If I were living back in New York again, I wouldn't vote for the senator from the State of Israel, Mr. Schumer. America must come first. In fact, Obama's deal will probably save Israel from obliteration.
8
In addition to negotiators from the US, England, Germany, France, Russia, and China, 29 top US scientists and Nobel laureates have read the agreement and praise it. What sort of expertise does Chuck Schumer bring to the table that says they are all wrong? Has he thought of the consequences of not supporting the deal? His decision not to support the president is reckless, dangerous, and disappointing.
12
Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.
The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation’s allies to support the agreement. (NYT)
The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation’s allies to support the agreement. (NYT)
8
What is true of Republican opposition to the Iran nuclear deal is true of all Republican opposition, the Affordable Care Act, women's right to choose, marriage equality, wage equality, and so many others (remember the Transportation Bill to assist in rebuilding America's roads and bridges), their arguments are gossamer threads. Their historical revision is notorious and corrosive. They lionize Ronald Reagan and talk about how tough he was on the Soviets but their fantasies about nuclear arms negotiations with Gorbachev are absent any truth. They oppose the Iran deal because they are unwilling to grant any Democratic Administration a foreign policy achievement even if that achievement makes the U.S. and the world a safer place. Netanyahu is so eager to bomb Iran nuclear facilities he has trouble staying behind his podium. And the same people who oppose a diplomatic solution now will be banging the drums of war in a year or less.
9
Schumer believes the agreement is a bad one and I agree.
He gave his reasons and they are very convincing .
The comments made here are saying he has no right to disagree with Obama
and agree with Natanyahu as if he can only be against the agreement because he is listening to Natanyahu.
Even Obama admits this is not a good agreement but he believes it's better than no agreement.
He might be right but he can also be wrong and Schumer has not only the right but the responsibility to come to a position based on what evidence he had
Like I said he gives his reasons and even if you believe he is wrong you have to admit the reasons he gives are very valid and that he has access
to information we do not have and could be basing his position on things you do not know and that he can not tell us because they are secret.
He gave his reasons and they are very convincing .
The comments made here are saying he has no right to disagree with Obama
and agree with Natanyahu as if he can only be against the agreement because he is listening to Natanyahu.
Even Obama admits this is not a good agreement but he believes it's better than no agreement.
He might be right but he can also be wrong and Schumer has not only the right but the responsibility to come to a position based on what evidence he had
Like I said he gives his reasons and even if you believe he is wrong you have to admit the reasons he gives are very valid and that he has access
to information we do not have and could be basing his position on things you do not know and that he can not tell us because they are secret.
7
Does anyone else remember when John F. Kennedy vowed that he would always work on behalf of the American people and American interests, and the Vatican? Well, Chuck should be reminded that he is to work on behalf of American people and interests, and not for the benefit of Tel Aviv or, especially, uber-hawk Bibi Netanyahu.
10
- Nuclear Iran is a United State problem and this should be motivate you to act, Mr. Schumer
- Deep in his psyche the President has the conviction that if we JUST ALL SIT TOGETHER and TALK THINGS OVER there is nothing we cannot solve.. Iran problem included
- John Kerry on the Iran agreement:
o “I would respectfully suggest that rejection is not a policy for the future, it does not offer any alternative."
o “They all say, ‘Oh, why don’t you crush them by sanctions?’ I’ll tell you why, because they won’t be crushed by sanctions. That’s been proven.”
Really, no alternative Mr. Secretary!?
How about continuing sanctions imposed in 2006 by UN Security Council? Yes, sanctions work very slowly.
The more uranium Iran would accumulate, the more the world would be convinced the necessity for imposing end-to-end sanctions on Iran.
The pressure would lead – as it has lead now – to a different kind of agreement with Iran; do we really need “crushing” of Iran?!
