Defying Obama on Iran deal, Schumer cites Hamas

US Politics
on 129 Comments

The politician everyone’s been waiting for, NY Senator Chuck Schumer made his announcement against the Iran deal tonight during the Republican debate and Jon Stewart’s farewell. Does he think he can get away with this without anyone noticing? Fat chance.

Schumer, who voted for the Iraq War in 2002, says in a long statement that he wants regime change in Iran. The same hardline leaders may well be around for another 35 years, and it’s Iran’s non-nuclear activities in the Middle East that give him the most pause. So it’s about the threat to Israel, through Hezbollah, and Hamas. He cites Gaza!

In addition, we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. This aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.” Under this agreement, Iran would receive at least $50 billion dollars in the near future and would undoubtedly use some of that money to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East, and, perhaps, beyond.

Schumer has often said that his name means he is the Shomer– Hebrew for guardian– of Israel, but also warned Jewish groups that he had to act in the best interest of the U.S. Still he faced pressure from Israel supporters. At a rally against the deal last month at which such Democrats as Robert Morgenthau urged him to oppose the deal, constituents called on Schumer to be a Shomer.

Schumer be a Shomer, they said at rally last month

Schumer be a Shomer, they said at rally last month

New York Times says Schumer, a “Jewish Democrat,” wrote the statement on a yellow legal pad. It certainly reads like that. Rambling.

Rep Eliot Engel of NY promptly followed suit. “Another influential Jewish lawmaker,” Reuters says:

Blows for Obama as key lawmakers come out against Iran deal

The National Iranian American Council deplored the decision. It says that Schumer is demanding that Iran give up conventional weapons, and his decision is a slap in the face of the Iranians who labored to moderate Iran and bring the deal about. Jamal Abdi:

For Iranian Americans, Schumer’s prediction that Iran will never change–and that the Iranian people will not be able to push the country in a more moderate direction–is also disappointing. The deal stands on its own merits as strong arms control agreement regardless of the dynamics inside of Iran. But it also holds the potential to open new opportunities for the Iranian people to build a brighter, more peaceful future. If Schumer does not think Iranians can change the direction of their country, he must have ignored the 2013 elections in which the Iranian people defied internal pressures and external naysayers to manage to elect a moderate president to power. This nuclear deal is in no small part the result of efforts by ordinary Iranians who are moderate, educated, hold positive views of Americans, and represent the best hope for a brighter future in Iran and the region. A rejection of the deal is a slap in the face to those in Iran who want change.

Jeffrey Sachs, of Earth Institute writes:

Schumer fails most important foreign policy test of career.

Dylan Williams of J Street says that Schumer’s leadership future is now at risk:

Seeing lots of Democratic heavy-hitters noting that, unlike the , there are alternatives to Chuck Schumer

Scott Roth agrees:

Now that @SenSchumer opposes the Iran deal, I look forward to watching as he is purged from the party.

Jonathan Landay:

Will Dems still back him as [Harry] Reid replacement as Democratic Senate leader in 2016? Hmmm. Gotta wonder.

Jim Manley, longtime Senate staffer, answers: Yes.

Scott Roth says Schumer sees an upside:

The truth is the deal is probably going 2 pass & assholes like @SenSchumer and @RepSteveIsrael will get 2 say they were the tough holdouts.

 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

129 Responses

  1. Citizen
    August 7, 2015, 3:50 am

    I think he will still replace Reid.[…] The USA will get more and more isolated from the world. Watch coverage of this, mostly for what won’t be said on tv news/infotainment shows. BTW Cruz said last night during the debate one of the first things he would do if POTUS would be to move US embassy to Jerusalem.

    • just
      August 7, 2015, 8:18 am

      Dick Durbin can take him down with a big push that’s already started.

      “WASHINGTON — If the president saves his Iran deal from the critics trying to kill it in the United States Senate, it will be in large credit to one lawmaker.

      Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) emerged this past week as the chief organizer, White House liaison and public cheerleader for the controversial agreement. He has organized briefings, taken his case to the airwaves and meticulously encouraged the fence-sitting senators. The administration considers him its most valuable ally in the upper chamber on the deal, while colleagues describe his work as tireless and deft.

      “Dick’s demeanor and reputation within the caucus puts him in a perfect position to lead the vote-counting effort,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), also a supporter of the deal. “He’s not twisting arms, but he’s listening to members and making sure they have the information necessary to make the right decision. Yes, he’s passionate about this issue, but he knows that this is a unique whip operation that requires a consistent but gentle touch.”

      Durbin took on this role partially out of necessity. He is the only member of the Senate Democratic leadership team who publicly backs the Iran deal, which exchanges sanction relief for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program. This honor places him at odds, for now, with his longtime collaborators and with his former roommate, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y). But it also has given him the somewhat fortuitous distinction of being a leading progressive foreign policy voice at the precise moment the leadership team preps for a transition, with the impending retirement of Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and a likely showdown between him and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) for the whip post.

      Diplomatically, Durbin downplayed any riffs. While he acknowledged that he has repeatedly encouraged both Reid and Schumer to support the Iran deal, he said he empathized with their ambivalence.

      “I respect Chuck and I know he is going through a soul-searching process here. He wants to do the right thing,” he said. “It is critically important politically as a Jewish-American politician, and it is critically important to him personally. And he is taking the time to do it right. But I believe his decision is not going to sway six, eight or 10 votes. People are just deciding this on an individual basis. I really believe they are.”…”

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dick-durbin-becomes-lead-whip-for-peace-on-iran_55c24cfae4b0d9b28f052940?kvcommref=mostpopular

      He’s being kind as usual… “soul- searching”! Heh.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 7, 2015, 8:48 am

        just, does the “him” in “showdown between him and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) for the whip post” mean durbin or schumer? or are they all competing for whip?

      • just
        August 7, 2015, 9:05 am

        Good question, Annie. Sam Stein wasn’t entirely clear on that.

        I read it as Durbin and Murray vying for the spot.

        “Dick Durbin vs. Patty Murray?
        The Washington senator isn’t ruling out a run for Democratic whip.”

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/dick-durbin-vs-patty-murray-116523.html#ixzz3i8MhJpCs

        I hope that Durbin will get the leadership spot, Murray will be the whip, and Schumer is up a creek without a paddle.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 7, 2015, 9:33 am

        of course. sorry, i was having a mental blurp/blackout. thanks.

      • Kathleen
        August 8, 2015, 10:53 am

        Schumer kicked the U.S. in the ass by saying he will vote to undermine this deal (and ultimately Israel). He kicked himself in the ass too. Voting again for war based on lies not negotiations based on facts.

        He said he would vote for U.S. interest. He lied.

  2. HarryLaw
    August 7, 2015, 4:18 am

    As I have argued in the past, this is more about conventional weapons and regime change than non existent nuclear weapons [and known to be non existent]. As for Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism, it depends how you define terrorism. Iran clearly supplies weapons and money to Hezbollah, and the military wing of Hezbollah is labelled a terrorist group [at least by the US State Dept and the EU], therefore, [as far as the US is concerned] it ‘is’ a state sponsor of terrorism and from a purely legal standpoint Schumer is correct. But this agreement is about Iran’s nuclear ambitions only, and how Iran’s legal pursuit of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes can be monitored, and to ensure that they cannot have a break out capacity in the foreseeable future, it has nothing to do with conventional weapons. I happen to believe Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, they exist as a resistance group, and are a substantial and integral part of the Lebanese people, they exist to protect them from frequent and murderous Israeli aggression. UN Resolutions give such people the right to resist, and to use arms to do so. Therefore it is unreasonable, and foolish for Schumer to tie the nuclear and conventional weapons files together, I can see why he has done so, and he is correct to assert that Israel’s enemies will be strengthened [that’s inevitable] the question is what can Schumer do about it, except to look foolish?

    • jaspeace2day
      August 7, 2015, 4:45 pm

      …just like Cuba & Mandela being on the so-called terrorist list until it served corporate interests to do otherwise. All Iran needs to do to be taken off the list is to dribble a little oil on the cheesecake of the Seven Sisters…heck, that’s probably what’s really driving the nuclear agreement.

  3. Bornajoo
    August 7, 2015, 5:08 am

    Good comment HarryLaw

    I think Scott Roth has it spot on:
    “The truth is the deal is probably going 2 pass & assholes like @SenSchumer and @RepSteveIsrael will get 2 say they were the tough holdouts.”

    I doubt this double agent would have come out against the deal if he really believed it would be defeated. But it’s obvious that his reputation to his tribe is much more important than his loyalty to his country.

    At least that’s been exposed a bit more

  4. JLewisDickerson
    August 7, 2015, 5:25 am

    RE: “The politician everyone’s been waiting for, NY Senator Chuck Schumer made his announcement against the Iran deal tonight” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: Was there really ever any doubt?*

    * FROM THE CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS (opensecrets.org):

    Pro-Israel: Money to Congress
    • All cycles
    • Top 20 Members
    • Pro-Israel

    Candidate /// Amount

    Obama, Barack (D) $2,224,126
    Lieberman, Joe (I-CT) $2,036,124
    Kirk, Mark (R-IL) $1,832,119
    Levin, Carl (D-MI) $1,609,085
    McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $1,548,271
    Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $1,405,855
    McCain, John (R-AZ) $1,252,932
    Specter, Arlen (D-PA) $1,231,995
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $1,204,816
    Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $1,164,061
    Wyden, Ron (D-OR) $1,028,407
    Durbin, Dick (D-IL) $999,362
    Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) $903,144
    Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $881,919
    Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $831,765
    ■ Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $814,399
    Lowey, Nita M (D-NY) $778,484
    Cardin, Ben (D-MD) $775,915
    Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $767,893
    Harkin, Tom (D-IA) $756,560

    The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.
    All donations took place during the -1-All election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, March 09, 2015.

    SOURCE – http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=Q05&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U

  5. HarryLaw
    August 7, 2015, 5:32 am

    Schumers attitude to Iran is probably the same as the London Metropolitan police, in this amazing incident in central London. A family had left their motor home [parked up in central London] with a sign on the side ‘Iran is great’ upon return they found it had been broken into and a large area had been sealed off. “Cristian particularly felt agitated that the police had not left any note behind, explaining what had happened. “I went to the police station and they accused me of provoking the whole thing, they wanted me to feel responsible for expressing my views about this country, Iran.” He has not received an apology”. http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2015/aug/07/the-family-behind-the-iran-is-great-van-what-happened-to-us-was-serendipity Read this and weep.

    • JLewisDickerson
      August 7, 2015, 5:52 am

      So if someone was going to bomb London they would use a motor home with big, brightly painted “Iran is Great” signs emblazoned on both sides???
      I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me that terrorists would be much more likely to use a vehicle that did not attract so much attention.
      But what do I know compared to the London Metropolitan police (who have probably had training in Israel*)?!?!

