Joe Lieberman Blasts Iran Deal, Says Schumer Is Key To Stopping It

Since the Iran deal was announced, leaders in Iran, including Ayatollah Khamenei, have been tweeting and yammering about death to America, death to Israel on a constant basis. Khamenei just sent a tweet featuring Obama with a gun to his head. There have been threats, along with rejoicing that Iran won. And Iran has stated that this deal won’t change Iran’s stance towards the U.S. in the least. Joe Leiberman doesn’t’ think too much about the deal, and wants it stopped

(The Hill) Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is pressuring a top Senate Democrat to buck the Obama administration on its Iran nuclear deal to ensure a safer future for Israel.

Lieberman, the Senate’s first Orthodox Jew, blasted the agreement with Iran on “The Cats Roundtable” with host John Catsimatidis on New York’s AM 970.

He said the deal could be effectively blocked with the help of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“I think it opens the way for a lot of other Democrats to oppose it as well,” Lieberman said of his longtime colleague, who is also Jewish. “Chuck is the key.”

Schumer, who is likely to become the Senate’s next top Democrat, faces a major dilemma over the nuclear deal. He is both a key ally to both Israel and the White House, facing pressure from both sides on the deal.

Mr. Leiberman wrote an op-ed in the Hartford Courant on July 19th, saying how bad this deal is and that they should start again. And that was prior to knowledge of two side deals coming to light. Surely, there are other side deals. And what Senator Schumer, and other elected Democrats, must consider is that Obama and Kerry are gone come January 20, 2017, yet this deal will still be there, with all the consequences, and so will Schumer and other elected Democrats. If they choose to allow this really, really, really bad deal to stand, the consequences are on them.

In the Washington Post, Carl Bernstein has written about two biographies of Richard Nixon and his “tormented path”. Bernstein isn’t impressed with the books, and writes

Newly released Nixon tapes, recently declassified oral histories of his aides (especially those of the mysterious Thomas Charles Huston) and previously withheld portions of H.R. Haldeman’s diaries illuminate as never before that Vietnam and Watergate are inextricably linked in the Nixon presidency. They are an intertwined tale — one story — of sordid abuse of presidential power, vengeance, cynicism and lawlessness. Nixon conducted the Vietnam War and presided over the crimes of Watergate with the same ruthless mind-set, scorched-earth sensibility and disdain for established governmental institutions and their proper functioning. Not to mention paranoia, chaos and recklessness.

Remember what the Articles of Impeachment for Nixon covered. Obstruction of justice, 9 difference charges. Abuse of power, 5 points, including the notation that he failed to follow the Oath of Office for the POTUS. Contempt of Congress, for failing to respond to subpoenas. Why is this relevant? Put into perspective Nixon’s actions. Consider the freakout over 18 minutes of missing recording tape. Then consider what Andrew McCarthy writes

Congress Must Hold Obama Accountable for His Deception Over Iran
By lying and withholding information about the agreement, he gives aid and comfort to America’s enemy.

McCarthy lays out his case, and, if we compare this to Nixon’s actions, we can easily see that what Obama has done, with just the Iran deal, Obama’s actions are considerably worse than Nixon’s. Did Nixon give aid and comfort to America’s enemies? No. Team Obama knows of the side deals, ones which will not be submitted to Congress, in violation of law. 18 minutes of tape? Pfft. Grade school shenanigans in comparison.

Now consider this: Under cover of this IAEA ruse, Obama ran to the Security Council and rammed through a resolution commencing implementation of his Iran deal before Congress or the American people could consider it. He thus undermined American sovereignty and the Constitution by scheming to impose an international-law fait accompli. And he thus undermined American national security by transferring his inspection commitments to an international agency that he knows is not close to being capable of executing them — an agency that will be further hampered by notice restrictions that, as Charles Krauthammer concludes, render the inspections “farcical” in any event.

