‘Turning point’ — Obama defeats Netanyahu and ‘destroyers of hope’ on Iran Deal!

Middle East
on 55 Comments

You’ve read it already, but we had to jump on the bandwagon. Today’s news that Barbara Mikulski supports the Iran Deal has put President Obama over the top. Hurray. He has defeated Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Netanyahu’s lobby to win the most important foreign policy shift of his administration. And achieve the biggest setback to the lobby’s power in a generation.

Now it’s all about getting to cloture: 41 votes, so that the Dems can filibuster the anti-agreement vote.

John Kerry has triumphed. He hasn’t announced a victory, but he made a big speech today. Glorious ending, and a slam at the “destroyers of hope.”

The Iran agreement is not a panacea for the sectarian and extremist violence that has been ripping that region apart. But history may judge it a turning point, a moment when the builders of stability seized the initiative from the destroyers of hope, and when we were able to show, as have generations before us, that when we demand the best from ourselves and insist that others adhere to a similar high standard – when we do that, we have immense power to shape a safer and a more humane world. That’s what this is about and that’s what I hope we will do in the days ahead.

Laura Rozen reports:

i have had the privilege of serving this country in times of peace and war, and peace is better.


Kerry: #Iran agreement not a panacea for the sectarian & extremist violence ripping region apart. But history may judge it a turning poin

This speech is also full of Israel promises. Matt Lee of AP:

We will stand w/ to stop its adversaries from once again launching deadly & unprovoked attacks (vs) the Israeli people”

Says a friend: “Netanyahu looks like a fool. Who was counting votes for him. And AIPAC no longer looks cool. Think of it as an ethnic ATM.”

Ron Kampeas:

Kerry alludes to Netanyahu’s Breaking Bad metaphor — “You can’t eliminate nuclear materials … by flushing it down a toilet”

On television with Christiane Amanpour, Kerry blasted the lobby by inference:

the latest poll I saw said that 52 percent of Americans support the agreement. But it is correct for you to say that it’s been divisive, and I regret that it’s been divisive. But some have chosen to spend huge amounts of money and, frankly, have not been presenting the reality of what this agreement really does. That’s one of the reasons why I’m here today. It is to dispel the myths and lay out specifically and factually what this agreement does and doesn’t do, and I hope – and I think we’re seeing this, incidentally, as senators are looking at this, very, very closely examining it

Amber Phillips of the Washington Post said just now on the Takeaway that pro-Israel groups thought they could get Democrats, but they only have gotten Menendez and Schumer so far because the President worked the phones, even sending a hand-written note to Senator Chris Coons of Delaware; and meantime a cascade of Dems has supported the deal, one after another.

Among the president’s most significant gets in recent days were Chris Coons and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. They don’t fear the Israel lobby. Back in 2012 Casey signed on to neoconservative legislation on Iran because he was running for reelection. Now he’s a lot freer. Though Casey’s long statement on the deal includes a lot of Israel pandering. More arms:

In my years in the Senate, I have been resolute in supporting measures to bolster Israel’s security and its qualitative military edge in the region. I have pressed for full funding of security assistance to Israel, especially on cooperative missile defense programs. I was an early supporter of the U.S.–Israel Strategic Partnership Act, legislation that was signed into law last year and will continue to expand our bilateral cooperation on security and other issues. I will continue to lead on these legislative efforts, because I believe the bilateral relationship between the United States and Israel is unbreakable and that the U.S. must stand with Israel against threats to its national security

Mikulski mentioned Israel and Zionism near the top of her statement:

Throughout my review of this deal, my questions have been: How does this deal affect the safety and security of the United States? And how does this deal affect the safety, security and viability of Israel?

“For all my time in both the House and Senate, I have been an unabashed and unwavering supporter of Israel. I have persistently supported the sanctions that brought Iran to the table. I have been insistent on foreign aid and military assistance to Israel that maintains its qualitative military edge on missile defense. With the horrors of the Holocaust in mind, I have been deeply committed to the need for a Jewish homeland, the State of Israel, and its inherent ability to defend itself. And for the United States to be an unwavering partner in Israel’s defense. I have been and always will be committed to those principles.”

The New York Times announcement of the victory says few senators were enthusiastic, but the paper gives it up to J Street.

