Chuck Schumer’s Disingenuous Iran Deal Argument

[geek tragedy]

“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” Corzine was quoted as saying in New York magazine. “Take a little bite of it and he will throw his own feces at you.”

On Thursday evening, right in the middle of the first GOP debate, Schumer reached back, took aim, and heaved a large one. He penned a long piece for Medium that some anonymous hack described as “thoughtful and deliberate.” Uh, ok. Maybe compared to Mike Huckabee’s outrage about “oven doors,” but good grief our standards for political discourse have fallen. Schumer’s missive came across a bit like your crazy uncle who gets his opinions from talk radio and wants to set you straight at Thanksgiving.

(I’m probably not the only one who thinks so. But then, I don’t have to pretend Schumer is some great statesman lest he put a hold on some future appointment or nomination.)

Consider how Schumer describes the inspection regime in the Iran deal.

Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”

Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/

[MBS]

1. This is really good, thanks. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

2. Schumer swallowed the Republican/Bibi treachery and feces whole and pronounced it delicious! Try some?

Really more delicious when served at 10 p.m. in the middle of the most watched cable event in history!

Be proud of your feces-eating, Schumer, why sneak around serving it in the middle of the night??

[6chars]

3. Amazing

how DUers respond to a Democrat who simply says he doesn't agree with the President and explains why. I don't see why in a democracy people - or a Democratic party, people have to either agree 100% with their leader or be vilified. How about instead commenting "I agree with the article. Schumer's reasoning is flawed."

[Fred Sanders]

6. Well, there is that little objection by some folks about lying about the agreement and pretending

being a Senator also makes you a nuclear physicist. It's all in the OP and link.

"I am not a nuclear physicist, but....", does not wash with a liberal crowd...what crowd did you say you were with, again?

Also, forgot to mention, fearmongering, as Obama said, is also not a liberal thing.

10 p.m. on Thursday?? Too funny.

[6chars]

8. Do you think the Democratic Party needs to do a purge?

since no true liberal could have concerns about this deal?

[marmar]

14. Nobody's going to mistake Wall Street Chuck for a true liberal.

[geek tragedy]

16. no true liberals have opposed it to date

he should (but won't) face a primary challenge.

But he's manifestly unfit to be a party leader, as he has shown that if the Israel lobby breathes on him he will do whatever they say. We need a leader, not a meek, obedient follower.

[6chars]

25. one could come up with the opposite conclusion

You could say that he has shown that no mater how hard the President breathes on him, he will not just do what he is told, and that he is a leader rather than a meek obedient follower who just repeats what the President tells him to say. See how that works?

[geek tragedy]

26. Only if one assumes that supporting a president of his own party is just as

bad as outsourcing his vote to foreign governments and lobbyists. This is patently not true for a party leader.

Moreover, he was eager to support Bush's war. He trusted Bush, but not Obama, on foreign policy.

That makes him not only disloyal, but also a warmongering asshole.

[6chars]

30. "I will obey my Commander-in-Chief"

oops, no. we do not have a Supreme Leader in this country. The President serves the people, not the other way around.

[geek tragedy]

31. you are confused again. No one here gave those voting against Obama on the TPP

any grief at all.

Where one gets into trouble is where a person who voted the WRONG way on Iraq in supporting a Republican president applies the same erroneous and ideology-driven rationalization for voting against a Democratic president, they are not a good Democrat on a core issue--war and peace. Rather, they are a Republican in terms of foreign policy, and also apparently incapable or unwilling to learn from their mistakes.

There are two interpretations for the votes of people like Schemer and Elliot Engel:

1) They are ideologically-driven warmongers who have no patience for actual diplomacy (which means imperfect agreements);
2) They do not apply independent judgment when voting on issues pertaining to the Middle East.