The Constitution forbids providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies. And the Framers’ notion that a president would be punishable for deceiving Congress regarding the conduct of foreign affairs meant that lawmakers would be obliged to use their constitutional powers to protect the United States — not merely shriek on cable television as if they were powerless spectators.

Well?

At the end of the day, Obama has made U.S. security weaker, and has simply kicked the can for a nuclear armed Iran down the road, while making sure that Iran is flush with cash to spend on their terrorism programs.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Joe Lieberman Blasts Iran Deal, Says Schumer Is Key To Stopping It”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Sounds like the loony Ayatollah hates the deal engineered by the moderates and is trying to get the US Congress to cancel it.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Wow! From Lieberman to Impeachment in less than 60 seconds!!

    According to the dickwad McCarthy at the dickwad NRO… No Impeachment for Bush lying to get us to invade Iraq, killing thousands of young Americans, wasting trillions of dollars, and further wrecking the Middle East, but Yes to Impeach Obama for engineering a deal with Iran because Iran MAY use THEIR released funds to buy/manufacture weapons that MAY be used against US troops WHEN the next Republican President lies to get us to invade Iran.

    Teach naively types:

    McCarthy lays out his case, and, if we compare this to Nixon’s actions, we can easily see that what Obama has done, with just the Iran deal, Obama’s actions are considerably worse than Nixon’s.

    That is stupid bullshit even for you, Teach. If you’re interested in reading a bit about why Nixon resigned read:

    http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/nixon.htm

    Can you please point out SPECIFICALLY where Obama’s actions rise to the level warranting impeachment? Impeachment is not for attacking your political enemies because you disagree with their politics but for crimes committed. If you read the McCarthy “piece” you’d know his first four points are ridiculously silly nonsense. Oh, he only has four points? Exactly. For example:

    By lifting sanctions:

    Obama is willfully providing material support to the mullahs’ terrorism (a felony violation of federal law) — the deal will inject over $100 billion into Iran’s economy…

    Even the cranks and loons in the Republican Congress would not impeach on those grounds. This is just right-wing churning by McCarthy. It’s an NRO ad for his book disguised as discussion.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    No Impeachment for Bush lying to get us to invade Iraq, killing thousands of young Americans, wasting trillions of dollars, and further wrecking the Middle East,…..

    Where and how did Bush lie Jeffery?

    You do realize that other governments agreed with the intelligence assessment of the US, right? You do realize that Congress (including those who saw the intelligence) voted to go to Iraq, right? You do realize that Saddam had proscribed weapons and weapons delivery systems, right? You do realize that the Coalition found chemical and biological weapons, right?

    So where is the lie, Jeffery?

    If you’re interested in reading a bit about why Nixon resigned read:

    And if you look at the charges against Nixon and compare them to the actions of Obama, there is a lot of similarity.

    We all know that you won’t see the charges and basis for the charges as being the same, but we are used to that.

  4. jl says:

    Yes, J, what are the lies? All the top Dems of the day saw the same intelligence reports and most came to the same conclusion. And remember, the WMD’s (which were found) were but one issue of many justifying military action. But of course you won’t remember, and you’ll try and push this long discredited lib talking point again.

  5. jl says:

    “killing thousands of young Americans.” A tragedy, for sure, but what do expect to happen in a war? “Injecting 100 billion into Iran’s economy not an impeachable offense….” Boy, I feel so much better, don’t you? But of course none of that will be used for terrorism, right?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Here’s a few and some of the related evidence showing they were lies.

    11/21/01 Bush collars Rumsfeld physically and asks: “What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.”

    12/9/01 Cheney on Meet the Press: “Well, the evidence is pretty conclusive that the Iraqis have indeed harbored terrorists.” Also claims 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi spy in Prague, a claim he’ll repeat long after CIA and Czechs disavow.

    March 2002 “Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out.”—Bush to Rice and three senators.