      * Catalan Police in Israel: repression courses “Tested In Combat”

      • Bandolero
        August 7, 2015, 5:58 am

        JLewisDickerson

        I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me that terrorists would be much more likely to use a vehicle that did not attract so much attention.

        I could well imagine that terrorists belonging to the Mossad/AlQaeda groups would use a vehicle expressing their admiration for Iran in big letters to commit a bomb attack. It could make the whole job of the hasbara outlets easier to falsely blame Iran for such a Mossad terror attack.

      • JLewisDickerson
        August 7, 2015, 6:17 am

        RE: “I could well imagine that terrorists belonging to the Mossad/AlQaeda groups would use a vehicle expressing their admiration for Iran in big letters to commit a bomb attack. It could make the whole job of the hasbara outlets easier to falsely blame Iran for such a Mossad terror attack.” ~ Bandolero

        MY REPLY: Good point! I hadn’t thought of that. I guess those limeys are really sharp after all.

        P.S. Meanwhile, back at “comb-over central”, Donald Trump is offering everyone a complimentary rectal examination! ! !
        What a novel campaign tactic!

  6. Bandolero
    August 7, 2015, 5:53 am

    The whole statement of Schomer is based on the assumption that Iran won’t build a nuclear weapon in the near future anyway. To me the key words of Schomer’s statement are:

    If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon

    To sum up how I read Schomer’s position: Iran deal is bad, because Iran won’t built a nuclear weapon anyway in the near future, the deal will make Iran to get money for not doing what it is anyway not going to do and that’s bad because Iran will likely continue to confront Israel in the region and will be strengthened by the money.

    Had he put it this way, Schomer would have been quite honest. The whole nuclear issue is a big lie peddled by Bibi and his comrades and therefore we don’t need a deal to block Iran from making nuclear weapons. However, Schomer was not honest. First, he carefully avoided to say directly that Iran won’t build a nuclear weapon anyway. And then, instead of saying the deal is bad because Iran will continue to confront Israel, Schomer said:

    For years, Iran has used military force and terrorism to expand its influence in the Middle East, actively supporting military or terrorist actions in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza. That is why the U.S. has labeled Iran as one of only three nations in the world who are “state sponsors of terrorism.”

    So, has Iran:

    – killed a teen girl on the gay pride parade in Israel?
    – massively sponsored terrorists in Syria to bring down the government?
    – supported takfiri terrorists which committed acts of terror against religious minorities in Lebanon?
    – used it’s airforce to bomb Yemen and thereby strenghtening Al Qaeda?
    – invaded Iraq?
    – committed big massacres in Gaza each one or two years?

    According to Schomer, it would seem that this was all done by Iran.

    And here it is where Schomer is most dishonest. It isn’t Iran, but Bibi, his wahhabi terrorist buddies and his allies in the US Congress – Schomer being one of them – doing all this blind terror while at the same time calling Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

    • CigarGod
      August 7, 2015, 10:23 am

      So now we’ll get worked by two salesmen selling the same product. Schumer and Durbin.

    • hophmi
      August 7, 2015, 11:24 am

      “killed a teen girl on the gay pride parade in Israel?”

      No. It just denies that gay people exist. And it’s not some knife-wielding crazy denying that. It’s official Iranian policy.

      “massively sponsored terrorists in Syria to bring down the government?”

      No. It just funds the Syria despot who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people with barrel bombs and chemical weapons.

      “supported takfiri terrorists which committed acts of terror against religious minorities in Lebanon?”

      No. It just helps fund and sustain Hezbollah, who essentially used it militia to take over Lebanon, and also has helped Bashar al-Assad kill hundreds of thousands in Syria.

      “used it’s airforce to bomb Yemen and thereby strenghtening Al Qaeda?”

      No. It’s just provoked the rebellion there against a government friendly to the United States and to US allies in the region.

      “invaded Iraq?”

      No. It has funded Shiite militia there, though, and helped contributed to the sectarian governing philosophy of al-Maliki, which helped fuel the rise of ISIS.

      ” committed big massacres in Gaza each one or two years?”

      Yes, by funding Hamas and supplying them with weapons which are used to target Israeli civilians, it’s definitely contributed to Gazan suffering.

      • Mooser
        August 7, 2015, 1:44 pm

        What a substantiater that Hophmi is! Of course, with a credibility like his, who needs substantiation? Hophmi says it, it must be true.

      • hophmi
        August 7, 2015, 2:49 pm

        “Of course, with a credibility like his, who needs substantiation? Hophmi says it, it must be true.”

        No one disputes any of these things, Mooser. You’re free to go right on believing in fairies and unicorns.

      • echinococcus
        August 7, 2015, 3:47 pm

        No one disputes any of these things

        Well, you see, the whole world outside the sad morons who are dependent on US TV, US Pravda and US Izvestia, or the inhabitants of the incestuous Zio-bubble, dispute both most of the bullshit you write there and what you in your skull think is subtle acrobatics in mixing smidgens of fact in a way to say the contrary.

        I suppose we have to hope that Weiss lets you continue exposing yourself here. I’m sure you’d be promptly barred from posting on a Zionist site because you’d be too embarrassing.

      • Mooser
        August 7, 2015, 4:50 pm

        “No one disputes any of these things, Mooser.”

        Well, what can I say except Q-fucking-E-D!

      • Walker
        August 7, 2015, 5:44 pm

        hophmi, I’m unable to reply directly to your post below where you say “No one disputes any of these things, Mooser”, so I’ll answer it here. The fact is that several of the things you say are disputed, while others just give one side of the picture. I’ll go down the list:

        It just denies that gay people exist . . . It’s official Iranian policy.
        One person – President Ahmadinejad – said that gays “didn’t exist”. He very quickly clarified that to say he meant that they did not exist in such numbers as in the West. In no way can that off the cuff remark, since clarified, be turned into “official Iranian policy”.

        No. It just funds the Syria despot who has killed hundreds of thousands . . .
        You know, there are other parties in Syria committing terrible atrocities in Syria, and have been from the beginning. These include Al-Qaeda allied groups supported by Israel.

        It just helps fund and sustain Hezbollah, who essentially used it militia to take over Lebanon
        The bloc containing Hezbollah as a political party regularly wins a plurality of the vote in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s military is viewed as heroic and patriotic by many non-Shiite Lebanese for its serial defeats of Israel.

        It’s just provoked the rebellion there against a government friendly to the United States
        Nobody has adduced any evidence of this. Please don’t quote the GOI.

        It has funded Shiite militia there, though, and helped contributed to the sectarian governing philosophy of al-Maliki
        The “sectarian governing philosophy” is unfortunately shared by most Shia and Sunni alike in Iraq.

        funding Hamas and supplying them with weapons which are used to target Israeli civilians, it’s definitely contributed to Gazan suffering.
        Iranian funding of Hamas has tailed off to practically nothing. In any case, the world is aware that it’s Israel that is primarily responsible for Gazan suffering. This is one fact that really is undisputed, outside of Israel and the Republican Party.

      • Bandolero
        August 7, 2015, 5:55 pm

        hophmi

        No. It just …

        See, this strategy of Zionist hasbara to deflect from the massive crimes of the Zionist Apartheid regime and their wahhabi terror buddies by blaming Iran for the disastrous results of the policy of regular wars of aggression and systematic terror of the zionist-wahhabi axis is bancrupt. Most people in the world can now see through the dishonesty of these hasbara lies.

        Just take for example your argument that Iran is evil because Iran supports Hamas. The reality is that the regional Hamas HQ is on the territory of the important US ally state Qatar, just a short drive from the regional HQ of the US Armed Forces, which is also in Qatar, and the most fanatic sponsor of Hamas is the government of NATO member state Turkey. So, if support for Hamas is a criterion for being a friend or foe of the US, Iran’s support of Hamas brings it just on par with the major US allies Qatar and Turkey in that regard. And the hasbara argument that Hamas is responsible for Israeli crimes is just as dishonest as it could be. In courts of law the argument of a rapist who says “she provoked me to do the crime” is completely discredited since ages. The world also rejects the notion that the resistance against German Nazis was responsible for Nazi crimes, and rightly so, and there is no reasons why for Israeli crimes another standard shall apply. That Zionists try to invalidate that standard speaks volumes about the low standard of Zionist ethics.

        The other Zionist hasbara points of hatemongering against Iran you made are similarly discredited confessions of ethical bancruptcy which most of the world is fed up with. That’s why rapprochement with Iran and the nuke deal are moving forward in the world, regardless of what Bibi and his terror and hasbara buddies try to do against it.

      • talknic
        August 7, 2015, 9:06 pm

        @ hophmi

        Odd you don’t cite any actual evidence for your claims

        As for the notion Iran supplies Hamas with weapons…. is there a home made rocket factory in Iran? WOW!!!!! I wonder if they know

      • Brewer
        August 8, 2015, 2:37 am

        Israel’s defense minister hinted on Friday that the Jewish state’s intelligence services were behind the rash of killings of Iranian nuclear scientists.

        In an interview with the German-language Der Spiegel, Moshe Ya’alon said that he bore no responsibility “for the life expectancy of Iranian scientists.”

        “Ultimately it is very clear, one way or another, Iran’s military nuclear program must be stopped,” Ya’alon said. “We will act in any way and are not willing to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. We prefer that this be done by means of sanctions, but in the end, Israel should be able to defend itself.”
        http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Israel-behind-assassinations-of-Iran-nuclear-scientists-Yaalon-hints-411473

      • Kay24
        August 8, 2015, 7:49 am

        Brewer, I read that article too. If some Iranian officials had threatened to kill Israeli scientists and bomb Israel, the whiners would be all out in the zionist media, and acting so outrageous. It is strange that only threats from Iran are highlighted at every opportunity, the ones from Israeli officials (and there are plenty) get ignored. Every time someone in the media (like Scarborough) mentions Iran they never fail to bring up some statement from the extremists in Iran that are supposed to threaten Israel.

        It is sheer arrogance that Israelis can make such offensive and threatening statements like this, and get away with it, and our media allows them to do so.

      • hophmi
        August 10, 2015, 2:22 pm

        1. “One person – President Ahmadinejad – said that gays “didn’t exist”. He very quickly clarified that to say he meant that they did not exist in such numbers as in the West. In no way can that off the cuff remark, since clarified, be turned into “official Iranian policy”.”

        It’s amazing that you’d even try to defend the Iranian position here. LGBT individuals in Iran live in secret, because homosexuality is illegal and punishable by lashes and death.

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/brutal-land-where-homosexuality-is-punishable-by-death-792057.html

        2. “You know, there are other parties in Syria committing terrible atrocities in Syria, and have been from the beginning. These include Al-Qaeda allied groups supported by Israel.”