[6chars]

35. ther are many interpretations

maybe they don't exist and this is all a simulation. maybe they are robots controlled by aliens.

more likely, they are more worried than the President is about Iran's ability to skirt the terms of the deal and whether Iran will be extremist or more moderate over the next 15 years. there is no right answer for how to interpret chants of "Death to Israel," after all. They may also place a relatively higher value than the President does on Israel's security - which is not to say that the President places no value on it (as he has himself stated that it is important to him and to the US).

[geek tragedy]

38. Ah, the dishonest rightwing claim that the agreement is bad for Israel's security, and that

those who oppose it care more about Israel's security than do people who support it.

Other rightwing arguments you employ include:

1) that one's interpretations of "death to America" are germane to whether nuclear inspections would be effective;
2) that those supporting the deal assume that Iran will moderate--no, the inspections and monitoring are there because it's assumed they won't moderate
3) the concerns about Iran skirting could be considered honest if (a) people like Schemer didn't outright lie and distort the content of the agreement and (b) their proposal--no agreement--means no monitoring and no inspections and no reduction in enriched uranium or centrifuges, with Iran getting a good deal of the international sanctions lifted

You are fooling no one as to why you joined 2 months ago and have done nothing but recite word for word what the PNAC/AIPAC crowd claim.

An honest Democrat would find discomfort in siding with:

Dick Cheney
George W Bush
Ted Cruz
Donald Trump
Benjamin Netanyahu

vs Barack Obama, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on the most important war and peace issue of the past decade, and perhaps the next 20 years.

[6chars]

40. You know that's not what I said

And as someone who has an axe to grind, to say the least, you are clearly unnerved by people who are willing to put hyperbolic words under scrutiny. Sorry about that.

[karynnj]

32. forget loyalty and consider honesty

Schumer is always said to be intelligent, yet in the quoted paragraphs on inspections, he is either being disengenuous or he has failed to read or listen to Moniz or others who have actually worked on inspections.

I have no problem with anyone who raised that question in the hearings. I do have a problem with someone who repeats them after the overwhelming majority of experts stated why that conclusion was wrong.

Here, a strong leader would make his case with things that are true. I suspect that the real reason he is against this is that he fears the geopolitical possibility of Iran becoming stronger. He fears how that could change the middle east.

However, he has no problem with supporting neo cons who actually thought that they could remake the middle east with a series of wars. I don't think he ever spoke out against that idea even when Bush publicly admitted in his second inaugural speech that what they were doing was spreading democracy. Apparently, creating a model democracy in Iraq would have reset the table and led to a more peaceful middle east. A strategy that you might expect from a Care Bear influenced by the evil John Bolton.


Here, you are suggesting that he is standing alone leading this. In fact, he is repeating points made by both Netanyahu and the entire Republican party. Not to mention, when has he ever led on a Democratic issue? My observation is that there are few things he will take a risk that comes with leading on an issue that does not have easy support. Yet he perceives that he is the natural leader.

I remember that in the wake of Citizens United, that he mused about having made a mistake by not LEADING. A filibuster against Aleito. No mention that there actually was a strong effort led by Kerry and Kennedy, and strongly supported by people like Leahy. Schumer from all the accounts on Daily Kos was absolutely against it when it started. The point here is that years later his regret was not having not strongly supported the effort, but that he had not LED it.

There are people who almost naturally become leaders because their personality and character lead others to see them as leaders. The best of them will follow their values even when doing so makes their success less likely.


However, the DIRECTION one is leading in is as important as having the talent and character to be a leader. Even if I thought this action made Schumer a leader, I would reject him for leading back to Neo con foreign policy rather than Obama's brave leadership in rejecting war and trying diplomacy with 5 other countries. Obama IS LEADING HERE. From the beginning, he knew it was a long shot that the world could get a diplomatic solution, but this is what exhausting diplomacy means.

I know the right is offended when it is said, likely because it is true, if we reject this and then have a war with Iran, the blame belongs to people like Schumer.

Schumer is saying he is willing to take all the risks that war has, but not take any risk that diplomacy could fail. GIVE PEACE A CHANCE.