    March 2002 As The New Yorker later reports: “Chalabi’s defector reports were now flowing from the Pentagon directly to the Vice President’s office, and then on to the President, with little prior evaluation by intelligence professionals.”

    3/5/02 Joe Wilson tells CIA there’s no indication that Iraq is buying yellowcake.

    3/8/02 First of Downing Street memos prepared by Tony Blair’s top national security aides. “There is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD…Washington believes the legal basis for an attack on Iraq already exists…Regime change has no basis in international law.”

    3/15/02 British intel reports that there’s only “sporadic and patchy” evidence of Iraqi WMD. “There is no intelligence on any [biological weapons] production facilities.”

    3/22/02 Downing Street memo: “US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq…Regime change does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.”

    3/24/02 Saddam “is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”—Cheney on CNN

    3/25/02 Downing Street memo: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with Al Qaida…In the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran or North Korea as to justify action.”

    Late March 2002 Cheney tells Republican senators that the question is no longer if the US will invade Iraq but when.

    3/28/02 Pakistani forces capture Al Qaeda “operations chief ” Abu Zubaydah and CIA ferrets him away to underground interrogation facility in Thailand. Bush told he’s mentally unstable and really only Al Qaeda’s travel agent.

    4/4/02 Blair visits Bush in Crawford to discuss Iraq. Bush tells Britain’s ITV: “I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go.”

    4/9/02 Bush calls Zubaydah one of “top operating officials of Al Qaeda, plotting…murder.” Later asks Tenet, “I said he was important; you’re not going to let me lose face on this are you?…Do some of those harsh methods really work?” Zubaydah is then tortured and speaks of all variety of plots.

    July 2002 Gen. Franks secretly requests $700 million for war preparations. Bush approves, unbeknownst to Congress. Money taken from appropriation for the war in Afghanistan.

    7/11/02 “Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance, the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.”—Richard Perle

    7/23/02 Downing Street memo written by foreign secretary after his visit with CIA’s Tenet and other US officials: “There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable…The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy…The most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.”

    Aug 2002 White House Iraq Group created to market war. Members include Rove, Libby, Rice, as well as spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin.

    8/1/02 Justice Department memo asserts that Bush’s wartime powers supersede international anti-torture laws and treaties, defines torture as only that which is “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

    8/7/02 Bush given Iraq war plan by Gen. Franks.

    8/20/02 “We may or may not attack. I have no idea yet.”—Bush. “There are Al Qaeda in Iraq…There are.”—Rumsfeld.

    8/26/02 “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends…and against us.” —Cheney

    Sep 2002 Tyler Drumheller, CIA’s European operations chief, calls German Embassy in Washington seeking access to Curveball. Germans warn he’s “crazy” and “probably a fabricator.”

    9/3/02 Bush asks skeptical congressional leadership to support action against Iraq.

    9/5/02 Upon hearing from Tenet that no National Intelligence Estimate had been produced to assess justification for war, Sen. Graham demands one.

    9/7/02 “From a marketing point of view you don’t introduce new products in August.”—White House Chief of Staff Andy Card on rollout of the war

    9/7/02 Bush claims a new UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no such report.

    9/8/02 Page 1 Times story by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon cites anonymous administration officials saying Saddam has repeatedly tried to acquire aluminum tubes “specially designed” to enrich uranium. “The first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”

    9/8/02 Tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs…we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”—Rice on CNN

    9/8/02 “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.”—Cheney on Meet the Press

    9/12/02 Bush repeats aluminum-tube claim before UN General Assembly.

    9/13/02 Cheney tells Rush Limbaugh: “What’s happening, of course, is we’re getting additional information that, in fact, Hussein is reconstituting his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs.” There is no such new intel.

    9/16/02 “The president hasn’t made a decision to do anything with respect to Iraq.”—Rumsfeld

    9/16/02 White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey estimates Iraq war could cost $200 billion.