        Whatever. You know why Israel began supporting rebel groups in Syria? Because there are a lot of Israeli Druze with family there, and they lobbied the government hard to protect their Syrian relatives. They also want the rebels kept away from the border.

        Doubtless, if Israel didn’t provide that support, you’d claim that it was racist against the Druze. In any event, to compared the broad, strategic, well-documented support Iran gives Bashar al-Assad to barrel bomb and use chemical weapons to kill his own people, Israel’s support for a couple of the many Syrian rebel groups is nothing.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_support_for_Syria_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

        3. “The bloc containing Hezbollah as a political party regularly wins a plurality of the vote in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s military is viewed as heroic and patriotic by many non-Shiite Lebanese for its serial defeats of Israel.”

        LOL, yeah, they do now. All that foreign support from Iran has to help. So did killing Hariri. But, you’re right. The Arabs of Lebanon view Hezbollah like they view any group that attacks the Jews in Israel and targets Israeli civilians. Positively. The fact that you used the phrase “Hezbollah’s military” sums up exactly what is wrong with it.

        “Nobody has adduced any evidence of this. Please don’t quote the GOI.”

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/20/iran-support-for-yemen-houthis-goes-back-years/26095101/

        “Iranian funding of Hamas has tailed off to practically nothing.”

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-rekindles-relations-with-hamas-1429658562
        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/hamas-iran-rebuild-ties-falling-out-syria

  7. Kay24
    August 7, 2015, 7:12 am

    I guess no one here is really surprised. The “defender” of Israel has once again shown where his loyalties are, and will always be. Some articles say he was in a difficult situation, maybe so, but simply put, American leaders must put loyalty to their own nation, safeguard their fellow Americans, and avoid costly wars. Loyalty, devotion, and gratitude, to alien nations, even if they are of your faith and heritage, should not be the criteria. After being wrong about the Iraq war, where we lost American kids, maimed and injured many, and has cost us trillions, should have been the reason why “Shomer” sided with the right side, his President, and with the rest of the world.

    When are these American leaders without conscience going to start behaving like they are “shomers” who are going to defend and protect America, and not an isolated alien nation like Israel because it said so?

  8. unverified__5ilf90kd
    August 7, 2015, 7:21 am

    Lets face it – Schumer, Engel and Israel etc are Jewish traitors to their Democratic President. That is how they will be remembered. This dramatically exposes the Israeli-firster mentality that allows them to do their best for Israel and their worst for the USA. More Americans are understanding this every day. It will have a good effect in the end. The interests of Israel and the USA are not the same and these three miscreants are working surreptitiously for a foreign government that does not have the best interests of the American people at heart. The USA has been gamed and cheated by Israel and the reputation of the USA has been damaged by Israel’s unending criminality. We are being blamed for Israel’s horrific genocide and apartheid against the Palestinians and the theft of their land and resources.

    • hophmi
      August 7, 2015, 11:25 am

      “Schumer, Engel and Israel etc are Jewish traitors to their Democratic President.”

      Antisemitism right here.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 7, 2015, 11:50 am

        they are definitely traitors to their party and the president, in my opinion. i think every single dem voting down the diplomacy is a traitor to their party. and as for the gop and anyone voting like this i think they are traitors to our country. and i don’t think it’s racist to feel that way either. definitely every single person who signed that letter to iran is a traitor in my book.

        and the fact Schumer, Engel and Israel are jewish is — well, a fact of the matter. but it’s certainly not a friggin good excuse!

      • Sibiriak
        August 7, 2015, 1:11 pm

        traitors to their party […] traitors to our country.”
        ———————–

        Hey why not? This is great. Strident attacks on the loyalty and patriotism of opponents to an official U.S. foreign policy position–it’s worked for others in the past; let’s make it work for us now.

      • hophmi
        August 7, 2015, 2:50 pm

        “definitely every single person who signed that letter to iran is a traitor in my book.”

        Has anyone here called them “Christian traitors?”

      • hank
        August 7, 2015, 4:38 pm

        Schumer is the self-declared “Shomer” of Israel in the Senate; I don’t believe any Gentiles have applied for that position. When he consequently elects to take Israel’s side in a dispute with his own Democratic President, why is it anti-Semitic to mention that he is Jewish, a fact which by his own statement governs his political convictions in any related matter? As an incidental observation, I am one of his Jewish constituents.

      • DaBakr
        August 7, 2015, 7:50 pm

        @annie

        “they are definitely traitors to their party and the president, -”

        “and as for the gop and anyone voting like this i think they are traitors to our country. -”

        and this is why so many conservatives believe that behind every liberal left-wing progressive is a tyrant in disguise. So now voting one’s conscience is being a ‘traitor’. When did voting lock-step with a party become the definition od patriotism? And the party that represents half (or nearly half) of Americans political viewpoint are traitors because they disagree with either the presidents policy, agenda, point of view or all three. Everybody but far left wing progressives are traitors! Look out! General Dempsey, the Bushes, Sandra Day O’connor,….all traitors for not agreeing with an elected president. McCain-a traitor. Trump-the idiot-traitor. Half the supreme court: traitors!

      • Kris
        August 7, 2015, 8:33 pm

        What is antisemitic about saying, correctly, that Schumer, Engel and Israel are Jewish?

        If I say that Philip Weiss is Jewish, is that antisemitic, too?

      • CigarGod
        August 7, 2015, 8:48 pm

        Gets complicated doesnt it?
        How about when an organization calls itself: Jews for this and that? Do we need to go all silly and look at their particular ideology and sayç zionist jews, orthodox jews, etc…when the organization doesnt define itself that way?
        We have work to do before a clear message will be consumed by the masses…or they will do it for us.

      • druid
        August 7, 2015, 8:45 pm

        That same old canard!

      • Kris
        August 8, 2015, 12:14 am

        hophmi is always claiming “antisemitism,” but is never willing to explain what he means by it; voodoo semantics.

      • Marnie
        August 8, 2015, 6:16 am

        They are using their Jewish identity to keep the marginal Jews happy that are making all the noise. They’re being bullied, if you will, by the Jewish right who tell Schumer he’s no shomer (guard), in other words, not putting the needs and demands of the zionist state and its supporters against the majority who are for this deal. So actually hopzilla, antisemitism not here.

      • eGuard
        August 8, 2015, 9:12 am

        hophmi Has anyone here called them “Christian traitors?”

        That is not your point, hompi. You are still to convince us that it is anti-Semitic to say a Jewish traitor is Jewish.

      • eGuard
        August 8, 2015, 9:33 am

        Rush, hopmi. Another anti-Semitic jab you should point out: Mr. Schumer is Congress’ most influential Jewish member. In the NYT.

        http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/bad-decision-by-senator-schumer/?smid=tw-share

    • Sibiriak
      August 7, 2015, 12:16 pm

      unverified__5ilf90kd: traitors to their Democratic President.
      ————–

      Indeed, traitors! Just like any democrat who would oppose their Democratic President on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

      Traitors!!!

      • Abierno
        August 7, 2015, 5:19 pm

        The TPP and the TTIP are entirely different entities. These agreements are in response to the BRICS and SCO trade agreements that came out of the recent overlapping meetings in Russia. If the U.S. does nothing to counter them, in a few years we will be shut out of major Eurasian and Latin Anerican markets. Imagine our financial state if no one buys Boeing airplanes, GM or Ford cars, Apple or Microsoft technologies. There are downsides for labor and salaries for these agreements and Obama was well aware that the downside was just too great for the political survival of some of his congressional colleagues, and thus expected dissident. The Iranian agreement is of an entirely different genus and species – nothing less than a giant step to world peace and stabilization of the Middle East. As Obama says, every other country in the world except Israel accepts this deal. A vote against this deal is a vote for a war that this country can ill afford to fight, either militarily or financially. Supporting Netanyahu on this issue is traitorous not only to US interests but also to the interest of the middle of the road Israelis’ who want security, safety, better housing and jobs. Those who remember the Iran versus Iraq war will realize that Israel herself is ill equipped to fight a protracted land war with Iran and Hezbollah. Use of its nuclear weapons will trigger a world war, particularly since China is extensively developing Iranian oilfields. So, sir, I would support all those on this site and others who label Schumer a traitor – he is a traitor to his countryman in both the U.S. and Israel.

      • RoHa
        August 7, 2015, 5:42 pm

        I’m seeing reports that China is giving Iran j10 fighters in exchange for an oilfield. There are persistent rumours that the J10 includes US and Israeli technology from the Lavi programme, sold to China by the Israelis.

      • Bandolero
        August 7, 2015, 6:07 pm

        Abierno

        The TPP and the TTIP are entirely different entities. These agreements are in response to the BRICS and SCO trade agreements that came out of the recent overlapping meetings in Russia.

        What you say is factual incorrect nonsense. TPP and TTIP are not defensive in reaction to BRICS and SCO, but offensive trade moves by the US. The US started the TPP enlargement process (to include the US and other US allies) to keep China down in 2008, while the first BRICS meeting ever was in 2009. So TPP cannot be a reaction to BRICS. And never mind that neither BRICS nor SCO contain trade agreements at all.

        The other way round the geopolitical argument is much more correct: the closer ties of BRICS and SCO countries are reactions to offensive US policies designed to maintain US hegemony over the world. One part of these offensive US actions to maintain world hegemony are US-led wars like the war on Iraq or Libya, and another part are US-driven trade agreements like TPP, TTIP or TiSA.

      • hank
        August 7, 2015, 6:20 pm

        Hophmi: The religious affiliations of the signers of the infamous letter to Iran were wholly irrelevant, as would be any reference to them in the comment. Could any moderately honest observer say the same of Schumer in his declared allegiance to Israel?

        As a fellow Semite, I would strongly caution Hophmi against describing every opinion he disagrees with as “anti-Semitism,” which vitiates the force of the term in situations where it genuinely applies. It’s akin to describing every social disturbance as a “Holocaust,” and might in its turn provoke real anti-Semitism.

      • Keith
        August 7, 2015, 8:50 pm

        ABIERNO- “The TPP and the TTIP are entirely different entities.”

        They sure are, pal. These treaties have little to do with actual trade and everything to do with corporate rights and financial control. Your talking points about BRICS and SCO are propaganda. Curious that you would call folks traitors while defending “trade” agreements that destroy what little remains of the American republic. Assuming you actually believe what you said about the TPP, suggest you head over to CounterPunch website and search for Trans Pacific Partnership and educate yourself. A quote and a link (to CounterPunch)

        “The TPP would forbid countries from banning particularly risky financial products, such as the toxic derivatives that led to the $183 billion government bailout of AIG. It would prohibit policies to prevent banks from becoming “too big to fail,” and threaten the use of “firewalls” to prevent banks that keep our savings accounts from taking hedge-fund-style bets.