Netanyahu may “congratulate” himself on the urgency he introduced to resolve the issue, and the consequences (current agreement)
- Deep in his psyche the President has the conviction that if we JUST ALL SIT TOGETHER and TALK THINGS OVER there is nothing we cannot solve.. Iran problem included
- John Kerry on the Iran agreement:
o “I would respectfully suggest that rejection is not a policy for the future, it does not offer any alternative."
o “They all say, ‘Oh, why don’t you crush them by sanctions?’ I’ll tell you why, because they won’t be crushed by sanctions. That’s been proven.”
Really, no alternative Mr. Secretary!?
How about continuing sanctions imposed in 2006 by UN Security Council? Yes, sanctions work very slowly.
The more uranium Iran would accumulate, the more the world would be convinced the necessity for imposing end-to-end sanctions on Iran.
The pressure would lead – as it has lead now – to a different kind of agreement with Iran; do we really need “crushing” of Iran?!
Netanyahu may “congratulate” himself on the urgency he introduced to resolve the issue, and the consequences (current agreement)
1
Regardless of whether Netanyahu and AIPAC defeat peace with Iran, it has become abundantly clear that Schumer is not a Democrat.
If Schumer chosen as the leader of the Democratic senators, the Senate will be functionally a one-party chamber obeying Wall Street on domestic matters and Tel Aviv on international affairs.
Schumer is to the Democratic Party what Trump is to the Republican Party - a Trojan horse.
If Schumer chosen as the leader of the Democratic senators, the Senate will be functionally a one-party chamber obeying Wall Street on domestic matters and Tel Aviv on international affairs.
Schumer is to the Democratic Party what Trump is to the Republican Party - a Trojan horse.
9
Israel's Puppet - Once again. Senator Chuck Schumer.
Wrong on IRAQ and Wrong on the IRAN Agreement.
This is becoming a clear debate between those who want to give diplomacy a chance worldwide and those whose first choice is to pull the trigger. Look where the military First, My Way or the Highway approach has gotten us.
We are not and should never be afraid to go to war when the circumstances dictate. And do not think for a minute that this diplomatic effort has reduced one iota our ability to cyber-strike, bomb or whatever . . . . . And by the way . . . who weaponizes the Israeli Missle Shield? That's right Good Old USA.
It's more than curious that the cheerleading leader for us to hit IRAQ was none other than BiBi, or Mt.Netanyahoo. Schumer was in a prime position to recognize the fallacy of the evidence at the time, and has shown his true colors once again.
Wrong on IRAQ and Wrong on the IRAN Agreement.
This is becoming a clear debate between those who want to give diplomacy a chance worldwide and those whose first choice is to pull the trigger. Look where the military First, My Way or the Highway approach has gotten us.
We are not and should never be afraid to go to war when the circumstances dictate. And do not think for a minute that this diplomatic effort has reduced one iota our ability to cyber-strike, bomb or whatever . . . . . And by the way . . . who weaponizes the Israeli Missle Shield? That's right Good Old USA.
It's more than curious that the cheerleading leader for us to hit IRAQ was none other than BiBi, or Mt.Netanyahoo. Schumer was in a prime position to recognize the fallacy of the evidence at the time, and has shown his true colors once again.
8
Too bad he didn't muster enough courage to oppose the second Iraq war. He was so gullible and believed the lies of the Bush/Cheney crowd.
7
Again, what is the alternative? Our co-negotiators have accepted the agreement so America would stand alone. Sanctions would still ease and our trustworthiness in the world will diminish again. And Iran will get the bomb even more quickly.
4
This issue is shaping up to be as divisive as maneuvering to ram the ACA, and that was with an undivided Democratic government. Today, a solid plurality of the American public rejects this deal, with some demographics, such as Jews and the young, very heavily disfavoring it. If the Syrian red-line decisions by Mr. Obama had been put to the same tests, how many would have agreed with his positions that have proven so wrong since Assad used chlorine and sarin gases on civilians AFTER making such a show of “destroying” his stockpiles? The public uproar against the Syrian deal was as intense as it is against Iran today.
