Friday, August 07, 2015

Chuck Schumer-- Patently Unfit To Be Democratic Senate Leader-- Joins GOP In A Deranged March To War Against Iran


Although most Democrats in the House voted against Bush's catastrophic attack against Iraq-- 126 plus Independent Bernie Sanders voted NO, while 82 (39%) voted YES-- the Senate was much more war-minded. 58% of the Democratic senators (29 out of 50) voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution along with all the Republicans but one (Lincoln Chafee). Only 6 of the Senate Democrats who voted for Bush's war are still in the Senate: Dianne Feinstein (CA), Tom Carper (DE), Bill Nelson (FL), Harry Reid (NV), Maria Cantwell (WA) and, of course, top AIPAC whore Chuck Schumer (NY). Other pro-war senators have moved on to bigger jobs: John Kerry (MA), Joe Biden (DE) and Hillary Clinton (NY). History has proven the senators who voted yes wrong, disastrously wrong. Yet few have paid any political price at all.

The fact that they paid no political price encourages them to vote now for war with Iran. And last night-- under cover of the spectacle of the Republican presidential debate circus on Fox-- Chuck Schumer, the presumed next leader of the Senate Democrats, announced that he will oppose President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. He declared, "I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them [his Senate colleagues] that the vote to disapprove is the right one." Obama needs 34 votes in the Senate to prevent his veto from being overridden.
A veto override would be an enormous blow to the president’s prestige. It would torpedo an agreement between Iran and six powers-- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States-- but it would not necessarily lead to the reimposition of crippling economic sanctions on Iran, supporters of the deal warn. With the other world powers supporting the agreement, the international sanctions regime would be likely to crumble, leaving the United States with far less effective tools to cripple Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

With so much on the line, Senate Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee like Mr. Kaine had hoped to not only rally the 34 senators needed to sustain a presidential veto, but also to possibly keep enough Democrats behind the president to filibuster a resolution of disapproval next month. To do that, they most likely could lose only five Democrats. Mr. Schumer’s break with Mr. Obama will make that far more difficult.

Like many Jewish Democrats, Mr. Schumer approached the agreement under pressure from his constituents, the administration, and his own personal history and faith.

And his close relationship to AIPAC, the Israel lobby. They have given Schumer over a quarter million dollars and bolstered his slimy political career. Schumer is the first Democratic senator to go over to the Republicans on this. 16 have announced they would back the deal: Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin Heinrich, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Patrick Leahy, Chris Murphy, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed, Bernie Sanders, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Elizabeth Warren. And 29 remain "undecided." The list of senators backing Obama includes several Jews, among them two-- Bill Nelson and Dianne Feinstein-- who realize what a grievous error they made in 2002 when they backed Bush's attack on Iraq and are going to do the right thing this time.

Neo-fascist Texas Senator Ted Cruz couldn't be happier. "I think it is fantastic news that Sen. Schumer has come out against the Iranian deal and has done so publicly and early. For several weeks now, I have been saying that I hope we see the re-emergence of Joe Lieberman Democrats, the re-emergence of Scoop Jackson Democrats..." MoveOn and other progressive organizations pushed back quickly against Schumer. This is the powerful statement MoveOn issued last night:
Diplomacy has yielded an agreement between the world’s major powers and Iran that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The only other means of limiting Iran’s nuclear program is war.

While not unexpected, it is outrageous and unacceptable that the Democrat who wants to be the party’s leader in the Senate is siding with the Republican partisans and neoconservative ideologues who are trying to scrap this agreement and put us on the path to war.

Risking American lives in wars of choice isn’t leadership, it’s small and backward.

Our country doesn’t need another Joe Lieberman in the Senate, and it certainly doesn’t need him as Democratic leader. The vast majority of Democratic voters-- the people who elected President Obama in part because of our shared belief that war must always be a last resort-- will not stand for it. Frankly, we thought Senator Schumer and other Democrats in Washington had learned their lesson after being misled into supporting a misguided war of choice in Iraq.

No real Democratic leader does this. If this is what counts as “leadership” among Democrats in the Senate, Senate Democrats should be prepared to find a new leader or few followers. This is not what the volunteers, activists, small-dollar donors, and voters who actually win elections spend their time and money to support.

In response to Senator Schumer’s decision to side with partisan war hawks,’s 8 million members are immediately launching a Democratic Party donor strike. We will organize grassroots progressives across the country to withhold campaign contributions from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and from any Democratic candidate who succeeds in undermining the president’s diplomacy with Iran. Our goal will be to secure commitments to withhold $10 million in contributions within 72 hours after this campaign launches.
CREDO, dubbing him "Wall Street Chuck" and "Warmonger Chuck," told its members:
Chuck Schumer was wrong on Iraq and he is wrong on Iran. Schumer's decision to join Republicans in attempting to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal once again shows that he is unfit to lead senate Democrats.
And Stephen Miles of Win Without War said:
It's deeply disappointing but not surprising that Senator Schumer has come out in opposition to the Iran Deal. Let's remember, he also supported the Iraq War back in 2002. History has shown he was wrong then and history will show he is wrong now. The question going forward is how someone so out of sync with the vast majority of his party is going to be its future leader.
In a statement of support for the Iran agreement this morning, Senator Tammy Baldwin made a lot more sense than Schumer:
I’m proud that America led six countries toward an historic international agreement with Iran. I believe we are right to choose a path of international diplomacy to achieve our goal of verifiably preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. I have carefully reviewed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), attended numerous classified briefings, heard from experts and constituents, and examined detailed arguments for and against the agreement. I have also been guided by the hard lessons that should be learned when America chooses to engage in military action and war in the Middle East. Simply put, I do not believe that rejecting this agreement is in our national security interest. For that reason the choice is clear, I will support this international agreement because it will best serve America’s national security interests and it is built on verification with a robust inspections and compliance regime that will cut off all of Iran’s potential pathways to a nuclear weapon.
Yesterday, Reuven Rivlin, the President of Israel and a right-winger himself, joined a growing number of Israeli military and intelligence higher-ups who think Netanyahu is making a serious blunder by throwing in his lot with the Republicans against the deal. He said Netanyahu has been overzealous in opposing the Iran nuclear deal, opening a "battlefront" with Washington and isolating his country. He told the newspaper Maariv:
I am very worried about the battlefront that has opened up between Obama and Netanyahu and the [state of] relations between the United States and Israel. The prime minister has waged a campaign against the United States as if the two sides were equal and this is liable to hurt Israel. I must say that he understands the United States better than I do, but, nonetheless, we are largely isolated in the world.
Rivlin told Haaretz: "I have told him and I'm telling him again, that struggles, even those that are just, can ultimately come at Israel's expense."