Supporters of the deal claimed victory. “After a great national debate that has taken place over the past two months, rational argument, solid analysis and sober reflection have won over wild exaggeration, scaremongering and a flood of money,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a Jewish pro-Israel group that supports the nuclear deal.

A broad coalition supported the deal, including the National Iranian American Council, Jewish Voice for Peace, Code Pink, and the US Campaign to End the Occupation.

Politico has a good report on the pressure on MD’s Ben Cardin stemming from Israel lobby groups in D.C. and from his own “sizable Jewish” constituency. Like so much other journalism about the deal, the lobby’s fingerprints are all over the opposition.

Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran [an AIPAC group] is putting down more than $80,000 this week in the Washington, D.C., market. On Tuesday evening, AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr was to drive up I-95 to rally against the Iran deal in Pikesville, an influential Jewish population center outside Cardin’s hometown of Baltimore.

Thanks to Peter Voskamp.

Correction: This post originally said Obama needed to get to 40 votes to prevent cloture on debate. He needs 41.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .

Posted In:

55 Responses

  1. Annie Robbins
    September 2, 2015, 3:02 pm


  2. ritzl
    September 2, 2015, 3:23 pm

    “Think of it as an ethnic ATM.”

    Interesting point, and not far-fetched at all. If Israel becomes a partisan issue (it has, duration being the question) then pols of both parties have mechanisms to extract pro-Israel money without the need for reciprocity.

    Rs with an implicit or explicit, “Where else ya gonna go?”, and Ds with a, “You don’t want 4-year gaps in the special relationship/UNSC veto. DO YOU?” tack.

    I can almost picture Harry looking over at Mitch and an almost imperceptible, Mona Lisa, smile forms on both their faces acknowledging that, “It’s time.”

    That is if these pols are even the least bit tired of being AIPAC/Israel dancing marionettes. They might not be.

  3. hophmi
    September 2, 2015, 3:48 pm

    The biggest defeat AIPAC ever had was probably over the AWAC’s in 1981. Did AIPAC get weaker or stronger as a result?

    • Krauss
      September 2, 2015, 5:48 pm

      The biggest defeat AIPAC ever had was probably over the AWAC’s in 1981

      That’s nonsense. The nuclear program is a much bigger deal than AWACS and we all know that.

      You’re just attempting desperate damage control. Israel lost in a landslide – and AIPAC with it. It got nothing substantive to show for it, and the price was many millions from rich AIPAC donors and a long, drawn-out process in which the Israel lobby got exposed for all to see.

      If Obama wanted to write a script to expose and poison the lobby he couldn’t have come up with a better plot himself.

      P.S. Interesting to see the two hasbara approaches. Rothkopf/Pollak tries the whole “the lobby is dead(forget my previous attempts to hide it)” and now your “the lobby will come back stronger than ever”.

      Both are wrong, of course. The lobby is strong but it is getting weaker by the day. AIPAC will be reduced to a new ZOA. J Street will be the final castle to storm.

      • hophmi
        September 3, 2015, 10:25 am

        I didn’t say that the lobby would be stronger forever, but the notion that it will collapse because it won a Congressional vote on Iran that it helped force in the first place, but couldn’t get a two-thirds majority, is really silly.

        It really all depends on your perspective. AIPAC can claim a lot of credit for helping to bring Iran to the table in the first place by endorsing tough sanctions. It can claim credit for giving Congress a voice in the process in the first place. The President spent an hour last week talking about how after this all blows over, things will get patched up with Israel. Everyone expects the US to give Israel a huge weapons package. Because of AIPAC, oversight of this deal will be tremendously robust.

        So how is it a loss for AIPAC again? See, when you lose and lose and lose, and score against you is 1000-5, and then you win a battle that you were always going to win because the bar was so low (34 Senators supporting an Executive agreement, wow), and the score becomes 1000-6, you’re still losing big. You’re still a loser, Krauss.

        What the Iran deal did show is that one of the main theses of this blog, which is that AIPAC is this all powerful organization the controls US foreign policy, is a complete lie. It has an influence, like any organized group with positions that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people would. But it doesn’t control policy, and never has.

      • michelle
        September 3, 2015, 2:57 pm

        no not a lie at all AIPAC always has
        a plan b….
        an excuse
        a lie
        no one spends money to fight against something they support
        G-d Bless

      • DaBakr
        September 3, 2015, 9:23 pm

        Have no idea how the “A good deal for America” will work out as the world only has the Clinton “a good deal for America” North Korean nukes fiasco as a point of reference.