This is not an administration that fashions public consensus behind carefully developed policy. It dictates and enforces policy OVER its rejection by both Congress and the people … and is proven wrong afterwards. And now it’s as certain about Iran as it was about Syria.
What happens in 2017 if Republicans install Jeb Bush or another Republican as president? What are the issues that, given these VERY dangerous precedents, would divide the country but could be rammed by an insistent president on the right – and might even be wrong?
It may be too late to avoid the further polarization of our politics by insistent executive authority that pays no heed to legitimate disagreement, based on facts – ask Chuck Schumer if the disagreement isn’t based on facts. But Mr. Obama should make an effort, and re-open the Iran deal to far more careful consideration.
This is not an administration that fashions public consensus behind carefully developed policy. It dictates and enforces policy OVER its rejection by both Congress and the people … and is proven wrong afterwards. And now it’s as certain about Iran as it was about Syria.
What happens in 2017 if Republicans install Jeb Bush or another Republican as president? What are the issues that, given these VERY dangerous precedents, would divide the country but could be rammed by an insistent president on the right – and might even be wrong?
It may be too late to avoid the further polarization of our politics by insistent executive authority that pays no heed to legitimate disagreement, based on facts – ask Chuck Schumer if the disagreement isn’t based on facts. But Mr. Obama should make an effort, and re-open the Iran deal to far more careful consideration.
3
I see this whole thing as a tempest in a teapot. No one has yet presented an argument that could convince anyone thinking clearly that Iran having the bomb, or even dozens of bombs would be a danger to anyone. At present there are at least eight, and probably more, countries that possess the bomb, and none of them would ever dare use it unless they were intent on national suicide. There is always the possibility that some country's government would fall into the hands of an insane clique that might use it as a last resort, but there are other candidates, including Israel, that are more likely to do that than Iran. The Iranian mullahs are religious fanatics, but they are neither insane nor stupid.
3
Other than hanging self-serving window dressing for the 2016 election cycle, Congress can do very little to stop the nuclear agreement, and I'm convinced that they don't actually want to see the agreement overturned. Disavowal would create a precedent too terrible to consider for the future of American diplomacy, and it would permanently weaken the Presidency for all future holders of the office. The rest of this is just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
2
Mr. Schumer, as a proud New Yorker, I'm very disappointed in you. When there's vast agreement across the political spectrum within the international community in favor of the nuclear deal, then you know that Obama's (and the rest of the negotiators) at least doing something right here. Between the British, Germans, Russians, Chinese, the IAEA, countless scientists and arms control experts, almost everyone (except the neo-reactionary wing of the US and Israeli governments) is one board with this. Even the CIA and Mossad have broken ranks with Netanyahu on this one. But by opposing this deal, you sir, have just endangered the chance for a detente in the Middle East (at least between Iran, Israel, and the United States) even more so.
12
Senator Schumer seems more willing to follow Mr. Netanyahu than he is the POTUS. A shame he has greater allegiance to Israel than his own country.
11
The disgrace is that Obama has more loyalty to Iran than America
2
I've voted for Schumer every time, but never again. A US Senator should be doing what's best for the USA, not taking marching orders from the Israel lobby.
14
Israel is a foreign nation.. The job of an American politician is to represent citizens of The United States, not the citizens of foreign countries, least of all a foreign government that sent their leader to America to wag his finger in our presidents face, lecture him, and further to ramp up their countries lobbyist to bribe our politicians. It's past time to cut them loose from US $$$.
12
Obama has decided that it is good for America that Iran's economy be revived. This will enable Iran to support the continued transfer to 5 continents of Arms and revolutionary Guardsman and their terroristic extreme Islamic doctrine.
Obama and Kerry for some strange unknown reason believe that 100 mega tons of smaller ordinance and ballistic missiles, bioweapons and chemical weapons aimed at Americans and our democratic allies on several continents are better than one 100 megaton nuclear weapon.
Makes Chamberlain look like a real smart Statesman, eh?