        The TPP would also restrict capital controls, an essential policy tool to counter destabilizing flows of speculative money. . . . And the deal would prohibit taxes on Wall Street speculation, such as the proposed Robin Hood Tax that would generate billions of dollars’ worth of revenue for social, health, or environmental causes.” (Ellen Brown) http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/24/the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-the-death-of-the-republic/

      • Sibiriak
        August 8, 2015, 12:22 am

        Keith: ABIERNO- “The TPP and the TTIP are entirely different entities.”

        They sure are, pal.

        ——————

        The point is, you are a despicable traitor to “your” President if you oppose Obama on the Iran deal, but you are a loyal dissenter if you oppose Obama on TPP/TTIP. Apparently.

      • Abierno
        August 8, 2015, 1:44 am

        @keith. Actually I’ve read a fair amount regarding TPP. I have serious disagreements with Ellen Brown in the domain of natural treatments for cancer and her opinions on TPP. 1. 1nvestment State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) procedures have been built into our trade agreements for a long time. The U.S. has never lost an ISDS dispute. 2. As regards restriction or regulation of toxic or predatory financial products, this is not prohibited anywhere I can locate. There is nothing but U.S. political will standing in the way of the re institution of Glass Stegall. Also adverse effect on investments is not considered indirect appropriation, triggering ISDS procedures. 3. As regards capital controls, it is the U.S. that is pushing against capital controls, and most of the other countries wisely proposing restriction of credit and capital controls in situations of “capital surge “. There are many thorny issues which have yet to be hammered out, ideally building to a consensus of all participants. For the U.S. The labor issue is huge but not insurmountable.
        Neither you nor Ellen nor Senator Schumer, who summed up TTP as serving deep pocketed investors, have proposed alternatives. Actually many of those conglomerates who are the target of TPP criticism are publically traded companies with shareholders from all walks of life, particularly if you consider the large pension and mutual funds.

      • Abierno
        August 8, 2015, 2:20 am

        @bandelero. Actually I agree with you that the integration of the BRICS, the SCO and the Eurasian Econmic Union, particularly
        the expansion of the SCO to include India and Pakistan, is a response to U.S. hegemonic foreign policy. I also strongly agree with your comments on US foreign policy, From what I’ve been able to read in English, Ufa conferences summaries indicate confirmation of agreements as regards banking, infrastructure development, energy and transportation These conferences appear poorly reported and if you have citations for in depth analyses I’d love to see them. While TPP and TTIP have had earlier iterations I believe neither have been signed.

      • straightline
        August 8, 2015, 2:58 am

        TPP is struggling – talks in Hawaii faltered at the end of last month:

        http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/08/the-economist-the-tpp-is-dead/

        There are some serious unresolved issues. NZ (and also Australia) wants more open dairy markets – Canada is resisting.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/70744257/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-talks-fail-in-face-of-nz-canada-dairy-clash

        Australia is concerned about the protection it provides for big pharma and about opening the sugar market in the US – if you think the Zionist lobby is strong, you should check out the sugar lobby:

        http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/the-not-so-sweet-side-to-the-sugar-industry

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-10/what-hope-for-us-sugar-concessions-in-tpp/6383638

        And then there’s the RCEP:

        http://theconversation.com/who-calls-the-tune-asia-has-to-dance-to-duelling-trade-agendas-32813

      • Brewer
        August 8, 2015, 3:01 am

        In my view there is actually no difference between opposing a trade deal that will set in place provisions designed to subvert a State’s right to govern itself and opposing a peace treaty. Both are indeed treason. It is only the treacherous faction that differs. In the case of TPP it is the proponents who are treasonous, in the Iran deal, it is the opposition.
        BTW I just had word (from a former Govt Minister) that NZ’s participation in TPP is dead in the water despite the efforts of our Wall St Bankster Prime Minister. Did I mention that our PM is Jewish? He’s had an interesting career:
        Lane Walker Rudkin (now bankrupt or, as we say here, tits up.)
        Elders Finance – tits up
        Bankers Trust – tits up (after making a run on the Kiwi Dollar)
        Merrill Lynch – tits up. He was “Managing Director, Debt Markets” – the guy tying the big fancy bow on the boxes of dodgy mortgages that created misery for millions in ’08.
        Came out with $50 million. The NZ sheeple thought he might be a good Prime Minister seeing he was so rich.
        So it goes.

      • CigarGod
        August 8, 2015, 8:00 am

        Thats depressing. Kiwis are as stupid as americans? I was hoping your isolated gene pool was a plus for the planet.

      • straightline
        August 8, 2015, 3:05 am

        @RoHa

        Is this what you were referring to?

        http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/08/02/iran-orders-from-china-150-j-10-fighter-jets-that-incorporate-israeli-technology/

        Note the “About Us” of the website, and that it seems to be happy to admit that the Israelis sold US technology to the Chinese, which appears now to be being onsold to Iran.

      • straightline
        August 8, 2015, 3:10 am

        @Brewer The contributions of you on the other side of the Tasman to the English language are nothing short of awsome!

      • RoHa
        August 8, 2015, 4:47 am

        You should have left the Commonwealth, renounced all allegiance to the Queen, and then made him your King. But, no, you Kiwis are just a bunch of anti-Semites. You think being PM is good enough for the likes of him.

      • Bandolero
        August 8, 2015, 6:36 am

        Abierno

        There seems still to be some major misunderstandings from your side.

        TPP, TTIP and TiSA are multilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and explicitely designed to exclude China and maintain US hegemony over the world. The driving global circumstance behind TPP and TTIP is not SCO or BRICS, but the rise of China. SCO and BRICS are entirely different in type from TTIP, TPP and TiSA as they are not FTAs. To understand the drivers behind TPP and TTIP I recommend reading Carnegie March 2015: The Geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP:

        The Geopolitics of the TTIP and the TPP

        The principal strategic challenge facing the US today is preserving its global primacy in the face of rising challengers such as China. …

        http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/03/02/geopolitics-of-ttip-and-tpp?reloadFlag=1

        Now it happens that the Chinese deeply dislike to live under a hegemonic tutelage of an imerialist power like the US. So, Chinese looked for some partners who share this dislike for a global US dictatorship and push together for living in a multipolar order where there exist multiple independent power centers without having one country being a world dictator.

        The Chinese reaction to the US attempt to secure US world hegemony with TPP is RCEP, a China-driven FTA currently under negotiation in competition with TPP. It’s negotiating hopeful members of the new regional FTA are China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the ten ASEAN states. Like TPP RCEP negotiations are designed to be concluded at the end of this year. With the proposed FTAAP FTA CHina is also already working on a kind of super FTA combining TPP and RCEP in case both FTAs are negotiated successfully, thereby hindering US efforts to keep world hegemony by isolating China with TTIP and TPP.

        BRICS is a loose discussion and policy coordination forum comparable with the G7 founded in reaction to US/EU policy of keepeing emerging economies away from getting international power at international institutions IMF and Worldbank according to their economic strength. As the US and EU use their control over IMF and Worldbank to blackmail emerging economies with withholding services when the US/EU dislikes the governments or projects for political reasons, the BRICS recently set up a complentary multilateral fund and bank to avoid being blackmailed by US/EU hegemony at IMF and Worldbank.

        SCO is a security coordination mechanism set up by China and Russia and some of the small central states in their neighborhood about two decades ago to enhance mutual trust, and defeat terrorism, separatism and (religious) extremism in their countries. Unlike US-dominated NATO or the US defense treaties with Japan and South Korea or the Russian-led CSTO the SCO is not a mutual defense treaty. However, in their common fight against terrorism, separatism and (religious) extremism, SCO member countries came to the conclusion that the US is supporting terrorism, separatism and (religious) extremism to destabilize their countries, so that they took coordinated policy measures to prevent the US from being able to destabilize their countries and their political orders. To further deepen mutual trust and cooperation among SCO member states in the light of continued US policies of supporting terrorism in various parts of the world, China gave finances to an SCO bank for financing economic projects that serve that aim. The chinese investment money of the SCO bank also made membership attractive for Pakistan, a traditional US ally engaged in decades of destabilizing activities in central Asia, for example by supporting Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan in the service of the US and Saudi Arabia. The Chinese investment money was a preferable alternative to Saudi and US money, and hence Pakistan formally started the process of joining the SCO now though Pakistan has currently a government with deep ties to US ally Saudi Arabia. Having Pakistan in the SCO made free the way for long time Moscow partner India to join the SCO, too, since India’s access to the SCO was blocked before by a fear that India in and Pakistan out would mean SCO to become a front organisation in a new cold war with India and Pakistan being the major front line. Having both Pakistan and India in the SCO allows the SCO now to stomp out terrorism stemming from the historic Afghan-Pakistan and India-Pakistan conflicts by solving these conflicts and denying the US chances to continue to exploit them. If the SCO really manages to stomp out these nasty long-standing conflicts it would be a major achievement for the region.

        Other major money tools China has just created to counter the US efforts to maintain hegemony by isolating China is the Bank AIIB which prevents the US from using their control over the US/Japanese ADB bank to blackmail potential friends of China and additionally China set up a huge infrastructure investment fund (perhaps comparable to the historic Marshall plan) to create new trade ways for China with it’s wider neighborhood, called the new Silk Road or Road and Belt Initiative. The US currently has nothing similar like the Chinese Road and Belt Initiative. If all these Chinese-led projects, BRICS, SCO, AIIB, RCEP and Road and Belt are successfully implemented, it will – due to the economic power of the member states, primarily of course China and India – likely guarantee the birth of a multi lateral order in a couple of year, maybe 10 or 20 years or so, and the end of the global US hegemony.

        Regarding the recent Ufa summit, there exist lot’s of good reports in media, like in the section “2015 BRICS, SCO Summits in Russia’s Ufa” of Sputnik. There was not much new on that summit, it was more like a working meeting to realize all the projects agreed to on earlier and facilitate better cooperation between all member states of SCO and BRICS and CSTO and Eurasian Union. What was reported on quite low levels was the ‘Forum of the Heads of the Leading SCO Media Outlets “Towards a Common SCO Information Space”‘ a couple of weeks after the Ufa summit in Moscow. Here SCO and friends organized to challenge the Zionist-controlled western mass media in a coordinated way.

        http://en.sco-russia.ru/news/20150729/1013710572.html

      • CigarGod
        August 8, 2015, 8:03 am

        That post helps tremendously.

      • Keith
        August 8, 2015, 1:10 pm

        SIBIRIAK- “The point is, you are a despicable traitor to “your” President if you oppose Obama on the Iran deal, but you are a loyal dissenter if you oppose Obama on TPP/TTIP.”

        Yes, I got your point and agree, however, I didn’t want to join the discussion on what constitutes treason. As I am sure you are aware, the notion of disloyalty to a specific leader has rather interesting precedents. Prior to democracy, disloyalty to the monarch was considered treasonous. Nazi Germany revived the concept. Talk of “traitors to their Democratic President” has a certain Hitlerian flavor to it although I suspect that Unverified is primarily venting.

