DNC Writes Slobbering Letter To Obama, Supporting His Iran Deal

They had to write a letter of support because Debbie Wasserman-Schultz blocked a formal resolution

(Washington Post) Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz prevented consideration of a resolution at the party’s summer meeting here that praised President Obama and offered backing for the nuclear agreement with Iran, according to knowledgeable Democrats.

The resolution was drafted with the intention of putting the national committee on record in support of the agreement as Congress prepares to take up the issue when members return from their August recess.

As a fallback, James Zogby, the co-chair of the Resolutions Committee, led a move to prepare a letter of support for the president and the Iran agreement that eventually gained signatures from a sizable majority of the members of the national committee. Zogby said Saturday that, in the end, this produced a satisfactory outcome.

Blocking the resolution has made Democrats Very Mad at DWS, who did not say why she blocked it. There’s some thought that this was due to DWS representing a heavily Jewish district. Hey, maybe DWS did something smart, and realized that it is a Bad Idea for Dems to formally approve of the deal, which has almost no Republican support, and would leave Dems on the hook for the sure to follow bad outcomes.

Here’s the letter, via the Huffington Post, signed by over 160 Democratic delegates and members of the DNC

A Special Letter to the President from members of the Democratic National Committee.

We strongly support the courageous leadership you have demonstrated in choosing diplomacy and negotiations over conflict. We believe that the completion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated between P5+1 (the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany) and Iran to place strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program is an important victory for diplomacy. We recognize that there are some who in good faith have expressed reservations with elements of the JCPOA but we believe that you and key members of your Administration have effectively and respectfully responded to these concerns. We, therefore, join you in supporting the JCPOA as the best way forward to secure our nation, our allies, and world peace.


A Pack Of Naive Boobs

Now, this is where my interest was peaked, in that the letter notes that the deal “places strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program”. Limits. Not stops it. Not demolishes it. Not “removes all possibility that Iran will get nuclear weapons through its own programs”. Just “strict limits”. And it doesn’t even acknowledge that those strict limits will only last 8-10 years, with them going away in 15.

Nor does it acknowledge all the money Iran will gain to fund its weapons and terrorism programs. Nor all the loopholes. Nor that the “snap inspections” are anything but. That Iran is going to inspect its own military nuclear facility. That US inspectors may be blocked by Iran. That the deal will make the Middle East even more un-safe. That Iran will continue to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. And that Iran has already stated that it will ignore certain parts of the deal. That sanctions will never, ever snap-back in reality. And so many other issues.

Democrats will own this failure.

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

11 Responses to “DNC Writes Slobbering Letter To Obama, Supporting His Iran Deal”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Yes Dems will own this just as they own Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Dodd-Frank (weak as it is) and the ACA.

    When will the Repugs take responsibility for Iraq and making the entire world less safe? The same neocon Repug miscreants that lied us into invading Iraq now want to invade Iran.

    Cons rarely look more than one move ahead, basing their decisions on their dominant emotions of fear for their lives and fear of loss of supremacy. Who would have predicted that destroying Iraq with no plan would lead to increased Iranian influence and plant the seeds of ISIL? Thanks Dick and W!

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    “If we know the location of these camps, and the president wants to destroy ISIS, why are the camps still functioning?” one official critical of the policy asked.


    Thanks Obama!

  3. Jeffery says:

    A poorly sourced article by a right-wing writer at a far-right site. Thanks dp. At least you did the right thing and supplied the reference where some officials spoke on the record:

    Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger M. Cabiness declined to say why no training camps have been bombed. “I am not going to be able to go into detail about our targeting process,” he said.

    Cabiness said the U.S.-led coalition has “hit ISIL with more than 6,000 airstrikes.”

    “The coalition has also taken out thousands of fighting positions, tanks, vehicles, bomb factories, and training camps,” he said. “We have also stuck their leadership, including most recently on Aug. 18 when a U.S. military airstrike removed Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali, also known as Hajji Mutazz, the second in command of the terrorist group, from the battlefield.”