Obama and Kerry for some strange unknown reason believe that 100 mega tons of smaller ordinance and ballistic missiles, bioweapons and chemical weapons aimed at Americans and our democratic allies on several continents are better than one 100 megaton nuclear weapon.
Makes Chamberlain look like a real smart Statesman, eh?
6
I agree those who condemn IRAN for being a theocracy that is seeking nuclear weapons. What about other theocracies? Like in Israel for example. Sure, the government right now is not a theocracy, but it does cater to those ultra right wing settlers who go around the conquered area killing and torching.
Israel has nuclear weapons, according to most sources. What if in the future, religious parties in Israel manage to win the elections, and ultimately control Israel's nuclear forces? How many people here who decry Iran's ambitions, will come forward and demand sanctions against Israel?
Israel has nuclear weapons, according to most sources. What if in the future, religious parties in Israel manage to win the elections, and ultimately control Israel's nuclear forces? How many people here who decry Iran's ambitions, will come forward and demand sanctions against Israel?
4
Schumer's decision to object to the Obama admin's (good) deal is based on facts, not Republican hysteria a la "24 days too late". He thinks that Iran will get the bomb in 10 years, until which time he thinks Iran gets 57 Bio $ right away and much more oil money which they can use to support Hezbollah and threaten Israel. That, I am afraid, could be true (although the Iranian society needs the oil money much more, so I am unsure how much of a boon this really will be to Hezbollah). The treaty stops atomic bombs to be built right now but is also a gamble on how the Iranian society will look like in 10 years. Schumer doesn't have an alternative (he won't say: "go to war") and rejecting the plan will accomplish nothing but I think he's got the right to object on these grounds. The Democratic New Yorker will now have to consider where Mr. Schumer's loyalties lie, of course.
7
Was with you right up until your last sentence. Was that innuendo/smear really necessary?
4
I am very, very disappointed in my senator, Chuck Schumer, I wish he would reconsider his decision and support the agreement.
10
Schumer has perhaps sacrificed his becoming Democratic leader in the Senate in order to vote against an agreement which has a small -short - term advantage but long- term is bound to be detrimental to the United States.
7
"sacrificed his becoming Democratic leader"
Well, you and I agree on that one statement.
Well, you and I agree on that one statement.
1
What about a Democratic opponent against the Senator? He does not own the NY Senate seat. Schumer needs to know that a whole of democrats do not like his stand on the deal with Iran.
12
Former Senator George Mitchell makes good points in a recent Boston Globe article:
"If Congress rejects the agreement, the sanctions will go from universal and effective to unilateral and ineffective. So those clamoring for an increase in sanctions will get the opposite of what they say they want. The hard reality is that the sanctions are going to erode over time."
What, exactly, do deal critics think China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK are going to do if "Congress rejects the agreement?" Change their minds too? Of course not. I'll be the first to concede sanctions have worked (they must have, given how many concessions Iran made). But they're crumbling. Obama knows that. Kerry knows that. Iran knows that. Everybody who pays close attention knows that. The US negotiators (and here I credit Wendy Sherman and her team more than Kerry, though Kerry and Moniz certainly deserve credit too) did a great job, and this deal deserves to go forward. (It WILL go forward, whether it deserves to or not, but it deserves to.)
"If Congress rejects the agreement, the sanctions will go from universal and effective to unilateral and ineffective. So those clamoring for an increase in sanctions will get the opposite of what they say they want. The hard reality is that the sanctions are going to erode over time."
What, exactly, do deal critics think China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK are going to do if "Congress rejects the agreement?" Change their minds too? Of course not. I'll be the first to concede sanctions have worked (they must have, given how many concessions Iran made). But they're crumbling. Obama knows that. Kerry knows that. Iran knows that. Everybody who pays close attention knows that. The US negotiators (and here I credit Wendy Sherman and her team more than Kerry, though Kerry and Moniz certainly deserve credit too) did a great job, and this deal deserves to go forward. (It WILL go forward, whether it deserves to or not, but it deserves to.)