        But it sure does put a damper on MW and its eternally paranoid, caustic and in many instances bigoted commenters claims that AIPAC “controls” or “owns” the US gov’t.(what happened? they suddenly went from the puppet masters to just another lobbying group stymied by the US president? it was always an hysterical presumption that bigots can now pat their butts about some imagined ‘reckoning’)
        In fact-that may be the best lesson for Israel haters to take away from this since they know absolutely nothing about what the tyrant mullahs along with their Larjani cronies intend to do-either nuclear or conventional- once they receive their sanction relief. Their constant cry that the Jewish lobby pulls all the strings is a sham and they will have to come up with a new boogeyman .

        At least at the very last minute Obama gave a reasonable explanation to Americans that this ‘deal’ was never about the conflation of what trouble Iran can make with the billions it receives in sanctions relief and its nuclear weapons program issue. He said that there is nothing to prevent the US or any of the signatories or non-signatories from acting against any Iranian moves to change the stability on the borders of Israel, Jordan and other sunni regimes. Hearing the fact that Iranian expansionism and support for terror was a separate non-binding issue was what some naysayers needed to hear though it probably true that the more then 50% US citizens that now don’t support the deal just don’t like the mullahs and take the “death to America” chanting at face value.

        Its possible Obama said all this before but the first time I heard him explicitly address the fact was just a few days ago. I have never heard Kerry address this.
        So-apparently these issues will be addressed on an ‘as-they-occur’ basis while Israel will receive the materials it needs to retain its ‘qualitative edge’. (and yes-that is a whole other issue with Russia and China stealing/buying US/Israeli military tech and who can maintain an edge and in what area)

        So..can anybody now claim that Obama and his cabinet did not play this deal like a masterful politician? I don’t think so. He is staking his entire reputation on this deal working out for the better, not the worse-so I will assume and accept that he means exactly what he is saying-about Iran, Israel and the region. Anyone fantasizing that Obama is turning the US towards a friendship with the hated mullahs, and their cronies seems to be doing just that. And Israel will be dealing with Iran (and its -much weakened by and can’t beat IS-proxy Hezbollah with or without a ‘deal’)one way or the other.*

        It is puzzling how the far-left commenters here are gushing so about what they seem to perceive as an embracement with Iran when the deal was strictly with the mullahs, the IRG and the Larjani family-not the Iranian people who remain a distinctly seperate entity from the ruling clan. Of course-any defeat for what is perceived as Israeli interests excites the far left fringe

      • Mooser
        September 3, 2015, 10:25 pm

        “Dabakr” is in need of a strong costive. He seems to have a case of logorrhea.

      • talknic
        September 3, 2015, 11:28 pm

        @ DaBakr September 3, 2015, 9:23 pm

        Whatever keeps your bile dripping.

        The only opposition was from Israel, via its subsidiaries in the US arena.

        “what happened? “

        Thanks to the internet, people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the wholly holey Hasbara and what people like you have to say is bullsh*t

      • John O
        September 4, 2015, 3:53 am

        “Have no idea how the “A good deal for America” will work out as the world only has the Clinton “a good deal for America” North Korean nukes fiasco as a point of reference.”

        If I recall correctly, the Clinton deal was doing fine until Dubya ruined it by his notorious “axis of evil” speech.

      • DaBakr
        September 5, 2015, 11:18 pm


        No bilious reaction over here. Irans mullahs are an unknown entity no matter how you cut it and nobody here thinks bibi would attack mainland Iran without major provocation and U.S. Support.

        Who knows. I definitely did not agree with the deal but your statement that opposition came “only” from Israel is not only an ignorant lie ( there are reams of press about who also highly opposed this deal but was too chickenshit to say it out loud lest they be linked with Zionist Entity.) :but your either willful ignorance or true-believer trust blinded you to fact there was never a huge consensus about this treaty except among the left wing fringe and most of the liberal traditional left. In other words, it will go down in history as one of the most controversial policy issues fought over in decades.
        I truly hope Obama is correct as he has accomplished so many other credible things that his so called legacy should be assured in history.
        Just because many believed a tougher deal was the only chance of it working there was never a question, at least in sane conservative circles, that NO deal at all would be preferable. As I see it, ( and I’m probably highly optimistic compared to most on the center right, this deal has about a 50% chance of success. ( success being the prevention of an arms race and another war with Iran/hezbollah in the region for the foreseeable future) .
        . As usual, drivel, nonsense and stupidity that almost nobody except your buddies here understand. Keep up your valuable work and contribution to the notion that in the.’war of ideas”. in the ME, one doesn’t have to even have one to contribute.

