one just keeps getting more interesting.

AIPAC has been reported as spending $20 million on adds against the deal. That number was mentioned by a very pissed off president.

"The next day in a speech at American University, Mr. Obama denounced the deals opponents as lobbyists doling out millions of dollars to trumpet the same hawkish rhetoric that had led the United States into war with Iraq. The president never mentioned Aipac by name, but his target was unmistakable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/world/middleeast/fears-of-lasting-rift-as-obama-battles-pro-israel-group-on-iran.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

I have never been an Obama fan but, in a pushing match between him and AIPAC,the American president will be my default position and AIPAC will have to convince me in the strongest manner and with serious facts, to get me to come off that position. The faliure here, in my opinion, is if there were 10 hypothetical dog fights between a pro-Iraeal dog and an anti-Isreal dog, there will be a handful on his forum who will go with the 10 pro-Israel dog every fight. The problem is, if the anti-Israel posters go with the anti Israel dog every time, they are Israel demonizers. That is nowhere near how it should work but it works out exactly that way each and every day. A pretty lame example I know but anyone who wants to get the point, can.

Someone in the Obama staff also mentioned that 60 lobbyists from AIPAC visited Shumer last week. This is crazy at best. I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

Fair enough. But that doesn't explain the rest of the dems that do not support this agreement. And that is the majority of Democrats. Is their patriotism also in question?

I do agree lobbyists have been out of hand for quite some time. Until it changes we're stuck with it. I also wonder how much is being spent on by PACs on the pro side of this.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

I don't think I would have questioned his patriotism. I would have questioned his common sense. IMO, most of the democrats who support the "deal" support it only for partisan reasons.

[Publicus]

Iran's ICBMs will eventually reach America with nuclear payloads. How is it not in AMERICA'S interests to prevent that?

You forgot to add "mushroom clouds".

You and your fellow clan members certainly do enjoy drama, don't you?

Here's something you're unfamiliar with: a genuine, loyal American and his thoughts on the deal:

The top U.S. military officer supported a proposed nuclear deal with Iran on Wednesday, saying it reduced the risk of Tehran developing atomic arms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-iran-nuclear-pentagon-idUSKCN0Q32PU20150729

But I'm sure you'll tell us that you know better than Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let me guess, he's an anti-semite, Nazi, Holocaust denier engaging in blood libel.

None of the above...as an Obama appointee, he is serving his master.

US military commanders of the armed forces do not take their orders or commands from the prime minister of a foreign government.

A platoon of retired US military commanders of all branches of the services opposed the 2003 war in Iraq and said so publicly before the invasion, after the invasion and throughout the conflict there. The rightwing down the rabid hole media called them the "Dove Generals," which the generals and admirals rejected decidedly.

Prez GW Bush appointed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine General Peter Pace who was an advocate of revisiting the Stone Age on certain parts of the world. Reagan had one of his own stone ager generals as JCS Chairman. Prez Clinton had a JCS chairman whose career included a focus on the refugees of war. Prez Obama appointed Gen Dempsey as JCS Chairman due to the general's expertise as a strategic thinker with a long term view.

When a president chooses to advance or appoint generals and admirals, s/he selects commanders whose judgements and values the president can trust. So it is for this reason among many that anyone trying to impugn the integrity of the commanders of our armed forces under any POTUS should have his mouth washed out with soap.

Or be taken to the woodshed.

[Publicus]

I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

I don't think I would have questioned his patriotism. I would have questioned his common sense. IMO, most of the democrats who support the "deal" support it only for partisan reasons.

IMO the rightwingers who oppose the Agreement oppose it because they are political and ideological rightwingnuts.

[Pakboong]

I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

I don't think I would have questioned his patriotism. I would have questioned his common sense. IMO, most of the democrats who support the "deal" support it only for partisan reasons.

IMO the rightwingers who oppose the Agreement oppose it because they are political and ideological rightwingnuts.

Mr. Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate and the likely Democratic leader beginning in 2017, said on Thursday night that he opposed the deal, citing concerns about the inspection regime, provisions to reimpose sanctions if Iran cheats, and Tehran’s freedom after a decade to possibly pursue a nuclear bomb. In quick succession, two other prominent Jewish Democrats, Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mr. Sherman announced their opposition.

These are Schumer's stated reasons. He has concerns , I too have conerns but, not any where near what it would take for me to vote against the POTUS. We do live in a democracy and voting nay is one of the options. Just not a good vote in this spot.

[Pakboong]

This one just keeps getting more interesting.

AIPAC has been reported as spending $20 million on adds against the deal. That number was mentioned by a very pissed off president.