10
Mr Shumer, AIPAC, Israel and other opponents to the Iran deal know that there is only one way to make a Nation Surrenders, that's by going to War.
Negotiation on the other hand is and always be a win- win situation.
By asking for a better deal that they know Iran will never agree on, opponents of the agreement are indirectly advocating for War.
So Senator Shumer after the Iraq war vote, just indirectly voted for the Iran war. Shame on him.
Negotiation on the other hand is and always be a win- win situation.
By asking for a better deal that they know Iran will never agree on, opponents of the agreement are indirectly advocating for War.
So Senator Shumer after the Iraq war vote, just indirectly voted for the Iran war. Shame on him.
11
This kind of contortion seems to happen every time Israel wants something that may harm the US. I guess we are anointed Israel's protector but maybe it's time we let them determine their own future and just back away. Their leaders stated they can protect the country on their own. Let them.
9
The international system has witnessed dramatic changes in the recent past. Questions relating to how and when ordinary citizens can stand against oppression, injustice, and abuse without resorting to violence challenge all of us to rethink our understanding of international peace and conflict.
As citizens, we must examine our role in this increasingly complex global picture. What can we do to nurture and preserve international security and world peace? One thing is certain. We must make sure our representatives in Congress have access to the best available information about the issues surrounding peace, justice, freedom, and security. We cannot accept that the political power of the very wealthy and organized political and business interests reached levels that undermine our legitimate expectations of democracy and good governance.
As citizens, we must examine our role in this increasingly complex global picture. What can we do to nurture and preserve international security and world peace? One thing is certain. We must make sure our representatives in Congress have access to the best available information about the issues surrounding peace, justice, freedom, and security. We cannot accept that the political power of the very wealthy and organized political and business interests reached levels that undermine our legitimate expectations of democracy and good governance.
4
If Schumer becomes minority leader, I will no longer consider myself a Democrat. I will be looking for a 3rd party.
6
It's people like Chuck Schumer who give fifth columns a bad name.
5
Why not back the Iran nuclear deal? There is nothing to loose because there is ALWAYS time for war. Naturally it seems that the pro-war party, largely the GOP, are opposed to the deal. In the case of Schumer I sure hope that his religion didn't play into his decision making. Religion should never enter into the decisions of a sectarian state such as the United States, or at least what used to be a sectarian state.
3
"It was not clear how hard Mr. Schumer intended to press colleagues to move against the deal, and many Democrats suggested that he had stated his opposition only after the deal appeared safe."
- And if Democrats are saying this, it would not surprise me. Senator Schumer is doing much the same as Senator Reid did during the last Congress, voting to preserve some future course of action, or showing off for his constituents while knowing that his 'position' will not jeopardize the President's plan.
- And if Democrats are saying this, it would not surprise me. Senator Schumer is doing much the same as Senator Reid did during the last Congress, voting to preserve some future course of action, or showing off for his constituents while knowing that his 'position' will not jeopardize the President's plan.
Does Neville Chamberlain come to mind? Death to America? That's who we will trust? Who says this is our battle? Turn down this giveaway and help arm the opponents. They will deal with this once and for all.
4
as a declared opposition proponent and self-proclaimed leader of same and "defender/shomer" of israel, senator schumer owes the county he swore to serve a thoroughly reasoned position paper framing the iran deal as its conditions (not his opinions) demonstrate, against his considered view of the middle east situation - it's politics, its history (including the anglo-american role in their development), etc. and then his opinion why, all things thoroughly considered, the deal is not in the best interests of this country (which may include israel's survival as well as the potential for loss of american lives should the "war-footing" get legs)...bumperstickers in this matter are just irresponsible.
2
Sen Schumer's decision is wise and patriotic. Nuclear war is a 100% certainty if Obama's surrender is not stopped
8
I wonder if AIPAC ever considered spending some of their millions aiding the poor and destitute in Palestine?