        With Abierno’s subsequent comments, however, the situation becomes more interesting. Please note the fact that he is untroubled by the fact that the TPP would usurp the power of Congress to legislate important economic matters leaving resolution of disputes to the authority of a panel of appointed corporate lawyers (royal appointees?). And once we get rid of any semblance of democracy (Greece, for example), then perhaps loyalty will be directed to corporate CEO and empire? Those guilty of corporate treason will be fired and frozen out of the market economy and left to rot.

        Getting back to Abierno, notice that the settlement dispute procedures don’t bother him because they appear in other odious trade deals and so far he approves of the decisions, “The U.S. has never lost an ISDS dispute.” The U.S.? Let us be honest, the US battered some foreign country to the benefit of some US based corporation. Terrific. This is supposed to make me happy? NAFTA has been a disaster for the 99%, causing American job loss and decimating Mexican agriculture. Most of the legal and illegal aliens flooding the US are, in reality, refugees from Latin American countries we have more or less destroyed with neoliberal globalization. But that apparently is just fine with Abierno who seems to be more loyal to the American corporate/financial empire than to the republic. Yet, hardly treasonous.

        To summarize, the concept of treason and traitors are much abused in the public discourse and seem primarily a form of name calling unless done by the government as a form of social control.

      • Sibiriak
        August 8, 2015, 1:45 pm

        Keith: To summarize, the concept of treason and traitors are much abused in the public discourse and seem primarily a form of name calling unless done by the government as a form of social control.
        ——-

        Yes I agree– on playing the patriotism card, and on the TTP etc.

      • Keith
        August 8, 2015, 2:32 pm

        ABIERNO- “As regards restriction or regulation of toxic or predatory financial products, this is not prohibited anywhere I can locate.”

        Holy she-it!!! You have access to the highly restricted TPP document? Most of the critics make reference to leaks of this document which even Congress has limited access to. So, are you a corporate flack? Besides, the actual meaning of the text will ultimately be decided by a small group of corporate lawyers so we should assume the worst, your assurances worthless.

        ABIERNO- “Neither you nor Ellen nor Senator Schumer, who summed up TTP as serving deep pocketed investors, have proposed alternatives.”

        How about no TPP, TTIP, NAFTA, et al. All of these “trade” agreements are designed to lock in corporate rule and global financial control. This global matrix of interdependencies linked through the financial system will become the ultimate totalitarian dystopia. Plus, it is unsustainable. A sustainable society absolutely requires a maximum of local autonomy in order to transition from a hydrocarbon based society to a solar-hydrogen based society. The global corporate empire is headed in the wrong direction at warp speed. Neoliberal globalization is a consummate disaster that is getting worse at an accelerating rate. A couple of more quotes and links for those interested.

        “Corporations are elevated to the same status as national governments under “free trade” agreements, but if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is approved, corporations will be elevated above governments. New language inserted into the text of the TPP declares that, in certain circumstances, arbitrators hearing a suit by a corporation must assume the corporation’s claim is true.” (Pete Dolack) http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/10/trans-pacific-partnership-says-if-a-corporation-claims-its-true-it-must-be-true/

        “From what is known from the periodic leaks from the discussions, it appears proposals for TPP are heavy on permitting capital to freely and easily enter a country, for profits to be just as easily repatriated, for wholesale privatization of public enterprises, and for proposals to allow corporations to sue governments in global secret courts if national laws are passed that challenge any provision of the TPP — to name but the most corporate-friendly measures being proposed.” (Jack Rasmus) http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/26/tpp-trade-negotiations-at-critical-juncture/

      • Sibiriak
        August 8, 2015, 3:11 pm

        @Keith

        Some interesting posts on the TPP over at Naked Capitalism:

        “Sovereignty For International Investors (Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP))”
        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/sovereignty-for-international-investors-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp.html

        “The TPP: Toward Absolutist Capitalism”
        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/04/tpp-toward-absolutist-capitalism.html

        “The Investor Arbitration Clauses in TPP Are Indeed Very Bad”
        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/the-investor-arbitration-clauses-in-tpp-are-indeed-very-bad.html

        “How the Pending Trans-Pacific Partnership and EU-US Trade Deals Will Gut National Regulations, Hurt Budgets, and Undermine Sovereignity”

        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/08/how-the-pending-trans-pacific-partnership-and-eu-us-trade-deals-will-gut-national-regulations-hurt-budgets-and-undermine-sovereignity.html

        “How Pending “Trade” Deals Would Undermine Zoning and Local Land Use Rules”
        http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/04/pending-trade-deals-undermine-zoning-local-land-use-rules.html

      • Keith
        August 8, 2015, 4:00 pm

        SIBIRIAK- “Some interesting posts on the TPP over at Naked Capitalism:”

        Thanks for the links. Always nice to have that sort of info available for future reference.

      • Abierno
        August 10, 2015, 4:26 pm

        Thanks Bandelero for the outstanding explanation and the citations. Will follow up. Sorry to be slow in this – traveling.

  9. just
    August 7, 2015, 8:01 am

    “Now that @SenSchumer opposes the Iran deal, I look forward to watching as he is purged from the party.”

    I’ll be doing my level best to make this happen. His warmongering/bs announcement that opposes peace and normalization with Iran and opposes the President and the real leader of the Democrats, absolutely disqualifies him. He’s demonstrably and historically wrong on foreign policy, and is one of the main goons who puts Israel first.

    The Knesset might need him, the US Senate does not.

    From The Guardian:

    “Although the issue is still being hotly debated in the US, the Europeans have already taken measures to mend ties with Tehran, with many EU foreign ministers, including those of France and Italy, travelling to Iran to seek business opportunities in post-sanctions era. It will be a while before Tehran benefits from sanctions relief as inspectors would have to first verify that Tehran is abiding by its own obligations and rolling back its nuclear programme.

    While opposing the deal, Schumer said he would give “tremendous credit” to Obama for his work on this issue. “All fair-minded Americans should acknowledge the president’s strong achievements in combatting and containing Iran,” he said.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/07/us-democrat-chuck-schumer-says-he-will-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal#comment-57091333

    He’s f.o.s.

  10. jaime1007
    August 7, 2015, 8:37 am

    Betray the president, ignore international consensus, abandon American values and proof dual loyality, that’s what a good Zionist is all about.

  11. RobertHenryEller
    August 7, 2015, 8:39 am

    I wrote the following to a journalist who, like me, incorrectly predicted Schumer would support the P5+1/Iran deal (I’m not happy to be wrong.):

    Yes Schumer is up for re-election in 2016. But he won in 2010 two-to-one, 66% to 33%, against his Republican opponent. Could AIPAC/Adelson/Likud/GOP unseat him if he proves “disloyal?”

    They will certainly try. But New York is not only heavily Jewish, it is heavily Democratic, and heavily liberal. Jewish Americans are still largely for Obama, and largely for the P5+1/Iran deal. I would wager most Jewish American New Yorkers want Schumer to vote for the deal, as do most New Yorkers, period. And I’ll bet Schumer already knows this.

    I also depend on Schumer’s support from Wall Street. Although some industries might benefit from hostility or war with Iran, most won’t. Overall, an expensive war, largely bought on credit, is not good for the markets. Iraq may have not been the proximate cause of the 2007-8 meltdown, but it certainly did not help. I say Wall Street, perhaps quietly, supports the agreement, for all of their usual patriotic reasons: Their wallets. I’m sure Schumer has been polling Wall Street as well.

    Not supporting the deal could also cost Schumer stature and leverage with his fellow Democrats in the Senate.

    Schumer wants to support the deal. My guess is that, much as supporting the deal costs him some money, and some love, he survives any onslaught, and is re-elected, even voting for the deal. And that’s all the idealism Schumer needs. (Of course, my argument is predicated on Schumer having enough courage and self-confidence to believe he doesn’t need a 33% margin in his next election. I don’t know the man.)

  12. RobertHenryEller
    August 7, 2015, 8:45 am

    What Schumer is actually predicting, and also asserting, is that Israelis and Zionists do not change, and will not change.

    Further, Israelis and Zionists see no reason to change. And why is that?

    Because the U.S. has always given them everything they ever wanted, without sanction.

    It is time to apply to Israel and to Zionists the same reasoning Schumer, Israelis and Zionists assure us will work on Iran.

    Boycott, Sanction and Divest the hell out of these psychotics. Let’s put Zionist reasoning to work where it counts.

    • Annie Robbins
      August 7, 2015, 9:13 am

      schumer’s not “predicting” anything. and you’re idea that aipac would ‘unseat him if he proves disloyal’ is pretzel logic. he’s solid aipac all the way and always has been. i find it highly questionable (unfathomable actually) schumer was ever ‘on the fence’ as to his intentions from the get go. his whole ‘not sure’ posture was likely a pr scam all along ( he was not ‘conflicted’ – plllease – it was for appearances sake) to pave the way to the big protest fiasco display on the streets of new york which was likely cooked up by schumer and aipac and all their cronies as some faux pretext for shitting on the deal. he’s as wedded to aipac as cantor was but unlike cantor his seat is secure wrt his constituents (i imagine).

      he disgusts me.

      • Chu
        August 7, 2015, 9:35 am

        At this point it does seem like posturing, but I am surprised that the new senate leader would betray the president of the USA and the democratic party. Many news site comments, left or right, are calling this for what it is.

        If it fails, they should take back the Pollard bonus.

  13. RobertHenryEller
    August 7, 2015, 8:47 am

    We’re releasing Pollard on parole? Why not go all the way?

    Let’s get Pollard into the U.S. Congress, where he can join his fellow Zionist spies and traitors still operating in the U.S.

    • just
      August 7, 2015, 9:46 am

      +1, RHE.

      I’m not kidding when I say that I daydreamed that when Phil wrote about Israel, Lowey, and Deutch.

      “Reps Deutch, Lowey, and Israel choose Netanyahu over Obama– and who will bring down the hammer for the Iran Deal?” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/israel-choose-netanyahu#sthash.i0lD3TLx.dpuf

      Now add Senator Schumer and Rep. Engel to the repulsive list. ugh.

      Watching carefully now~ taking names and gearing up to kick many butts out of Congress.

      I am glad that these Congress folks are finally being fully exposed. There’s no longer any shades of grey.

  14. Bandolero
    August 7, 2015, 9:23 am

    Schumer’s Iran decision seems not to make him only friends:

    Sen. Schumer’s Iran decision costs Democrats $10 million

    The American liberal activist group and political action committee MoveOn is launching a “Democratic Party donor strike” over Sen. Charles Schumer’s decision to oppose the Iran nuclear agreement.

    As part of the strike, the 8-million-member group will withhold contributions from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and from any Democratic candidate who succeeds in undermining the nuclear accord with Iran.