    Mid-Sep 2002 American relatives of Iraqis sent as CIA moles return from Iraq. All 30 report Saddam has abandoned WMD programs. Intel buried in the CIA bureaucracy. President Bush never briefed.

    9/18/02 Bush calls Saddam’s offer to let inspectors back into Iraq “his latest ploy.”

    9/19/02 Rumsfeld tells Congress that Saddam “has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas.”

    9/19/02 Classified UK memo notes there’s “no definitive intelligence that [the aluminum tubes are] destined for a nuclear programme.”

    9/23/02 Institute for Science and International Security releases report calling the aluminum- tube intelligence ambiguous and warning that “U.S. nuclear experts who dissent from the Administration’s position are expected to remain silent. ‘The President has said what he has said, end of story,’ one knowledgeable expert said.”

    9/24/02 Britain releases dossier to public saying Iraq could launch biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes. Dossier later determined to be “sexed up.”

    9/25/02 “You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”—Bush

    9/25/02 Citing Libi intel, Rice says: “High-ranking detainees have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.”

    9/26/02 Classified DIA assessment of Iraq’s chemical weapons concludes there is “no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.”

    9/26/02 In a Rose Garden speech, Bush says: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons.”

    9/26/02 In a speech in Houston, Bush says of Saddam: “After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad.”

    9/27/02 Rumsfeld calls link between Iraq and Al Qaeda “accurate and not debatable.”

    9/28/02 Bush’s address to nation: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.”

    Oct 2002 National Intelligence Estimate produced. It warns that Iraq “is reconstituting its nuclear program” and “has now established large-scale, redundant and concealed BW agent production capabilities”—an assessment based largely on Curveball’s statements. But NIE also notes that the State Department has assigned “low confidence” to the notion of “whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qaeda.” Cites State Department experts who concluded that “the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.” Also says “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa” are “highly dubious.” Only six senators bother to read all 92 pages.

    10/6/02 NSC memo to White House warning of the Niger uranium claim: “The evidence is weak…the Africa story is overblown.”

    10/7/02 Bush delivers a speech in which he says, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” Also says Iraq is exploring ways of using drones to target the US, although Iraq’s drones have a reach of only 300 miles.

    10/7/02 CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, writing for Tenet, sends a letter to Congress declaring that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD unless attacked is “very low.”

    1/3/03 “The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American.”—Bush

    1/9/03 Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.’s IAEA, echoes DOE’s view that the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq are likely for artillery rockets, not centrifuges. A senior Bush official responds, “I think the Iraqis are spinning the IAEA.”

    1/9/03 After nearly two months, UN’s Hans Blix says his inspectors have not found any “smoking guns” in Iraq.

    1/24/03 IAEA tells Washington Post, “It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, but you’d have to believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each piece.”

    1/27/03 UN press release: “It would appear…Iraq had decided in principle to…bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection.” Weapons inspectors have examined 106 locations and found “no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons programme.”

    1/28/03 In State of the Union, Bush says “the 16 words”: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Bush adds Saddam has “tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production” and has “mobile biological weapons labs.”

    1/29/03 “Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country.”—Rumsfeld

    1/31/03 Notes of meeting between Bush and Blair make clear Bush intends to invade Iraq even if UN inspectors found no evidence of WMD. Bush told Blair he’d considered “flying U2 reconnaissance planes…over Iraq, painted in UN colours” to tempt Iraqi forces to fire on them, which would constitute a breach of UN resolutions.

    2/4/03 After reading draft of Powell’s speech, CIA agent emails his superior with concerns about “the validity of the information based on ‘CURVE BALL.'” Noting he’s the only US agent to have ever met Curveball (who was hung over at the time), the agent asks: “We sure didn’t give much credence to this report when it came out. Why now?” Deputy head of CIA’s Iraqi Task Force responds: “Let’s keep in mind the fact that this war’s going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn’t say…the Powers That Be probably aren’t terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he’s talking about.”