[Martin Eden]

43. There's a difference between "concerns about this deal" ...

... and LIES ABOUT THIS DEAL.

Do you agree there should be an open honest debate about this deal?

If so, then it is necessary to point out lies and condemn the liars who would sabotage the debate by spreading falsehoods.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. You see dear, it's like this...

This isn't an agreement about which socks to wear with brown shoes. It's more complicated than that.

If Schumer influences enough politicians to scuttle this deal then the outcome may very well be war in the short-run, and that's exactly what Netanyahu wants. Israel wants a weakened Iran, and war is the best way to do it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Iran won't still be able to make a nuke after being attacked, and then what? Will Israel act with surprise if Iran decides to strike it then?

Minus this treaty Iran has no incentive to stop momentum on building a nuke; in which case the West will have to act. I say the West, but I'm also sure then Netanyahu will help it along just like he helped the GOP by speaking before congress: uninvited by the POTUS. Then Israel will sit back while the Americans and the Persians duke it out.

No thanks.

Our POTUS has said that this agreement is not perfect, but it is definitely better than a war that may make Israel even less safe in the short run.

So thanks for your heartfelt concern.

[6chars]

13. Sorry if I like to think for myself

and not blindly follow a leader - any leader - without thinking. But other people are free to do so, of course.

[geek tragedy]

15. Schemer didn't do any thinking about the merits of the agreement.

He prefers war with Muslim states to diplomacy with them, and moreover his personal code of conduct is to always vote according to the wishes of the Israel lobby.

[6chars]

20. that kind of caricature

is similar to what a lot of RWers say about our President. all you would have to do is change a couple of words. it is basically name calling.

[geek tragedy]

23. and those RWers are the ones Schemer listens to on foreign policy nt

[6chars]

24. probably not true

but even if it was, name calling and similar demeaning isn't good for Democrats to engage in.

[geek tragedy]

27. funny, you only raise issues of decorum when it's neoconservative hawks

who are getting criticized for pushing a war with Iran.

[6chars]

29. i am somewhat bothered by lack of decorum

used to talk about Bernie Sanders by his detractors, and used to talk about Hillary Clinton by hers, and Barack Obama by his. I confess I am willing to tolerate a little lack of decorum for talking about Donald Trump, but he has earned it with the way he speaks about others.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

17. What's the alternative to this treaty beside war?

[6chars]

21. there are usually more than two alternatives

it may well be that at this point the best alternative is to affirm the treaty, especially given that this is only the US portion.

but framing it as "you want the treaty or you want war" is a false dichotomy. one alternative would be to not confirm the treaty and see what happens - maybe it would lead to war and maybe not -- if Iran is so rational, why would they develop weapons to the point that the US would take the military option. another alternative would be to withdraw from the treaty and offer 5 trillion dollars to Iran to become a vassal state of the US. that only took a few seconds, and i am not even a nuclear physicist.

if this is the best alternative at this point in time, it is still intellectually dishonest to insist that it is the best possible treaty that could have been obtained - why is that not so? because it is never so - Obama and Kerry aren't perfect and in hindsight there is always something that could have been done better.

allowing criticism and discussion is not a bad thing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

34. "maybe it would lead to war and maybe not" What an astute analysis. Not.

Maybe yes, maybe no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/obama-urges-critics-of-iran-deal-to-ignore-drumbeat-of-war.html?_r=0

“Let’s not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war — maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon,” Mr. Obama told about 200 people in a speech at American University. “How can we in good conscience justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives?”

I'd take this guys statement, and SoS Kerry's on something they know a great deal about over your 50/50 take a chance BS.

Disagree all you want. I need a good laugh.


But it leads me to question if some are supporting the Israeli position in some way and are hoping for a GOP Presidential win so that Netanyahu can have his US-Iran war after all.

[6chars]

37. I remember the last time a President seemed so certain on a military matter

it was 2003. It didn't work out that well.