        My understanding was that NO was lying from the very first day after agreeing to the treaty. That Bush may have exacerbated things? Is there any doubt that NO is an evil regime that starves and enslaved it millions of people except for those that serve the Jong family? Your claim is that by stating the obvious Bush somehow caused the NK nuke disaster.?

      • Annie Robbins
        September 6, 2015, 1:58 am

        (there are reams of press about who also highly opposed this deal but was too chickenshit to say it out loud lest they be linked with Zionist Entity.)

        if there’s reams of press about those who highly opposed this deal but too chickenshit to say it out loud lest they be linked with Zionist Entity, by all means link to some of those articles, we must have missed them.

      • Mooser
        September 6, 2015, 11:17 am

        “As usual, drivel, nonsense and stupidity that almost nobody except your buddies here understand.”

        Shorter “Dabakr”: ‘I don’t know what “logorrhea” means!

      • DaBakr
        September 6, 2015, 10:49 pm


        Oh what annie..your going to tell me you missed the stories about the Sauds, the Hashemites, the UAE, the Kuwaitis, Oman, Egypt and Turkey as well as at least half of Americans polled and half Canadians and large numbers of other nations that don’t trust the diabolical Mullah regime.

        What-you thought just because the deal passed and Obama turned out to be a masterful tactician who played bibi like a fiddle that it means huge numbers of humans don’t oppose the deal, don’t trust the ‘deal, and don’t expect the ‘deal’ to bear much fruit? I f I have to link to that-then you really are in a left-wing bubble and can’t imagine how you get your international news.


      • Annie Robbins
        September 7, 2015, 12:22 am

        so that would be a “no” dabakr, you can’t even link to one article about those who ‘highly opposed this deal but are too chickenshit to say it out loud lest they be linked with Zionist Entity’??? ha.ha.ha.ha.you want bragging rights without putting out. blathering your opinion isn’t enough for you, you feel the compulsion to double down and claim there’s “reams of press” supporting your theories. #FAIL.

    • eGuard
      September 2, 2015, 9:01 pm

      Shorter, hohpmi: anti-Semitism!

  4. Krauss
    September 2, 2015, 4:02 pm

    I always thought the biggest loser of the deal would be AIPAC.

    Iran will get the bomb eventually. The reality is that it is very hard to stop a large nation like Iran with a highly educated population from getting nukes. You can delay and that is what this will do. The Saudis have had access to Pakistan’s nukes if need will be so we will have 3 nuclear states within 10-15 years in the Middle East. All of them are (relatively) stable.

    I’d trust the Iranians a hell of a lot more than the Saudis with nukes.
    The Saudis are ideologically fanatical. They are behind the massive rise of fundamentalist mosques and madrassas in muslim nations all over the world. Just look at Pakistan and increasingly at Bangladesh.

    And anyway, this entire spectacle has been somewhat of a sideshow. Even if the opponents won in Congress the deal would have gone ahead anyway.

    Now Obama got a double win: both a diplomatic victory and a political victory against AIPAC.

    This will create a lot of well-needed space for either Hillary or Bernie to further distance themselves from AIPAC.

    The final target will be J Street on the left. We’re coming for you, Ben-Ami.

    • Shingo
      September 2, 2015, 4:15 pm

      Iran will get the bomb eventually.

      Unlikely. While they have the means they have rightly pointed out that there is no point having one given that the U.S. and Israel have thousands.

      • Krauss
        September 2, 2015, 5:59 pm

        Of course there is a point having one. Israel won’t be able to bomb the country when Iran has nukes on long-distance missiles.

        Why do you think North Korea got nukes? It’s the ultimate deterrant. And do you really believe Iran’s propaganda? Of course they’ll say that. Unbelievable how naive you are.

        Also, in 15 years time, the breakout capacity will be next to nothing. They could probably get a nuke sooner than that if they really wanted to. Iran could just announce it has nukes and that’ll be the end of it.