"The next day in a speech at American University, Mr. Obama denounced the deals opponents as lobbyists doling out millions of dollars to trumpet the same hawkish rhetoric that had led the United States into war with Iraq. The president never mentioned Aipac by name, but his target was unmistakable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/world/middleeast/fears-of-lasting-rift-as-obama-battles-pro-israel-group-on-iran.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

I have never been an Obama fan but, in a pushing match between him and AIPAC,the American president will be my default position and AIPAC will have to convince me in the strongest manner and with serious facts, to get me to come off that position. The faliure here, in my opinion, is if there were 10 hypothetical dog fights between a pro-Iraeal dog and an anti-Isreal dog, there will be a handful on his forum who will go with the 10 pro-Israel dog every fight. The problem is, if the anti-Israel posters go with the anti Israel dog every time, they are Israel demonizers. That is nowhere near how it should work but it works out exactly that way each and every day. A pretty lame example I know but anyone who wants to get the point, can.

Someone in the Obama staff also mentioned that 60 lobbyists from AIPAC visited Shumer last week. This is crazy at best. I don't know if Shumer is a Patriot or not. I am simply curious as to whether or not he would have still been considered a patriot on this forum had he committed for the deal.

Fair enough. But that doesn't explain the rest of the dems that do not support this agreement. And that is the majority of Democrats. Is their patriotism also in question?

I do agree lobbyists have been out of hand for quite some time. Until it changes we're stuck with it. I also wonder how much is being spent on by PACs on the pro side of this.

That depends:

"While President Barack Obama was speaking about the people’s business, and his Kennedy-like preference for diplomacy over war, freshman members of the U.S. House of Representatives were either 5,000 plus miles away in Israel, or preparing to go there to be feted and educated by a foreign power which opposes the nuclear agreement the U.S. has reached with Iran and major European powers."

This statement was reported in a blog but I am sure it is accurate. The MSM will never report such as this.

[Pakboong]

Maybe they just want Obama to stick to what he said in the first place.

The administration insisted that the nuclear talks would not affect separate sanctions imposed because of Iranian aggression and terrorism. That was then. The administration is now leaking that everything will be lifted.

Taken together, the catalog of capitulations is breathtaking: spot inspections, disclosure of previous nuclear activity, gradual sanctions relief, retention of non-nuclear sanctions.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/jul/04/charles-krauthammer-us-backpedaling-driving-deal/

What’s left? A surrender document of the kind offered by defeated nations suing for peace. Consider: The strongest military and economic power on Earth, backed by the five other major powers, armed with what had been a crushing sanctions regime, is about to sign the worst international agreement in American diplomatic history.

I do not agree but that is okay. Disagreement is healthy. Hopefully, wisdom will prevail. I certainly do not want his job.

[chuckd]

You forgot to add "mushroom clouds".

You and your fellow clan members certainly do enjoy drama, don't you?

Here's something you're unfamiliar with: a genuine, loyal American and his thoughts on the deal:

The top U.S. military officer supported a proposed nuclear deal with Iran on Wednesday, saying it reduced the risk of Tehran developing atomic arms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/29/us-iran-nuclear-pentagon-idUSKCN0Q32PU20150729

But I'm sure you'll tell us that you know better than Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let me guess, he's an anti-semite, Nazi, Holocaust denier engaging in blood libel.

None of the above...as an Obama appointee, he is serving his master.

So, a career military man (over 40 years of distinguished service) is going to put the safety of the nation (and its citizens) at risk for a president that is going to be in office for a little over a year.

Don't hurt yourself grasping for those straws!

I see you know as little about career military officers as you do about everything else.

One doesn't get to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs without being a very polished politician. General Dempsey is no exception.

[elgordo38]

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Ike's departing words in 1960.

Ike feared creating enemies for financial gain. Every time I see these "warmongering" threads, that is what comes into my mind first. Seriously, what have we become? Total safety is not achievable and IMO, only fools pursue that which can never be achieved.

If there is no wisdom among us, we are in deep trouble anyway. Wisdom tells us when enough is enough; we never fail to prepare but we keep it smart. We must know where to pause and enjoy life.

Eisenhower comment. Every once in a blue moon a man of power comes along and speaks the truth albeit rarely. As he had finished his tenure as president he gave us a parting shoot which we sadly ignored. Then along came JFK. I think he tried the road of truth and that proved to be his undoing. Even presidents do not have a free rein in running the country. Big business always holds them accountable and well JFK was his own master. One cannot serve two masters.

[Chicog]

I was watching a rerun of "Republican Idol" this morning, listening to Ted Cruz wittering on about how Iran are "on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon".

The rubbish these people come out with and the great unwashed just lap it up.

Mind you he also said God talks to him every day.