In what may be the first bit of genuinely good news about our so-called “deal” with Iran, top-ranking (and Jewish) Senate leader Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) came out Thursday evening in strong opposition to the deal. Schumer’s office confirmed he also will vote to override President Obama’s veto of legislation to kill the deal. This move, which potentially opens the door for more Democrats to follow suit and therefore may be a “game-changer” for the deal, is encouraging news for America indeed.
Not surprisingly, the White House and its liberal minions don’t see it that way. But what may surprise you is just how vehement a wrath is being wrought on Schumer in the wake of his defection from the deal.
Indeed, it appears that World War III may have already begun in Washington, D.C.
The White House lit into Sen. Chuck Schumer on Friday for his decision to vote no on the Iran deal and suggested that he’s put his clear path to be the next Democratic leader in doubt.
And a person familiar with Schumer’s decision said the senator’s allies blame the White House for leaking news from a private call Schumer made to President Barack Obama on Thursday afternoon and breaking a direct request the senator made to the president to give him until Friday to put word out about his decision. The person also noted, with more than a little acidity, that Obama was the only person Schumer told of his decision before the news started to leak out.In other words, the White House scooped Schumer and leaked the news when fewer of us might be paying attention — as many of us were glued to the first GOP presidential debate Thursday night.
And now, the White House is making not-so-thinly-veiled threats about Schumer’s future leadership potential.“I wouldn’t be surprised” if Senate Democrats consider Schumer’s decision in picking their next leader, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday, eagerly lumping in the New York Democrat in with the Republicans that Obama has said are against the Iran deal for the same reason they were for the Iraq War.
“There’s no denying that this difference of opinion that emerged overnight is one that has existed between Senator Schumer and President Obama for over a decade,” Earnest said.
Asked if Schumer’s leadership of the Democratic conference is now in doubt, Earnest made a very noticeable duck: “This is a question for Democratic senators,” he said.
Obama and aides had never much expected Schumer to be a yes. But the way Schumer said no is what’s enraged them: not the timing of a statement put out at 10 p.m. on the night of the first GOP debate, but the timing of such a high-profile rejection with four weeks and lots of undecided members to go.
Liberal backlash against Schumer extends well beyond the White House walls, as The Hill reports:
Liberals are livid at Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) decision to oppose the White House’s nuclear deal with Iran, and have threatened to launch a full-scale war as retribution.
Activists and former top officials within the Obama administration are openly contemplating whether Schumer’s stance disqualifies him from serving as the next Senate Democratic leader — which he is primed to do — and seeking to temporarily cut off money to Democrats in the upper chamber.
But it’s clear that he will be Public Enemy No. 1 for liberal activists throughout the August recess, as they aim to rally support from Democrats on the agreement.
“This is a real and serious backlash, one that comes from deep within the Democratic Party’s base, and I think we’re only going to see it grow,” said Becky Bond, the political director for Credo Action.
The message is clear: how DARE someone break ranks with Obama and the Democrats based simply on what they feel is best for the country? In other words, for the Democrats, it must always be The Party above all. What’s right for the country falls somewhere after that, most likely behind key special interest groups that keep The Party in place.
That’s all the more reason to applaud Schumer (of whom, I must admit, I’m not usually a huge fan) for his thoughtful and courageous stance on behalf of our nation. He had to know he was putting his own political future on the line in doing so — both in making the statement itself and timing it to allow ample time to sway additional Democrats to his view.
In a simple, humble, yet elegant essay, Schumer completely negates President Barack Obama’s most powerful argument–namely, that there is no real alternative except war.
Not so, says Schumer. There is, in fact, a third option on Iran: “Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.”
Schumer is very respectful, urging “all fair-minded Americans” to “acknowledge the President’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran.” Nevertheless, he destroys Obama’s arguments.
During the first ten years, inspections are not “anywhere, anytime.” The 24-day delay for inspections is a problem, despite assurances that we can still detect radioactive elements at that point, because there are “tools that go into building a bomb but don’t emit radioactivity.” And “snap-back” sanctions, he says, “seem cumbersome and difficult to use.”
After 10-15 years, Schumer notes, there is no guarantee that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons. “If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience,” he says. Then there are the “non-nuclear elements of the agreement,” he explains, which worry him most–especially Iran’s support for terror groups and its ballistic missile program.
There is also no reason to believe the regime will become moderate over time: “Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?”
To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.
Better, he says, to reject the Iran deal and push for new talks.
We can only hope that what appears to be our own D.C.-based World War III ultimately stops this ridiculous “deal” from going through and opening the door for a nuclear World War III.