        What all of this means is that an Israeli-Iranian war is now basically impossible to imagine. Saudi will get their nukes from Pakistan, if they don’t have them already.

        But most importantly, Israel’s premier advantage – nukes – is rapidly slipping away. Pare this with the fast increases in military spending from the GCC countries in the wake of the rise of ISIS and the so-called QME that Israel is paranoid about is disappearing with stunning speed.

        The next battle will be more military aid. Obama has said he will increase it. Now that he’s safe out of the gate, will he follow through?

      • DaBakr
        September 5, 2015, 11:51 pm

        Obama has not shown himself as a serial liar. Is he cagey? Maybe. I like to think of him as sincere since he is on of the few US presidents in recent history to actually make a point of keeping some of his major campaign promises. I still think this deal was not not in best US interest but in other ways it was pragmatic considering the larger issues in the region then the I/P conflict.

        I agree on the inevitabilty of the mullahs getting the bomb and it checkmating to some extent nukes in region. Pakistan will be the real wildcard, not the iron fisted mullahs.

  5. Kathleen
    September 2, 2015, 4:55 pm

    Yes NIAC put out an alert early this morning. Now to the 41 votes needed to halt the Republicans, Senator Schumer and Senator Menendez from putting President Obama in a humiliating position to have to use his veto power.

    Keep contacting your Reps let the ones know like Schumer and Menendez who are undermining U..S. National Security by going against the President and voting against this deal that they can still do the right thing and vote for the Iran deal.

    Let’s hope that Schumer’s vote knocks him out of play for the Dem Majority whip in the Senate in 2016. Should be Durbin…who voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution and is voting for the Iran deal. Should be Senator Durbin.

    Surprising there is not more hammering of Schumer and Menendez in the MSM and at so called progressive websites.

    • hophmi
      September 3, 2015, 10:28 am

      “Should be Senator Durbin.”

      No problem with Dick Durbin, one of the Senate’s most pro-Israel Senators over the past 18 years.

      • Kathleen
        September 3, 2015, 2:03 pm

        Glad you like Durbin. He voted against 2002 Iraq war resolution and now for the Iran deal. Not so pro Israel…But ultimately in the long run do believe the Iran deal is better for the U.S. r Israel, the rest of world. Just wish Israel would pivot and support the deal. That would really blow a hole in a positive and constructive way

      • K Renner
        September 5, 2015, 10:42 pm

        Seems like in general your standard for what makes a senator or political representative adequate is pretty predictable and pretty gross.

      • hophmi
        September 8, 2015, 2:39 pm

        “Seems like in general your standard for what makes a senator or political representative adequate is pretty predictable and pretty gross.”

        Israel is not my top issue, Krenner. It is clearly the top issue for people here, and the sole standard is whether a candidate votes against something Israel wants. I’m simply pointing out the irony of promoting Dick Durbin over Schumer, since Durbin has a strongly relationship with both AIPAC and the Jewish community in general, and is considered one of the more pro-Israel members of the Senate.

  6. yonah fredman
    September 2, 2015, 5:30 pm

    In the time of Rabin, the Israel lobby had a difficult time adjusting to the new (but in fact very temporary) Israeli reality, because the lengthy Likud dominance of the prime minister’s seat had placed people (machers) of like mind in positions of power in the major Jewish organizations and Aipac and thus the lobby reflected that Israeli reality.

    Netanyahu’s career as prime minister has been highly focused upon two things: maintaining the status quo (which means whatever status quo his predecessor handed to him) and rallying forces on the Iran issue (the Iraq issue was when he was out of office). This “last act” of the Iran issue for the foreseeable future until 10 or 15 years from now takes this issue away from him. (A Republican president hell bent on turning nasty about the text of the contract, as Trump has indicated, might yet revive the issue, but nonetheless the obsession seems to be anachronistic after today.)

    The United States support for Israel as expressed by the Congress will continue for the foreseeable future as well. The initiative for shaking things up on Israel Palestine is in the hands of the president: present and future. Obama is not a lame duck, but do you really believe he will encourage the French UN Security Council Resolution? If not, no matter where his heart is, his service on the Middle East is in the lame duck phase.

    • Mooser
      September 4, 2015, 1:52 pm

      Yonah, are you trying to make sense, or not? It’s very hard to tell.