The saddest prospect is that if and when another war in the Middle East comes, Israel will fully expect American soldiers to fight it for them. We have become a proxy nation as Senator Schumer sees it.....
The saddest prospect is that if and when another war in the Middle East comes, Israel will fully expect American soldiers to fight it for them. We have become a proxy nation as Senator Schumer sees it.....
11
Fight it for them? No. We wont and the Israelis know this and there is no such expectation. Isolating Israel with redound poorly. They will defend themselves, Iran will be embarrassed and so will the US.
The Israelis already open their hospitals to Palestinians.
The reality of ISIS, status of Afghanistan, stupendous rise of China and its new found access to Persian gulf and Red sea via Pakistan; all these and other developments have to be taken into weighed in the policy on Iran.
Iranians are among the more educated and less conservative people in West Asia. They have been long standing allies of US, one of the seminal events in formation of UN Charter was Tehran conference. Iranian democracy, though a developing one by US standards, is one of the more mature ones in the region. Voting out an extreme government in favor of a moderate dispensation, peacefully is a splendid achievement. It makes room for not only peace but also amity with us.
Then there is India factor. India took big risks in affirming the sanctions, in process its only access to Afghanistan via Iran could have been blocked by Iranians, however it did not happen. The Indian policy on Iran, historically very friendly and rich with longstanding legacy, is poised to firm up dramatically, providing Israel and US with several new means to deal in civil and non-contending terms with Iran. Iran participation in energy markets and the beneficial impact in reducing price and supply risks is consequently considerable.
Israel position will be weakened to some extent such that the maximalist stances would be difficult, thereby making it more probable for two-state settlement with few give-and-take considerations, as Prez Obama has already stated.
Iranians are among the more educated and less conservative people in West Asia. They have been long standing allies of US, one of the seminal events in formation of UN Charter was Tehran conference. Iranian democracy, though a developing one by US standards, is one of the more mature ones in the region. Voting out an extreme government in favor of a moderate dispensation, peacefully is a splendid achievement. It makes room for not only peace but also amity with us.
Then there is India factor. India took big risks in affirming the sanctions, in process its only access to Afghanistan via Iran could have been blocked by Iranians, however it did not happen. The Indian policy on Iran, historically very friendly and rich with longstanding legacy, is poised to firm up dramatically, providing Israel and US with several new means to deal in civil and non-contending terms with Iran. Iran participation in energy markets and the beneficial impact in reducing price and supply risks is consequently considerable.
Israel position will be weakened to some extent such that the maximalist stances would be difficult, thereby making it more probable for two-state settlement with few give-and-take considerations, as Prez Obama has already stated.
9
That's exactly what the aipac lobbying and dust-up is really about - an increase in middle-east accord translates to less leverage for Israel to maintain the status quo of conflict and instability. Along the same lines, I wouldn't be surprised to see the American arms manufacturer, military contractor, and petroleum lobbies behind most of the no votes.
It's pointless to speculate about Schumer's vote - he's obviously not impervious to the power of his lobbying constituents and Israel. Is he acting against the sovereignty and domestic safety of the USA - that's up to voters to decide.
We need to always question the motives for War. Instability in the Middle East has created innumerable, continual and growing problems for the US. I have seen too many maimed vets. It's time to promote cooperation, containment and diplomacy outside of our exclusive relationship with Israel.
And, I always trust the opinion of the nobel-prize Physicist over the politician, priest, and corporate war interest.
It's pointless to speculate about Schumer's vote - he's obviously not impervious to the power of his lobbying constituents and Israel. Is he acting against the sovereignty and domestic safety of the USA - that's up to voters to decide.
We need to always question the motives for War. Instability in the Middle East has created innumerable, continual and growing problems for the US. I have seen too many maimed vets. It's time to promote cooperation, containment and diplomacy outside of our exclusive relationship with Israel.
And, I always trust the opinion of the nobel-prize Physicist over the politician, priest, and corporate war interest.