    “Our goal will be to secure commitments to withhold $10 million in contributions within 72 hours after this campaign launches,” MoveOn political action executive director Ilya Sheyman said in a statement. …

    Source:

    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/08/07/423694/Senator-Chuck-Schumer-oppose-Iran-nuclear-deal-

    Seems like both camps are playing hardball now.

  15. PeaceThroughJustice
    August 7, 2015, 10:21 am

    “He had to act in the best interest of the U.S. Still he faced pressure from Israel supporters. … will get 2 say they were the tough holdouts.”

    Phil and Scott Roth sound as if Schumer is being forced to oppose the deal against his better judgement (presumably by the “Jewish establishment”). That’s not how Zionism works. True, those gentile politicians we saw on TV last night are being forced to support Israel by the billionaires, but Jewish Zionists like Schumer are doing it because that’s what their mothers taught them.

    If there’s a game of optics going on I expect it’s going to be working in the opposite direction: watch out for people publicly stating they’re all for the deal, but privately working to make sure it falls apart. The only reason Schumer would have blown his cover like this is because he’s calculated that he might still be able to stop it.

    • Annie Robbins
      August 7, 2015, 12:15 pm

      The only reason Schumer would have blown his cover like this is because he’s calculated that he might still be able to stop it.

      earlier i was out of the loop and didn’t realize he was primed to take over reid’s spot. but now that i know that i think you could be right. because he’s risking the leadership position taking this stance. he must know that. i really hope he loses it over this. the very idea he could buck his party, his president and the country and still be the dem leader of the senate is GROSS.

  16. just
    August 7, 2015, 10:27 am

    “HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — US Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday he “profoundly disagrees” with the reasoning behind decisions by two prominent Democratic lawmakers to vote against the nuclear deal he negotiated with Iran.

    Speaking in the Vietnamese capital, Kerry said the facts do not bear out the arguments made by the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat Chuck Schumer, and the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel. He said he respects the right of lawmakers to make their own decisions about the merits of the deal, but said rejection does not offer any alternative than a drumbeat to conflict. ..

    … Kerry said he has great respect for both Engel and Schumer, and called Schumer a friend, noting he served with him in the Senate.

    “I obviously profoundly disagree with the judgements made,” Kerry said. He said that with 25 years of uranium tracking, “it is physically impossible to build a bomb.”

    “It’s a question of eliminating options in a realistic way,” he added. “I would respectfully suggest that rejection is not a policy for the future, it does not offer any alternative.”

    Kerry said that if the deal is rejected, “there will be a hue and cry about Iran’s continued activity and that will lead people to put pressure on military action since the United States would have walked away from the diplomatic solution.””

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/kerry-profoundly-disagrees-with-schumer-engel-on-iran/

    • just
      August 7, 2015, 10:34 am

      Meanwhile, from the Defense Minister of the Terrorist & Criminal State:

      “Ya’alon: Israel ‘not responsible’ for Iran nuke scientists’ lives

      Defense minister hints assassinations may resume, says Israel considering air strikes against nuclear facilities

      Israel is not responsible for the lives of Iranian nuclear scientists, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said in an interview published Friday, making a less-than-veiled threat that covert assassination missions blamed on Israel could resume.

      As the world moves closer to ratifying a nuclear deal that Jerusalem says won’t keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear arsenal, Ya’alon told German newspaper Der Spegel that Israel would do anything necessary in order to assure Tehran does not get atomic weapons, including taking military action.

      “Ultimately it is very clear, one way or another, Iran’s military nuclear program must be stopped,” Ya’alon said, according to a retranslation from an interview published in the German daily. “We will act in any way and are not willing to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. We prefer that this be done by means of sanctions, but in the end, Israel should be able to defend itself,” the defense minister said.

      He added that he was “not responsible for the lives of Iranian scientists,” according to Der Speigel, which will publish the full interview on Saturday.

      Ya’alon further stated that Israel was considering carrying out airstrikes on Iranian military facilities, the German paper reported.

      Five Iranian nuclear scientists were killed in the last decade, most of them by bombs placed on their cars, according to foreign media reports.

      Israel was blamed by Iran to be behind the assassinations, but never admitted any involvement.

      No Israeli was ever caught, though a number of Iranian were hanged after being accused of collaborating with Jerusalem.

      The last assassination occurred in late 2013 and have since halted, reportedly as a result of American pressure as negotiations between world powers and Tehran over the nuclear program ramped up, according to CBS news. …”

      http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-israel-not-responsible-for-iran-nuke-scientists-lives/

      Are these not threats? Would these not be acts of war? And what has Iran ever done to Israel in this same vein?

      Nothing.

      • CigarGod
        August 7, 2015, 10:45 am

        Israel is like a crazy person who has been wired with a bomb…with the help of his crack addicted friends…all working without coordination.

        How the hell do you disarm such a situation?

      • Marnie
        August 8, 2015, 1:43 am

        @Just

        Most everything Ya’alon says is a threat. Wasn’t he waxing poetic about Hiroshima and Nagasaki WRT Gaza just a couple weeks ago? Isn’t it time for the white house press secretary to express dismay about it? Oh wait, the US news never picked up that story, of course being dereliction of their duty to report, not suppress news. mondoweiss.net/2015/05/ministers-nagasaki-hiroshima

      • Brewer
        August 8, 2015, 3:08 am

        Oops, I just posted that article above – teach me to read the whole thread before opening my big gob.
        Anyway, nice to see great minds thinking alike!!

    • tokyobk
      August 7, 2015, 7:25 pm

      As an aside, thinking of Kerry back in Viet Nam now as a diplomat not soldier and commemorating Hiroshima the other day here in Japan with many Japanese and American friends: We humans waving different flags go to war as hated enemies, killing one another in horrible ways, and then some years later are sitting around as friends. I wish we could cut straight to the friendship part.

      • just
        August 7, 2015, 7:35 pm

        “I wish we could cut straight to the friendship part.”

        So do I, tokyobk. I appreciate your “aside” very much.

        Diplomacy works, if we let it.

        It works because it focuses on finding common cause rather than always concentrating on differences. jmo.

      • RoHa
        August 8, 2015, 3:32 am

        “I wish we could cut straight to the friendship part.”

        Where’s the fun in that?

  17. SonofDaffyDuck
    August 7, 2015, 10:54 am

    Twenty six years ago Schumer called for the release of Jonathan Pollard, a clear sign that he felt that Pollard’s actions were justified. Fast-forward to the reign of Schumer as head of the Democratic Party. Would any American classified material not find its way into the hands of Mossad?
    His betrayal the peace process with Iran clearly marks him as an Israeli agent (if you ever doubted it)… And he will be in charge of the Democratic Party?
    Sickening!

  18. Rusty Pipes
    August 7, 2015, 10:56 am

    Schumer and Engel need to be primaried for this. Even if opposition candidates do not win, diverting their time and resources to fight off a primary can tarnish politicians and drain them. New York is a big state with plenty of talent. No matter how much money Schumer can raise, maybe New York progressives are ready for a change.

    • CigarGod
      August 7, 2015, 10:59 am

      Great idea.
      Questions of loyalty/patriotism…can get pretty interesting.

    • just
      August 7, 2015, 11:19 am

      iirc, both are up for re- election in 2016.

      Plenty of time for NY progressive Americans to get their act together with the help of many across the country.

    • lysias
      August 7, 2015, 11:38 am

      Schumer and Engel are probably doing this precisely to protect their seats in Congress. It was pointed out by somebody on the Diane Rehm show this morning that Schumer waited to announce until Obama was assured of at least enough votes in the Senate to uphold his veto.

      Once a particular result is assured, party leadership will often allow free votes to party members whose re-election prospects might otherwise be threatened.

    • just
      August 7, 2015, 11:19 pm

      I’m thinking that Philip Weiss would be perfect, Rusty.

      I don’t know if he’s willing, but he’s certainly able. ;-)))

      • just
        August 7, 2015, 11:34 pm

        I can just imagine the debate and the resultant groundswell of support for Phil from all corners.

      • CigarGod
        August 8, 2015, 7:54 am

        Phil would reduce his opponents to stuttering.

  19. Qualtrough
    August 7, 2015, 11:26 am

    If JSIL gets its way and Iran is attacked and destroyed the surviving Iranians will almost surely work with a white hot fever to return the favor. JSIL should remember that only one small nuclear weapon would be enough to render their state unlivable. They are playing with fire.

  20. David Doppler
    August 7, 2015, 12:14 pm

    Death knell of the lobby?

    The leading candidate for the Senate Democratic Leader position defies his President in service of, as guardian for, a foreign right-wing government where, if he doesn’t have dual citizenship in public fact, he has it by right in the “state for all the Jewish people.”

    At the same time, this appears as the first three paragraphs of the the NYTimes’s coverage of the Republican debate, by Nate Cohn:

    “Winning a primary debate isn’t about having the best one-liners or drawing the biggest applause.

    “For top candidates, it’s an audition for party elites, moneyed supporters and, secondarily, voters. The goal isn’t to wow the crowd or surge in the polls, but to reassure — to confirm their ability to win and handle the presidency. For less serious or low-profile candidates, it’s an opportunity to break out — to cause party elites to reconsider or get voters to coalesce behind them.

    “And whether they do so depends a lot more on how the news media covers the debates than the performances themselves.”

    Cohn’s analysis then is, with this “reality” in mind, we have to wait to see what the party elites think, and what the media decide to do with its echo chamber, to figure out who the conservative choice will be.

    Together, they make a stark claim to constitutional power in the US, not the written constitution everyone is sworn to uphold, but the Israel Lobby version of political power in America, the manner in which Israel’s leader claims the ability to “easily move” the Americans.

    The trouble is, the influence of traditional media is waning, the influence of big money which is largely spent buying traditional media ads, is becoming an explicit issue – Trump proudly described how he, as a multi-billionaire, has purchased many politicians, including Hillary Clinton (I told her: “be at my wedding, and she was”).

    The trouble is the continuation of Israel’s influence in the US is being made explicitly tied to this different, cactus flower constitution, which Nate Cohn feels obligated to make the lede in the NYTimes coverage of the Republican debate. What has worked in the dark won’t continue to work in the sunlight.

    Yet Netanyahu continues to bet the future of Israel’s relationship with the US on its ability to do so. He keeps making more and more difficult demands on American Jew’s loyalty. He’s lost academia. He’s lost the young and educated. He’s lost Jewish Voice for Peace and J Street. He’s operating in Israel from the narrowest majority cobbled together from his own party’s 25% plurality with 26% of other right-wing and religious parties. Yet he keeps re-doubling the size of the bet he makes, like a gambling addict betting his home and life savings on one last spin of the roulette wheel.