Schumer, as we've been saying for months, is not fit to be the leader of the Senate Democrats, and not just because he's a warmonger and a shill for AIPAC. The same way he puts Israel's extreme right Likud party ahead of America's interests, he also puts Wall Street's interests ahead of America's, something we've been demonstrating in terms of his jihad against Alan Grayson and his support for "ex"-Republican Patrick Murphy in the Florida Senate race. Today Bernie Sanders, in an interview taped for Face the Nation Sunday, told host John Dickerson that the U.S. should take every necessary step to "make sure that we achieve that goal of Iran not having a nuclear weapon without going to war... I'm not going to tell you that this is a perfect agreement. And every agreement can be better. This is what I saw recently in the Republican debate. It's so easy to be critical of an agreement which is not perfect. But the United States has to negotiate with, you know, other countries. We have to negotiate with Iran.And the alternative of not reaching an agreement, you know what it is? It's war. Do we really want another war, a war with Iran? So I think we go as far as we possibly can in trying to give peace a chance, if you like. Trying to see if this agreement will work. And I will support it."

Many Democrats-- if not Senate Democrats-- are still angry that Schumer called Obamacare a mistake. Meanwhile, please withhold any contributions you may be contemplating giving to the DSCC until the Senate Democrats rescind their decision to make Schumer leader after Reid retires. If you want to help the Democrats take back the Senate with progressives, you can do that here. And please, if you have a Democratic senator, let him or her know that you oppose Schumer becoming Senate leader.

Labels: , , , , , ,


At 3:08 PM, Blogger ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

“A vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel.”

- Chuck Schumer

At 4:36 PM, Blogger Nick C. said...

Nine years later I am still ticked off at the California Democratic party for giving Sen. Feinstein a pass in 2006. That is why I am "decline to state"

At 5:35 PM, Anonymous Bil said...

There were a lot of fuckedup things that happened during The Decider's 8 year reign of terror and economic collapse.
CONFIRMING John, "Mickey Mouse Voice", Bolton as UN Ambassador was not one of them.

I had always detested everything that this man had said in print. One day I saw him open his mouth and talk, he sounded like
he was on helium. I have NEVER laughed so hard, and I needed a good laugh during BushJunior's reign of terror.

WRONG WRONG WRONG Neocon. Schumer has been circling the drain for some time.

“A vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel.”

- Chuck Schumer

At 6:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Per Wikipedia, US Sen Bill Nelson of Florida is an Episcopalian, not Jewish.

At 6:29 PM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

I didn't mean to imply that either Nelson or Feinstein are Jewish-- only that they had voted for the Iraq War and are now backing the Iran deal. (Feigned is married to a Jew.)

At 11:27 PM, Blogger TeddyPartridge said...

I'm interested to know your thoughts about the current theory du jour -- that #WarMongerChuck announced his opposition to the deal only after he had determined that enough Democrats would support the President's IranDeal that the bill opposing it would fail in the Senate. I've read this several places today, and while I gave up on "eleventy-dimensional" chess a LONG time ago, I wonder what you think of this Schumer Master Plan? Others have implied that perhaps Chuck even knows that the veto override bill would not pass the House, and then never even come to the Senate for a vote.....

Your thinking on these?

At 12:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The continuous reminder from the administration, and now even from Sanders, that war is the only alternative to "the Iran nuclear deal" is a vicious piece of disinformation. It's undiluted treachery straight from the playbook of Cheney-Bolton and, in the immortal words of President "Expert-on-Terrorism since 9-12-'01":
it "emboldens" every warmonger in the country. More slick persuasion from Obumma, premier graduate of the Neville Chamberlain Night School of Negotiation.

It tells the world more about the US than it does about Iran. It verifies that the sanctions imposed in 2009 were less deterrent to Iran but rather preparation for eventual frank war. It suggests that the US has concluded a sham negotiation, along with five other world powers, to produce a deal in which it does not believe with a country it publicly does not trust.

Will a congressional vote against the Iran nuclear deal be followed immediately by a congressional declaration of war? Can't wait to hear the justification for that: we must attack Iran because it 1) is a signatory in good standing to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and 2) has done absolutely nothing to us since WE imposed economic sanctions on Iran, an act of war on our part.

I'm looking forward to the official congressional disapproval ... followed by a vote to put sanctions on the other signatories of the deal: China, Britain, Germany, France and Russia.

John Puma

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
(J. Krishnamurti)


Post a Comment

<< Home