  7. JWalters
    September 2, 2015, 7:00 pm

    The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Iz, and it’s just a few fat rich guys. Everybody else in the herd is being duped, bribed, or blackmailed. It’s losing its glamour, and the fear factor is fading fast.

    • CigarGod
      September 3, 2015, 9:49 am

      Unfortunately, pulling back one curtain, reveals another curtain.
      We need to go deeper.

    • Kathleen
      September 3, 2015, 4:34 pm

      Many in the herd are real believers in the exceptionalism piece. And some in the herd are terribly frightened based on a horrific past. This deal is better for all involved

  8. CitizenC
    September 2, 2015, 7:54 pm

    See these from Gareth Porter. Obama could not even defend the agreement as good for the US, and he accepted the hoary falsehood that Iran is acquiring nukes. The Israel lobby dominated both sides of the debate. Little will change in US policy toward Iran



    Will Schumer succeed Reid as minority leader even after his treason? Will Wasserman Schulz remain DNC chair after hers?

    • JLewisDickerson
      September 2, 2015, 10:40 pm

      Sign the petition – Tell Senator Chuck Schumer: “Don’t lead Senate Democrats into war with Iran.”
      We’ve reached 205,260 of our goal of 250,000.

      Sen. Chuck Schumer: Wrong on Iraq, wrong on Iran, wrong for Senate Democratic leadership
      Starting a war with Iran is apparently the top legislative priority for the next leader of the Senate Democratic caucus.

      Recently, New York Senator Chuck Schumer publicly declared that he will vote to kill the historic Iran nuclear peace deal and urge other Democrats in the Senate to do the same.1 There’s no excuse for any Democrat to oppose the deal – least of all Senator Schumer, who is in line to take over leadership of the Senate Democrats once Senator Harry Reid retires.

      Every day, more and more Democrats are lining up to support the historic, including ones like New York’s junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand who are under enormous pressure to oppose the deal..2

      Chuck Schumer was wrong on Iraq when he voted for war and he is wrong on Iran. Schumer’s decision to join Republicans in attempting to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal once again shows that he is unfit to lead Senate Democrats.

      TO SIGN PETITIONhttp://act.credoaction.com/sign/schumer_iran/


      Senator Schumer: Don’t Lead Us Into War With Iran
      Petition by Jo Comerford

      To be delivered to Sen. Charles Schumer (NY-1)

      Support the framework for a nuclear deal with Iran and ongoing diplomacy. Reject any measures that would sabotage the negotiations. If you want to be the leader of Senate Democrats, you can’t lead us into war with Iran.

      TO SIGN PETITIONhttp://petitions.moveon.org/sign/senator-schumer-dont


      Petition Title: Remove Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, effective IMMEDIATELY, as chairwoman of the DNC, Democratic National Committee

      We are asking President Obama, as the current leader of the Democratic Party, to please remove Debbie Wasserman-Schulz as chairperson of the DNC, Democratic National Committee, due to her very apparent bias as former 2008 presidential campaign manager for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ms. Wasserman-Schulz has scheduled only 6 debates between Democratic Party 2016 presidential candidates, scheduled AFTER some states such as New York have already closed their voter registration process. In 2008, the DNC allowed over 20 debates between Democratic presidential candidates, including YOU, Mr. President, which actually helped you win the Democratic Party nomination for President. This is an obvious attempt by Ms. Wasserman-Schulz and her close friend, Hillary Clinton, to unfairly treat other candidates.

      TO SIGN PETITIONhttps://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-debbie-wasserman-schulz-effective-immediately-chairwoman-dnc-democratic-national-committee


      Remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair
      Petition by Dan DiZinno

      To be delivered to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair

      As a result of a complete, and total lack of coordinated messaging and horrific dissemination of available resources all ending in the absolute failure of her mission, Debbie Wasserman Schultz must resign or be removed as DNC Chair.
      There are currently 9,413 signatures. NEW goal – We need 10,000 signatures!
      PETITION BACKGROUND Every second that this abysmal leadership is in place is another second the Democrat Party has conceded congress to the Republican party. She has taken no responsibility for this horrific performance, and her staff even hinted the problem was the President. She was invisible and as was our message. She made certain she was comfortably “tucked in bed” in her own district, and did all she could to advance her own Presidential aspirations by running for cover. And running from our President was piss-poor strategy!