    2/4/03 CIA’s Drumheller makes personal appeal to Tenet to delete Curveball’s intel from UN speech.

    2/4/03 Powell asks Tenet to personally assure intel for speech is good. Tenet does.

    2/5/03 In UN speech, Powell says, “Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” Cites Libi’s claims and Curveball’s “eyewitness” accounts of mobile weapons labs. (German officer who supervised Curveball’s handler will later recall thinking, “Mein Gott!”) Powell also claims that Saddam’s son Qusay has ordered WMD removed from palace complexes; that key WMD files are being driven around Iraq by intelligence agents; that bioweapons warheads have been hidden in palm groves; that a water truck at an Iraqi military installation is a “decontamination vehicle” for chemical weapons; that Iraq has drones it can use for bioweapons attacks; and that WMD experts have been corralled into one of Saddam’s guest houses. All but the last of those claims had been flagged by the State Department’s own intelligence unit as “WEAK.”

    2/6/03 Reiterating Powell’s claim, Bush says an Iraqi drone loaded with bioweapons could strike US mainland. The US Air Force is on the record as saying that “the small size of Iraq’s new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance.”

    2/7/03 Rumsfeld ups war length estimate: “It could last…six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

    2/7/03 Three State Department bureau chiefs prepare a secret memo warning that “serious planning gaps for postconflict public security and humanitarian assistance…could result in serious human rights abuses, which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally.”

    2/8/03 UN’s Team Bravo, led by American bioweapons experts, searches Curveball’s former work site in Iraq and disproves many of his claims.

    2/8/03 In radio address to the nation, Bush warns that “firsthand witnesses [read: Curveball] have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories” for germ warfare.

    Why keep re-litigating this? Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld et al got off the hook. Obama let them walk.

  7. Jl says:

    Hope your fingers didn’t get tired typing all that. The justification for the Iraq war was based on: The non-compliance of the 1991 cease-fire agreement. That was true, that was not a lie. Iraq’s continuing to posses and develope WMDs. That was true, that was not a lie. (See NYT form Oct. 14, 2014). The brutal repression of the Iraq civilian population and 1993 assassination attempt on former president Bush. That was true, that was not a lie. Firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. That was true, that was not a lie. (Note that for any country at any time in history, the fact that your aircraft were being fired upon and an assassination attempt on a former leader would be more than enough justification for war). Paid bounties for suicide bombers. That was true, that was not a lie. The attempt to remove Saddam had a long history. The Iraqi Liberation act of 1998 reiterated that it should be the policy of the U.S. To remove Saddam and promote a democratic replacement. President Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days in Dec. of 1998 with cruise missiles for the stated goal of “striking military and security targets that contribute to Iraq’s ability to produce, store and maintain WMDs.” Was Clinton lying? President Clinton from Feb. 17, 1998: “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by the Iraq WMD program.” Was Clinton lying? The Iraq War Resolution was based on the violation of UN Resolution 1441 declaring the Iraq was in material breach of the cease-fire agreement under UN Res. 687 from 1991, which required that Iraq’s cooperation with UN weapons inspectors. That was true, that was not a lie. On the vote, 39% of House Dems voted for it and 58% of Senate Dems voted for it. Why do we have to keep educating liberals that the facts are different than their mantra “Bush lied”?

  8. Jeffery says:

    The simple facts are that the Bush administration decided early on to invade Iraq regardless of evidence, and manufactured flawed evidence and presented it the American people. There will be those like Cheney that will claim it was a righteous invasion, but we all know the truth. There are those who claim it was a simple mistake, but we all know the truth. At every turn that administration trumped up the charges to support their march to invasion. This was an invasion of choice.

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    <strongThe simple facts leftist lies are that the Bush administration decided early on to invade Iraq regardless of evidence, and manufactured flawed evidence and presented it the American people.

    Facts are a complete anathema to lefties.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10530 access attempts in the last 7 days.