    Efforts also are being taken to disrupt IS finances and “make it more difficult for the group to attract new foreign fighters,” Cabiness said in an email.

    A Central Command spokesman also declined to provide details of what he said were “operational engagements” against IS training camps.

    “Once a target is identified as performing a hostile act, or is part of an obvious hostile force, a training camp for example, we prosecute that target in accordance with the coalition rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict,” the spokesman said.

    According to the defense and intelligence officials, one reason the training camps have been off limits is that political leaders in the White House and Pentagon fear hitting them will cause collateral damage. Some of the camps are located near civilian facilities and there are concerns that casualties will inspire more jihadists to join the group.

    So, you’re suggesting that they change the rules of engagement. Fair enough. Other anonymous sources claimed bombing some of the camps will lead to too much collateral damage.

    How many brave young American soldiers have the ISIS terrorists maimed or killed? Not many, right?

    Do you know one of the groups on the ground fighting the ISIS monsters? Iranians.

  4. Jeffery says:

    A Pack Of Naive Boobs

    Nice touch, from the leader of a parallel pack of ignorant, angry boobs.

    So, when we insist that 1) Iran dismantle all their nuclear facilities 2) allow absolute immediate, 24/7 access to all their military facilities and 3) halt any and all support for groups we Americans dislike …

    what is our response when they tell us to suck eggs?

    Do we soften our demands?

    Do we offer them more inducements?

    Do we bomb and destroy their facilities?

  5. There are many things we could have done. Obama decided to give away the Sudentland.

  6. jl says:

    “That lied to us into invading Iraq..” Poor J, still desperately using the “lied” meme. Are you following after John now? Bad move. We’ve been over this before, and it was Iraq’s actions, not some ancient Dem talking point that got them into their predicament. ” Destroying Iraq would plant the seeds of ISIL..” You have absolutely no proof of that, but nice try, again.

  7. Jeffery says:

    There are many things we could have done. Obama decided to give away the Sudentland (sic).

    So the Iran-nuclear agreement is the equivalent of ceding the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany? lol

    Do you really think modern Iran is similar to Nazi Germany of 1938?

    Please name a few things that should have been done.

  8. gitarcarver says:


    You’ll dismiss these because of the authorship and the site on which it appears but the alternatives are all better than what was handed over to Iraq:

    Iran is—clearly—likely to cheat on its new commitments, just as it cheated on the old ones. A credible alternative to the bad deal that was agreed does exist. As Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, the United States has powerful sanctions tools at its disposal with or without an agreement.[1] The United Nations sanctions would also remain in place. An alternative to the Vienna Agreement would be to:

    Block the agreement. Congress should reset the board and allow the next Administration the opportunity to succeed where this Administration failed. A future President would be better positioned to deter and prevent an Iranian nuclear breakout if he or she is freed from the straitjacket of the Obama Administration’s proposed agreement.
    Impose unilateral economic sanctions. By refusing to lift its economic sanctions, the U.S. could prevent Tehran from financing its military buildup, terrorist network, or nuclear program with hundreds of billions of dollars of sanctions relief. Even if some countries might not enforce sanctions with the same determination after a U.S. pullout from the agreement, Iran would still be hobbled by U.S. financial sanctions, which would block it from transferring assets from third countries. On balance, the continuation of sanctions would be an important factor in constraining Iran’s ability to advance its nuclear program or threaten the U.S. and its allies.
    Restore U.S. Credibility in the Middle East. After the snub by many of the United States’ Gulf allies during the recent Camp David summit, and given the frosty relationship between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it is clear that the U.S. must rebuild its key relationships in the Middle East. The end result would be less pressure for a cascade of nuclear proliferation, particularly if the next U.S. Administration signals its willingness to expand security cooperation, enhance missile defenses, and work closely with Middle East partners.
    Keep All Options on the Table. The U.S. should ensure that Iran is permanently deterred from building a nuclear weapon by the enduring threat of U.S. military force. This deterrent would be greater if Congress followed up on its rejection of the Vienna Agreement with a resolution expressing support for preventive military action should Tehran continue on its path to nuclear weapons.