All of the arguments against accepting this deal are based on a deep distrust of Iran: "they are lying about building a bomb, they will cheat during the agreement, they will get the bomb and will assuredly use it against Israel". So, if people think along these lines, it is inevitable that they will be against any deal. They seem to think that doing atomic research on the sly
is like copying secrets on a machine which can readily be hidden.
So, having 140 or so atomic inspector in Iran, controlling the elements needed to make a bomb, from retrieval, to transportation, to use, to inspection and for 15 or so years is not sufficient to allay suspicions. They would rather continue with the inevitable conflict , with no inspection at all, and leave Iran free to continue their research which will eventually produce a bomb o a war.
I can understand political opposition but not Schumer's decision. He shows an all or nothing propensity which is not a sign of prudent leadership. He forgets that Iran is a sovereign nation that is willing (or forced) to negotiate but not to surrender. He undoubtedly had doubts on his own but he has caved in to the huge pressure that has been practiced on him. A big error that marks his limitations and which will haunt him throughout his political career.
is like copying secrets on a machine which can readily be hidden.
So, having 140 or so atomic inspector in Iran, controlling the elements needed to make a bomb, from retrieval, to transportation, to use, to inspection and for 15 or so years is not sufficient to allay suspicions. They would rather continue with the inevitable conflict , with no inspection at all, and leave Iran free to continue their research which will eventually produce a bomb o a war.
I can understand political opposition but not Schumer's decision. He shows an all or nothing propensity which is not a sign of prudent leadership. He forgets that Iran is a sovereign nation that is willing (or forced) to negotiate but not to surrender. He undoubtedly had doubts on his own but he has caved in to the huge pressure that has been practiced on him. A big error that marks his limitations and which will haunt him throughout his political career.
17
Schumer prefers preserving the status quo? Doesn't seem to me anything good's come out of those frozen hostlities for, well, a good half century now. Even a fool should be able to see that it's time to try something other than hate and perpetually waving the big stick.
20
David brooks too says we are already at war with Iran. What are these guys smoking?
1
They're smoking a thing called the Truth
I respect Senator Schumer’s right to his opinion. But he has an obligation to share his reasoning with us. This, apparently, is not forthcoming. Thus we have a wide collection of conspiracy theories totally justified in the absence of any explanation. Senator Schumer, whatever your reasoning, share it with us so we may have an informed debate.
2
How about a simple rationale that Israel's demands should always trump US security interests?
1
I can't honestly say I've lost all respect for Sen. Schumer. But I can most emphatically say I've lost a great deal of respect for him. Kowtowing to Israel and AIPAC is bad enough. But to do so when it contravenes America's best interests and world peace is both despicable and unforgivable. That a man who has done so much good and stood for much that is decent and positive about America would do this is so disheartening, I cannot get my mind around it.
So what if there are the minor flaws in the pact with Iran, it is still unquestionably a better deal for those of us who oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions than (a) any alternative deal that is reasonably possible if this one is rejected by Congress; and (b) no deal.
As to the first reality, Schumer is fantasizing if he thinks the Iranians will return to the negotiating table, let alone accept worse terms. Putting aside their understandable anger in that event, they know that the negotiating unity of the other nations that signed on to this deal will evaporate once the US rejects it. Schumer can kiss our only meaningful bargaining chip, the current sanctions, goodbye as Russia, China and France separate themselves from the madness of the US. That would leaves us/Israel with only one bargaining chip: military force.
Does Schumer honestly think the Iranians, with their pride and history, will cave in if armed force is threatened, or if used that war will not ensue? If so, he is not only a tool of Israel, but also a fool.
So what if there are the minor flaws in the pact with Iran, it is still unquestionably a better deal for those of us who oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions than (a) any alternative deal that is reasonably possible if this one is rejected by Congress; and (b) no deal.
As to the first reality, Schumer is fantasizing if he thinks the Iranians will return to the negotiating table, let alone accept worse terms. Putting aside their understandable anger in that event, they know that the negotiating unity of the other nations that signed on to this deal will evaporate once the US rejects it. Schumer can kiss our only meaningful bargaining chip, the current sanctions, goodbye as Russia, China and France separate themselves from the madness of the US. That would leaves us/Israel with only one bargaining chip: military force.