      I believe fully that honorable people who have failed so miserably in their mission, would hurry to apologize and get out of the way. But apparently, the hubris Ms. Wasserman Schultz carries prohibits her from acting responsibly. So, we need to help her.

      Bring back Howard Dean.

      TO SIGN PETITIONhttp://petitions.moveon.org/sign/remove-debbie-wasserman

  9. Kay24
    September 2, 2015, 10:10 pm

    Bibi Netanyahu must be Boo Hoo Netanyahu today. I hope these zionists and their devoted here realize that that $40 million they wasted on idiotic doomsday scenario ads, was a waste of money. Perhaps they could have used it for far better causes, like helping the poor.
    They tried to manipulate the US and the Congress, but it seems sanity prevailed, and Boo Hoo and his band of war mongers, have lost badly.

    It is time members of Congress stopped taking donations from devious nations – they have to pay a heavy price to return the favor, and are forced to go against the policies of their own nation, even rejecting peace for war. It is very unfortunate.

  10. RoHa
    September 2, 2015, 10:58 pm

    I can’t really take this fuss seriously. As numerous commenters have pointed out, the deal is done.

    The U.S. Congress can huff and puff all it likes, but the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China are already setting up shop in Iran.


    • piotr
      September 3, 2015, 9:29 pm

      It is not like China and Russia were absent from Iranian market. It was reported that a Chinese-owned car factory in Iran is closing, in part anticipating competition from Volkswagen, Peugeot etc.

      The biggest loosers will be probably taqfiris in Syria and Iraq.

      AIPAC is definitely down but not out. Strategically, the fight about the negotiations and ultimately, the deal, with Iran is almost unrelated to the true interests of the current government, (hard to tell what an “objective interests of Israel” is). The main focus is apparently the expansion of settlements, and protecting the settlements from any whiff of dangers, like peace talks etc. “Iranian threat” was very useful, and it may remain so. “We cannot make any other security concessions” will be the slogan, and I am sorry to say, many proponents of the deal will be receptive. Let us call it “AIPAC Plan B1”.

      AIPAC Plan B2 will be to collect some scalps, contribute to electoral defeats of insolent Senators and Congressmen. I think that the might of AIPAC is in a large part caused by a few scalp collecting successes. Only when that fails AIPAC will weaken. And while there are good chances that the electoral pendulum will swing to Democrats, even if it is far from certain yet. The collateral damage would be an official split of the “pro-Israel lobby”, e.g. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has a chance to become a hero of J-Street.

  11. RobertHenryEller
    September 3, 2015, 9:05 am

    Let us please remember that preventing the GOP, AIPAC and Likud (if indeed we can or should continue to think of them as separate entities) from blocking the Iran agreement is but a tiny battle victory. We have not won the war.

    Just as with the GOP and “Obamacare,” or with reproductive choice, or with voting rights, the war is far from over, if indeed it will ever be over. The lobby for “military solutions” is far from being mortally damaged. GOP, AIPAC, Likud are not going away. In fact, they are all just gearing up for the 2016 elections.

    I fully expect that if AIPAC and Likud do not believe they can get what they want from Democrats, they will be campaigning heavily against Democrats, or at least those they think they cannot control.

    • CigarGod
      September 3, 2015, 9:56 am

      Yes…and they appeal to such a deep and wide mob. The Right gets more and more vocal. They openly advocate disrespect for elected offices. We see their constituencies taking action daily. They havent even gotten started yet.

  12. ckg
    September 3, 2015, 10:44 am

    Oh dear. After Gwen Ifill’s tweet, Netanyahu’s supporters flooded the inbox of PBS ombudsman Michael Getler. Getler then wrote a post criticizing the tweet as “inexcusable”. Chris Christie said Ifill should “be ashamed of herself.”

    • Boomer
      September 3, 2015, 3:19 pm

      I’ve always liked Gwen Ifill; now I have another reason. Gentler is inexcusable. Christie should be ashamed of himself.

    • irishmoses
      September 3, 2015, 4:41 pm

      I really like Gwen Ifill who’s the best of the best on PBS, but I thought her tweet was way too partisan for someone in her position. Stupid mistake on her part. Hope she survives the very staged uproar.

      Who does she think she is criticizing our nation’s prime minister?