    Having the NYTimes tell its readers how power really works, and stay tuned to find out what moneyed party elites and their media echo chamber decide you, our dear readers, should think, and how you will vote, would be laughable, if the stakes weren’t so high – the stark assertion of the cactus flower constitution as what really controls the US so blatantly anti-American.

  21. just
    August 7, 2015, 1:11 pm

    Barak Ravid:

    “U.S. Won’t Penalize Israel for Opposition to Iran Deal, Senior U.S. Official Says

    Despite White House rhetoric, it’s hard to believe that the two leaders battling over the deal with Iran won’t have a lasting affect on the bilateral relations.

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Tuesday, at U.S. President Barack Obama’s White House meeting with the heads of the Jewish organizations, one of them asked him about the increasingly bitter conflict between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surrounding the nuclear agreement with Iran. “It’s not personal,” replied Obama.

    Even after the president’s tough speech the following day, in which he asserted that Netanyahu is mistaken in his approach to the nuclear agreement, and said he would not allow the Israeli prime minister to dictate U.S. foreign policy, Obama’s advisers insisted on repeating the same message. “It’s not personal.”

    Obama and his staff are focused at present on the battle against opponents of the nuclear agreement, headed by Netanyahu, over confirmation of the Iran deal in Congress. The U.S. president is willing to do almost anything in order to win. At the same time, his staff explains that despite the passionate and scathing conflict, the scare tactics and the spin, he is thinking about “the day after,” especially when it comes to patching up relations with Israel. …

    … Obama and Netanyahu may be speaking honestly, but the more nothing is personal, in the end everything is personal. Both Obama and Netanyahu had difficulty concealing the deep disdain each feels towards the other’s views regarding the Iranian agreement. Both believe they are in the right and will do anything necessary to prevail.
    Only this week both of them crossed red lines in their public battle.

    Obama, for his part, isolated Israel and presented it as being outside the international consensus in its attitudes towards Iran. Netanyahu, on the other hand, caused the Jewish community, against its will, to become part of the problem, while putting it in a difficult ethical dilemma by calling on its members to side with the Israeli prime minister in his fight against the nuclear agreement being promoted by the U.S. president, for whom the vast majority of U.S. Jews voted.

    Obama and Netanyahu are playing a dangerous game. With all their nice words about the day after, it’s hard to see how it will be possible to isolate the events of recent weeks and of the coming weeks from any relationship between Israel and the United States. Whether the nuclear agreement passes or whether Congress “kills” it, there will be irreversible damage. The only question is how great.

    U.S. administration officials claim Obama was not surprised by the magnitude and nature of Netanyahu’s battle against the deal. For example, this is how one of those closest to the president described Netanyahu’s conduct on the Iranian nuclear issue in the past two years:

    “When we reached the interim agreement with Iran in Geneva, in November 2013, Netanyahu called it a historic mistake. Already then we understood that there was little chance that he would support any kind of overall nuclear agreement we would achieve with Iran. We assumed that strong opposition from the Israeli government would be an integral part of the negotiations and the process.

    “In March, when Netanyahu came to speak in Congress, we once again assumed that he would not come with any new proposal, and that’s what happened. The debate in the United States regarding the nuclear agreement has a political dimension. It’s also part of the 2016 presidential race. The Republicans oppose the agreement. Many of them promised to oppose the agreement even before they had seen it. What Netanyahu is doing is simply part of the political atmosphere surrounding the issue here. Netanyahu has turned himself into the chief spokesman of opponents of the deal, so it’s only natural that he’s becoming a key factor in our dispute on this matter.”

    Another key factor is Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer. Much has been written about the activity of the man who is considered Netanyahu’s long arm in Washington, the political adviser of the Republican Congressional Speaker John Boehner, and a persona non grata in the White House.

    This week in a meeting with a delegation of Israeli diplomatic
    correspondents in Washington, three senior American officials writhed as they tried to describe the White House’s relationship with Dermer and his activity in Congress on the nuclear agreement. The officials admitted that since Dermer assumed his position almost two years ago, he has not conducted a single work meeting with National Security Adviser Susan Rice. They tried to explain that the situation is not all that bad, that Dermer speaks by phone with Obama’s chief of staff Denis McDonough whenever necessary, and meets with advisers more junior than Rice, but their body language made it clearer than any words how serious the situation is.

    Dermer, who, unlike most senior U.S. administration officials, refused to meet with the diplomatic correspondents from 12 Israeli media outlets, spends most of his time in the corridors of the Senate and the House of Representatives trying to convince Democratic legislators to oppose the nuclear agreement. “He’s particularly active in his lobbying attempts on Capitol Hill against the deal with Iran,” said a U.S. official with a bitter smile. But at the White House they know that in his case they can’t come to anyone with complaints. After all, they’re the ones who sent the ambassadors of Germany, Great Britain and France in Washington to Congress to present an alternative to the messages of the Israeli ambassador. …”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.669998

    Israel should be “penalized” for many things. I still hope for a continued, sustained, and well- deserved rupture.

    Americans should take this very “personally”, and I would urge them and this administration to look toward the Palestinians as their present and future allies.

    Dermer has wormed his way into the halls of Congress. He should be persona non grata. He’s also responsible for this abomination:

    “Palestinian forced to strip to underwear before attending briefing at Israeli Embassy in Washington DC” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/humiliation-embassy-washington#sthash.UrQieyDl.dpuf

    • straightline
      August 7, 2015, 8:15 pm

      @just Ravid: “Obama, for his part, isolated Israel and presented it as being outside the international consensus in its attitudes towards Iran. Netanyahu, on the other hand, caused the Jewish community, against its will, to become part of the problem, while putting it in a difficult ethical dilemma by calling on its members to side with the Israeli prime minister in his fight against the nuclear agreement being promoted by the U.S. president, for whom the vast majority of U.S. Jews voted.”

      So Obama is in trouble with Israel for stating a fact that Israel ought to be aware of. Netanyahu (the leader of a foreign country), on the other hand, is in equal trouble for seeking to persuade a slice of the population of the US to side with him against its President.
      Yep – that sounds like they’re equally at fault. (sarcasm emoticon needed!)

      Just substitute any other country for Israel to realize how ridiculous this sounds to a non-American.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      August 7, 2015, 11:49 pm

      For that to happen, people who know the reality about Israel must stop being afraid to spill the tea! Americans need to know about the long history of Israeli false flag attacks, it’s spying and its heavy lobbying to take America to war, for Israel.

  22. just
    August 7, 2015, 1:44 pm

    Handmaiden to Netanyahu, liar, & betrayer of the US speaks:

    “Nuke deal a ‘dangerous’ shift in US nonproliferation efforts, senator warns

    Robert Menendez says Obama sending message that Washington is okay with some nuclear activity, possibly sparking regional arms race

    … Menendez, one of the key architects of the bill that allowed US lawmakers a say in America’s approval or disapproval of the deal, has yet to formally announce how he is going to vote on the matter.

    But he made plain that even if President Barack Obama uses his veto to override Congressional rejection, strong opposition to the deal Capitol Hill would not be meaningless.

    “The stronger the vote against it, the stronger the aftermath of actions that may need to be taken,” he said. “If the agreement moves forward and survives the vote of disapproval or survives an override of a veto, there are whole host of issues” that can be done.

    For one, Menendez wants to reauthorize the sanctions against Tehran to put some teeth behind the administration’s threat that sanctions can be “snapped back” into place should Tehran break the deal.

    “Snapback means nothing if you’re not snapping back to something with consequences. Well, those [sanctions] expire next year under our law. I want to get those reauthorized. The stronger the vote against the agreement, the more likely that that will happen.”

    He also vowed to act to strengthen Israel’s defense capabilities, due to the administrations’ promise to upgrade military assistance to the Gulf States. “Well, we have an obligation to keep Israel in a preferred military qualitative edge, so the more you keep raising the other edge, the more you have to give Israel the opportunity to have that qualitative edge.””

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/nuke-deal-a-dangerous-shift-in-us-nonproliferation-efforts-senator-warns/

    He’s a complete idiot. Reauthorizing the sanctions undoes the agreement. Another one that needs to be primaried. He’s obviously happy that Israel has nukes, and wants to pile on even more of US taxpayer money even though Iran poses no ‘existential threat’ to Israel. On the other hand, Israel poses a threat to everybody in the region. Just ask Ya’alon.

  23. John Douglas
    August 7, 2015, 2:28 pm

    I wish people, including but not limited to headline writers, would not speak of Schumer, or any other Israel Firster, as defying his own President. Schumer has thrived in the United States, elected to high office by Americans of all stripes and no doubt become wealthy in the processd. Yet the very first time he was forced in public to choose between the country that has been so good for him and Israel, he emphatically chooses Israel’s interests over those of the US. He has violated the trust that Americans put in him and so has proven himself to be untrustworthy in furthering this county’s interests. Schumer has not defied Obama. He has given his middle finger to the United States of America.

  24. Qualtrough
    August 7, 2015, 3:50 pm

    It’s been pointed out here before, but I think it is worth saying again. Schumer and his ilk don’t have dual loyalties, they have one. Unfortunately it’s not to the USA.

  25. Lucas
    August 7, 2015, 6:27 pm

    Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
    120 Maryland Avenue, NE
    Washington, DC 20002

    Re: Multi-Lateral Nuclear Accord with Iran – our Disgust with New York Senator Charles Schumer

    Dear Representative of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee:

    Our family is very disappointed by Senator Chuck Schumer’s opposition to the multi-lateral nuclear accord with Iran. Senator Schumer has rejected the Obama Administration’s steadfast and thorough diplomatic effort in favor of a position that is incoherent, self-serving and reckless. On this significant issue, it appears that Senator Schumer’s judgment and action may be negatively affected by lobbyists for Israel, such as AIPAC. Our family will not accept this.

    In the upcoming elections, we will participate on behalf of a more suitable representative for New York. As lifelong Democratic voters, we will not support Senator Schumer for re-election.

    • just
      August 7, 2015, 6:42 pm

      I really appreciate that, Lucas.

      You are always ready with the ‘pen’, and that kind of action means so much. When I call/write not only do I feel better for using my voice and my rights, I also feel part of the process. Complaining without acting is worthless and self- defeating.

  26. atime forpeace
    August 7, 2015, 6:55 pm

    Why are neocons such a bellicose lot?

    The battle hymm of the confederacy Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.

    or katikva?