As for their certainty, I think they know plenty about the situation but that these public pronouncements are meant to galvanize support and they are avoiding any expression of uncertainty. Maybe they are overconfident. It has happened plenty of times before. Politicians do this all the time. i don't pretend to know what the future holds, but i also don't believe that the President knows exactly what the future holds. I think there is value to healthy skepticism. You don't have to.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. Where that's where you have it terribly wrong. It's a diplomatic matter, silly.

Bush was beating the drums of war; like most MIC republicans do...and will if they win the WH.

And yes, war didn't work out so well.



Obama is pushing a diplomatic approach to stave off a military confrontation.


You really are out of your depth on these matters.

[6chars]

42. I hope you are right.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. I did think for myself, extensively. That's why I believe Schumer is DANGEROUSLY wrong

And presumably other Democratic Senators are thinking for themselves as well and so far Chuck Schumer stands with a very small minority of them, opposed by the vast majority. He is unfit to serve as Democratic Senate leader.

[6chars]

39. That's fair.

[RockaFowler]

4. Schumer believed that horrible ad

I can't believe anyone believed that ad. But it looks like Chuckie did!

[geek tragedy]

7. Schemer's decision was not based on the actual agreement.

He has two rules on foreign policy:

1) vote for war;
2) vote however AIPAC and Israel's government want him to vote.

Once he understood that tanking the agreement meant war, and once AIPAC and Israel leaned on him to vote against the agreement, that was enough to guarantee his vote against it.

[RockaFowler]

18. I love your nickname for him

I thought it was a misprint at first!!

[geek tragedy]

19. it's not original, but certainly fitting nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. More...

But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Schumer can't be allowed to slide through on this

This is not simply a garden variety case of some Democratic Senator taking a position that disappoints grass roots activists. He has just, a a bare bones minimum, disqualified himself from any Democratic Senate leadership position. If other members of the Senate Democratic caucus fail to recognize how completely Schumer has now poisoned relations with a broad and critical part of the Democratic base, and elect him as their leader anyway, they will be making a miscalculation of historic proportions. Chuck Schumer is now on a fast track to being treated as the next Joe Lieberman by activists. If he becomes the public face of Senate Democrats the damage to the Democratic Party will be massive.

[geek tragedy]

11. Not to mention he thinks passing the ACA was a mistake.

This is not someone who can be trusted to lead the party and advance its agenda, and to protect vital accomplishments of the party.

[Hubert Flottz]

12. I couldn't agree more.

Schumer is a total Dino when it comes to, America First.

[jeff47]

22. There is no way to stop Iran's nuclear program militarily

short of invasion and occupation.

Iran has it's own physicists. They do not need foreign scientists like Syria did.

Iran already has enough raw Uranium and enrichment hardware to make bombs. It does not need to import any more. So blocking trade does nothing.

And Iran built its facilities under a mountain. You can't destroy it with bombs. At least, not with conventional bombs.

There's only three ways to stop Iran's nuclear program:
1) A treaty
2) Invasion and occupation
3) Multiple nuclear strikes.

#3 Is not going to happen. At least, not by the US.

That leaves #1 or #2 to stop Iran's nuclear program. Schumer doesn't want #1. Wonder what he wants....

[geek tragedy]

28. There is not one member of Congress who opposed Bush's war who is also

opposing this agreement.

Lowey, Engel, Israel, Schemer--all voted for the Iraq war.

this is not a coincidence. It's the same teams from 2002.

[Martin Eden]

44. #2 isn't going to happen either

We might bomb them, but invading & occupying Iran would be orders of magnitude more difficult & costly than the fiasco in Iraq. Iran is a much larger country with a more cohesive national identity, whereas Iraq was ready-made to splinter into the three major factions (Shia, Sunni, Kurd).

A much larger force would be necessary for an effective long term suppression of the Iranian people. Even if a Repuke wins the presidency, I sincerely doubt there is public support for that.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. Iran is roughly 4 times the size of Iraq.

[spanone]

36. k&R...

[Scuba]

46. Not all Democrats are created equally.