    The benefits from an alternative deal are clear:

    It makes the likelihood of war or a conventional and regional nuclear arms race less likely than embracing the Vienna Agreement.
    Rather than being demoralized by what they perceive to be a disastrous nuclear deal, America’s friends in the region would be re-energized to contain Iran.
    Rather than fearing an Iranian–American détente at their expense, America’s regional allies would restore their trust in security ties with the U.S. Moreover, they would be less likely to plot their own nuclear breakouts if reassured of the reliability of U.S. security cooperation.
    Tough economic sanctions, many of which forced Tehran to the negotiating table in the first place, would bring them back to the table to accept much tighter restrictions on its nuclear plans.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Although the Heritage Foundation is as far-right as The Forward is left, I wouldn’t dismiss their suggestions.

    Here is their list of specific actions:

    â—¾Block the agreement… A future President would be better positioned to deter and prevent an Iranian nuclear breakout if he or she is freed from the straitjacket of the Obama Administration’s proposed agreement. (That is, do nothing and kick the can down the road. Calling the agreement a “straitjacket” hints at the author’s bias.)

    â—¾Impose unilateral economic sanctions. (US sanctions alone will accomplish what global sanctions could not?)

    â—¾Restore U.S. Credibility in the Middle East. (We burned that bridge in Iraq, didn’t we? What the authors really mean is that we should do whatever the Israeli right desires.)

    â—¾Keep All Options on the Table. (All options are always on the table, including a military response.)

  10. gitarcarver says:

    (That is, do nothing and kick the can down the road. Calling the agreement a “straitjacket” hints at the author’s bias.)

    There ya go…. dismiss the argument on the basis of “bias.”

    It doesn’t “kick the can down the road.” What it says is that “this agreement is unacceptable and we aren’t going to agree to it. Now, get your butts back to the negotiating table.”

    (US sanctions alone will accomplish what global sanctions could not?)

    How many trillions of dollars did the sanctions cost Iran? Money that is released with the deal in place? And why would the sanctions end if this agreement were not in place? Do you think Iraq came to the negotiating table because the sanctions weren’t working?

    We burned that bridge in Iraq, didn’t we? What the authors really mean is that we should do whatever the Israeli right desires.

    Oh goody. You are back on your long discredited points dealing with Iraq. Do you think that a country that has vowed to wipe the US and Israel off the face of the getting a nuclear bomb helps or hinders the stability of the Middle East?

    (All options are always on the table, including a military response.)

    Right. Because this administration has done so well sticking to drawn lines in the sand.

    BTW – Iran doesn’t even believe that the administration will keep “all options on the table, including a military response.”

    Kerry said in a Washington Post op-ed jointly written with Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz published Thursday that the nuclear deal “extends the time Iran would need to develop a nuclear weapon, provides strong verification measures that give us ample time to respond if Iran chooses that path, and takes none of our options off the table.”

    “The table they are talking about has broken legs,” Rouhani retorted Sunday.

    The fact of the matter is that you have tried this lame “well, what other options are there?” tactic whenever someone criticizes the foreign policy (or lack of a foreign policy) from the Obama camp. Now that you have other options (and there are even more) you try to discredit them without making a cognitive argument. You just come back with “bias” and other unsubstantiated accusations.

  11. Jeffery says:

    It’s certainly not my place to make arguments to support the weak ones supplied by the Heritage Foundation.

    You mentioned there being other options. Are they potentially more effective than these 4?

    They said:

    Stop this agreement,
    reinstate US sanctions,
    be kinder to Netenyahu, and
    tell Iran we’ll attack them if they don’t stop.

Pirate's Cove