    As long as in the heart, within,
    נֶפֶשׁ יְהוּדִי הוֹמִיָּה Nefesh yehudi homiyah, A Jewish soul still yearns,
    וּלְפַאֲתֵי מִזְרָח, קָדִימָה, Ul(e)fa’atei mizrach kadimah, And onward, towards the ends of the east,
    עַיִן לְצִיּוֹן צוֹפִיָּה, ‘Ayin letziyon tzofiyah; an eye still gazes toward Zion;

    • atime forpeace
      August 7, 2015, 7:49 pm

      And while Obama protested that he didn’t mean to be “provocative,” he aimed his remarks directly at Sen. Cotton and his Israeli fans when he said:

      Now, there are some opponents – I have to give them credit; there are opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless. But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple. The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences. We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less than 1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.”

      http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/08/06/the-liberation-of-us-foreign-policy/

  27. eGuard
    August 7, 2015, 7:27 pm

    Lately, Shumer was very welcome in Jon Stewart’s finals.

  28. subconscious
    August 7, 2015, 7:52 pm

    Schumer is not just gonna disapprove of the deal. He is planning to vote to override a presidential veto. In a related vein, the Jewish Daily Forward has recently finished visiting Iran, after a 2-year effort to secure a visa, and will report on it. Apparently, this is part of an effort on the part of the Iranian gov’t to persuade American Jews on the Iran deal.

  29. radii
    August 7, 2015, 9:17 pm

    Could there be a more slavish lackey of AIPAC than Chuck Shumer?

  30. JLewisDickerson
    August 7, 2015, 10:08 pm

    RE: “Defying Obama on Iran deal, Schumer cites Hamas”

    MOVEON.ORG RESPONDS:

    MoveOn.org

    • No money for war hawks

    In response to Senator Schumer’s decision to side with partisan war hawks, MoveOn.org’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.
    ✔ TO SIGN THE PLEDGE – http://moveon.org/ecard/withhold_money/

    • JLewisDickerson
      August 7, 2015, 10:09 pm

      P.S. A COUPLE OF RELEVANT PETITIONS

      ■ JUST FOREIGN POLICY

      Sign the petition: Defend the Iran deal and stop Republicans from starting a war with Iran

      This is the final showdown to stop Republicans from starting a war with Iran.
      The United States, Iran and five other world powers announced a historic deal to dramatically curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for easing international sanctions on Iran.
      Republicans are trying to sabotage the deal, put us back on the path to confrontation with Iran and start a war – but they can’t do it unless Democrats help them.
      We need to build an impenetrable firewall in Congress to prevent Republicans from passing any legislation to kill the deal and putting us back on the path to confrontation and war. Tell Democrats to go on record in support of the deal.
      We’ll send your message to your senators and member of Congress, as well as to House and Senate Democratic leadership.
      The petition reads:

      Republicans are trying to take us to war by sabotaging the Iran nuclear deal. I urge you to support the deal and stop the Republicans from starting another war of choice in the Middle East.

      ✔ TO SIGN THE PETITION – http://www.stopwarwithiran.com/?source=justforeignpolicy

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      ■ J STREET PETITION

      Tell Congress: Support this deal.

      The international agreement reached in Vienna is the best chance for keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It meets all the requirements of a “good deal.”

      It creates the most rigorous, intrusive inspection regime in history. It opens Iran’s program to the light of day, keeping illicit military uses off the table. It protects the international sanctions regime, allowing them to snap back into place if Iran cheats. It puts a long-term, lasting end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And it cripples Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, blocking every pathway to a bomb.

      Tell Congress: you support this deal. They should too.

      TELL CONGRESS:

      A strong negotiated agreement is the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and this agreement meets all the key points needed for a “good deal.”

      As an American who’s concerned about the security of Israel, the Middle East, and the entire world, I strongly urge you to support this agreement.

      ✔ TO SIGN THIS PETITION – http://act.jstreet.org/sign/tell-congress-support-deal

    • CigarGod
      August 8, 2015, 7:48 am

      Done and shared! Thank you.

  31. JusticeForPalestine
    August 7, 2015, 10:23 pm

    No one can accuse Schumer of DUAL loyalties now.

  32. Atlantaiconoclast
    August 7, 2015, 11:23 pm

    How in the world is it possible to pin terrorism in Syria on Iran???? If Americans really knew which nations were really behind Islamic extremists in Syria, Israel and Saudi Arabia would be finished.

  33. piotr
    August 8, 2015, 8:36 am

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/bad-decision-by-senator-schumer/?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Multimedia

    Bad Decision by Senator Schumer
    By CAROL GIACOMO AUGUST 7, 2015 12:27 PM August 7, 2015 12:27 pm 558 Comments

    A paragraph: Any opponent of the deal bears a responsibility to propose a credible alternative but Mr. Schumer has repeated the same fanciful talking points that Mr. Netanyahu and the Republicans have espoused. “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,” Mr. Schumer said. Such suggestions ignore the fact that the major powers are more likely to abandon the sanctions altogether if the United States reneges on the deal and to refuse, along with Iran, to reopen negotiations.

    Toto, we are not in a unipolar universe anymore.

  34. Kay24
    August 8, 2015, 8:36 am

    Sad news: Father of West Bank baby that was killed by Jewish terrorists, also dies of his wounds.

    http://www.haaretz.com/beta/.premium-1.668967

  35. atime forpeace
    August 8, 2015, 9:18 am

    Here is the full text of the Obama speech at American University. Also includes video.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

  36. eGuard
    August 8, 2015, 9:44 am

    About his name. Nothing Yiddish. According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumer

    Schumer is a Middle Low German word meaning “good-for-nothing” or “vagabond”.

    • echinococcus
      August 8, 2015, 1:39 pm

      Schumer (with the back vowel like the Senator), in the meaning of skimmer or skimming-spoon, exists also in High German, of which Yiddisch is a part. So we can’t say “nothing Yiddish”.

      • eGuard
        August 8, 2015, 8:43 pm

        High German, of which Yiddisch is a part — You are kidding, right? Yiddish is “part of” German”? Better guess Yioddish is derived from German (that is, the other way around). Of course, a Yiddish meaning may have be added later.

      • lysias
        August 8, 2015, 9:29 pm

        I have studied both Yiddish and such other High German dialects as Alsatian and Swabian. Yiddish is a German dialect (with some variant vocabulary taken from such sources as Hebrew and Slavic) which exhibits most if not all of the features of High German dialects.

      • echinococcus
        August 9, 2015, 12:53 am

        eGuard

        No, I don’t think that the characterization “derived” applies. It is one of the High German dialects, with the closest branches being Alsatian, Basler, etc. There is abundance of loanwords, of course, due to the often Slavic environment and intensive borrowing from Liturgical-Biblical Hebrew. Some systematic sound changes diverged noticeably from the close family members, probably as a result of having been isolated in a Slavic-speaking environment for a long time.
        At any rate, Schumer, skimmer, is abundantly attested and in everyday use in the related dialects; so all we need is a Yiddish mothertongue speaker with abundant vocabulary to see if it is still used in that sense (logically may have become “Schiimer” but can’t find it in my books or by googling.)
        As for Schuemer, medieval Low (North) German for “vagrant, no-goodnik”, it’s not impossible of course but we don’t want to gratuitously slander an already so heavily disgraced piece of senatorial *&^, do we?

      • CigarGod
        August 9, 2015, 9:50 am

        Seems he defined himself…in a historical context.

      • eGuard
        August 11, 2015, 3:42 am

        I happily stand corrected: Yiddish is a dialect &tc. Am I right that the remaining question now is: how is the Hebrew “guardian” meaning related to the Hochdeutsch “skimmer” and/or “vagabond”? Is the Hebrew stemming from another root word, or is it loaned from Yiddish in modern Hebrew?

  37. Citizen
    August 8, 2015, 10:19 am

    On related note, which Senators want war on Iran? Here’s the names, effective stances: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/08/07/senators-iran-war/

  38. Kathleen
    August 8, 2015, 10:31 am

    Senator Schumer said he would “do what is best for the U.S.” Schumer lied.

    He is representing BB and Israel along with other Reps on this issue who are doing their best to undermine this deal. They clearly do not care about peaceful negotiations they want to move us towards a military conflict with Iran because that is what Israel wants.

    If Megyn Kelly wants to pretend to play hardball why not ask all candidates about why most of them have committed to sinking the Iran deal (like Schumer). Why is it that they are all committed to undermining U.S. National Security by trying to take down this deal? Will Kelly or any other MSM talking head ask Schumer why he said that he “would do what is best for the U.S.” He lied. Will Megyn Kelly be digging into this? We know Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Ed Sharpton, Chris Hayes, Lawrence O’Donnell etc will not be

  39. Ramzi Jaber
    August 8, 2015, 11:05 am

    Chuck Schumer, prominent Israeli MK in the US Senate, died last night from complications of losing his soul and his supporters to become the US Senate Leader. He was 64 years old. Hard-core Zionist and Israel-obsessive, Schumer never looked the part of an aimless Israeli US Senator. But, in the final days of his life, he confirmed a long-suspected side of his existence. This hidden quasi-Bibian persona surfaced during the Likudnik-like submission to his long reputed soul mate, a man whom he only spent a few precious hours with every year, but whom he calls every day. Sadly, the protracted search ended late Thursday night in complete and utter exposure. Yet even in certain defeat, the Israel-firster Schumer secretly clung to the belief that life is not merely a series of duplicitous votes or bribes in support of the Zionist state. Uh-uh. But rather, its a tapestry of votes that culminate in an exquisite, sublime plan to wage war on Iraq, Iran, and Palestine. Asked about the loss of his dear friend, Bibi Netanyahu, the world-class Zionist puppeteer and the true power behind the US Congress, described Chuck as a liberated man in the last days of his life. “Things were clearer for him. He came out of the closet if you will for all the world to see that he’s the Zionist of Zionists, the guardian of Israel – “a shomer Israel”– a true Israeli hero as all US Senators and Congresspeople should be, just like being loyal Likud MKs” Netanyahu noted. Ultimately, Chuck concluded that if we Zionists are to control all of the Biblical Land of Israel, not only the so-called Palestine, but also from the Euphrates to the Nile, from Iraq to Egypt, we must all possess a powerful faith in our ability to control the US Congress though bribery, intimidation, and even personal threats, what our ancestors used to call “Chutzpah”, and what we currently refer to as buying off American politicians.

    (Thanks to Serendipity)

  40. Kathleen
    August 8, 2015, 1:52 pm

    Wondering if Steve Kornacki who interviewed Schumer in that deli where Schumer said he would “do what is best for the U.S.” in regard to the Iran deal will have Schumer back on to dig deeper into his decision to vote against?

    Wonder if any of the other so called progressive host will dig into his decision to undermine the deal? Schumer said he would go through the deal with a “fine tooth comb” clearly as I said when I heard him make that statement…that “fine tooth comb” belongs to BB

  41. michelle
    August 8, 2015, 3:18 pm

    .
    one wonders why the democratic party has so many republicans in its group
    then again
    one wonders why the American leadership has so many ‘Israelis’ in its group
    .
    how many members of American leadership represent other countries before America
    why is the lobby in American leadership positions
    .
    G-d Bless
    .

Leave a Reply