      • DaBakr
        September 6, 2015, 11:01 pm


        she’ll survive, with accolades. As will Corey make up to his constituents. If they chose to hold a grudge they’d be cutting their own noses off as Booker is top rate material. Both for becoming more powerful and as a candidate. He may be smarter then BO and doesn’t carry the ‘extreme’ left wing baggage that dogs O.

  13. irishmoses
    September 3, 2015, 4:26 pm

    Corey Booker just came aboard. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/new-jersey/2015/09/8575961/booker-backs-iran-deal-after-months-deliberation-pressure

    That’s big, huge. He was under incredible pressure from Shmuley, et al.

    I’m worried about complacency. I think it’s critical that there be a big cushion of votes to override a veto because Iran may do something stupid that allows marginally committed senators to change their votes, particularly after seeing the threats from their constituents after making their commitment to the deal.

    I also think there will need to be a healthy cushion for any attempt to prevent the bill from getting to Obama. Those who are marginally committed to the deal may seek to placate their angry constituents by not supporting the filibuster.

    It ain’t over til it’s over.

    • irishmoses
      September 3, 2015, 4:46 pm

      You can add senators Heidekamp and Warner to the pro-deal side. They just announced.


      It’s a good time to announce for those trying to lay low and avoid criticism. Pre-Labor Day weekend.

      • irishmoses
        September 3, 2015, 4:49 pm

        Schumer, Israel’s Shomer must be feeling really lonely about now. His vote is sticking out like a sore thumb.

    • CigarGod
      September 3, 2015, 4:47 pm

      Yeah, the Right in Iran could do something. But, so could a little wrecking crew from Israel.

    • Kay24
      September 3, 2015, 6:11 pm

      I am glad Cory Booker finally decided to do the right thing for his President and country.

      I like to think my emails to him worked. :))

      • CigarGod
        September 3, 2015, 8:58 pm

        Could be…or it could have been the Booker Puppet I sent him. The one with Shumleys hand up his skirt;-)

      • Kay24
        September 3, 2015, 9:56 pm

        Ha ha CigarGod, hope you sent it to the others in Congress too, especially the Republicans.

  14. Pixel
    September 4, 2015, 2:23 pm

    Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran [an AIPAC group] is putting down more than $80,000 this week in the Washington, D.C., market. On Tuesday evening, AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr was to drive up I-95 to rally against the Iran deal in Pikesville, an influential Jewish population center outside Cardin’s hometown of Baltimore.

    What’s most telling to me about this Politico piece is that nowhere in it was the AIPAC acronym “spelled out”.

    You know a watershed moment’s been reached when AIPAC is as well known by a single word as Cher, Kanye, and Brangelina.

  15. Mooser
    September 6, 2015, 11:25 am

    Did I see this morning, from a report about an hour or so ago, that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has changed her mind, and will vote for the Iran Accord? This was before my coffee,(and I hadn’t even ‘fixed’ yet) so I’m not sure.

    • just
      September 6, 2015, 11:36 am

      Yep. From Kay24:

      “Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to VOTE FOR THE IRAN DEAL. YES!

      She was in tears on CNN this morning with Jake Tapper. She said it was a hard choice, but after speaking to so many experts decided this is the best. She says she is a “Jewish mother” who cares for Israel. I am glad she did the right thing for the US this time.”

      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments#sthash.OQaVHZeR.dpuf

      • Mooser
        September 6, 2015, 11:41 am

        “She was in tears on CNN this morning”

        That’s why the eyeliner goes on top, Debbie.

      • just
        September 6, 2015, 11:50 am


        Done with only <1 cup of coffee, too! Bravo, mooser.

  16. John Fearey
    September 8, 2015, 12:08 pm

    I spoke to Sen. Blumenthal’s office today and asked what was taking him so long to come out in support of the agreement. They said he announced his support this morning.

    • Kay24
      September 8, 2015, 2:18 pm

      It seems he decided not to go to the dark side :))

      Three Democratic senators announced Tuesday they will vote in support of the nuclear deal with Iran, appearing to pave the way for a filibuster of Republican-led attempts to disapprove of the controversial agreement.

      Pro-deal statements from Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) mean 41 senators are now publicly backing the deal, enough to keep a disapproval resolution from emerging from the Senate and making its way to President Obama’s desk and forcing a veto.

      A fourth Democrat making an announcement Tuesday morning, Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), said he would vote to disapprove of the deal.


Leave a Reply