Does Schumer honestly think the Iranians, with their pride and history, will cave in if armed force is threatened, or if used that war will not ensue? If so, he is not only a tool of Israel, but also a fool.
24
Good for Senator Schumer. It's time for people in both parties do what they feel best for America and not for their party partisans. Whether I agree with him or not - he did take a stand and a courageous one that he will likely pay very heavily for. The partisan hacks will not be amused - in fact - they have no humor at all.
9
Dancing to AIPAC' tune is "courageous?" It's time to exposed the money-fueled grip the Jewish Lobby has on Congress. The puny and spineless GOP senators and congressmen who fear AIPAC's wrath and who are willing, yet again, to let Israel's demands override U.S security interests should be condemned. Schumer, Levin, Cardin, Blumenthal, Feinstein, Wyden, et al, can be expected to carry out the directives from AIPAC and Netanyahu. Meanwhile, the weapons-makers and neocons look on with glee....
2
"The Republicans present this as if the big bad Iranians got Kerry in a room and confused and disoriented him."
That's exactly what people said about Woodrow Wilson when he showed up in the US with the peace treaty he'd negotiated in Versailles. And the Senate rejected that treaty, even though a great deal of Wilson's feel-good "14 Points" had been weeded out at the behest of the European horse traders that Wilson had contended with.
One big difference this time, though, as Obama is well aware. Wilson needed Senate approval; Obama doesn't. This deal will go through unless its opponents can must a 67% vote against it in both houses of Congress. That won't happen, as Obama knows and Schumer knows.
Wilson was stuck. Obama didn't want to get stuck. So he negotiated the "Congress review" deal several months back when, it appears, the deal critics didn't fully appreciate just how difficult that deal would make it for opponents to block this deal.
That's exactly what people said about Woodrow Wilson when he showed up in the US with the peace treaty he'd negotiated in Versailles. And the Senate rejected that treaty, even though a great deal of Wilson's feel-good "14 Points" had been weeded out at the behest of the European horse traders that Wilson had contended with.
One big difference this time, though, as Obama is well aware. Wilson needed Senate approval; Obama doesn't. This deal will go through unless its opponents can must a 67% vote against it in both houses of Congress. That won't happen, as Obama knows and Schumer knows.
Wilson was stuck. Obama didn't want to get stuck. So he negotiated the "Congress review" deal several months back when, it appears, the deal critics didn't fully appreciate just how difficult that deal would make it for opponents to block this deal.
2
Woodrow Wilson's negotiations, at the end of WW I, required Germany to pay huge reparations to France. Many scholars think this led to WW II.
" Getting rid of Hussein was supposed to make the area safer - it did the opposite."
Indisputably.
Would you say ISIS in 2015 is a bigger threat to America than Saddam Hussein was in 2002? I'd say so. And according to Dexter Filkins (a former NYT writer, so what he writes must be true) in a lengthy New Yorker article in late 2014, nearly all top ISIS commanders are former officers from Saddam's army. Remember -- the army that Paul Bremer disbanded so that its members couldn't cause us any trouble?
Indisputably.
Would you say ISIS in 2015 is a bigger threat to America than Saddam Hussein was in 2002? I'd say so. And according to Dexter Filkins (a former NYT writer, so what he writes must be true) in a lengthy New Yorker article in late 2014, nearly all top ISIS commanders are former officers from Saddam's army. Remember -- the army that Paul Bremer disbanded so that its members couldn't cause us any trouble?
17
Didn't Obama promise us that his removing Quadaffi from power in Libya would bring peace? Instead Obama handed Libya over to ISIS, just like he did with Iraq
Several commenters have referred to this deal as the "Iran treaty." Apparently it's less than that, and that's important.
Treaties require Senate approval. This deal doesn't –– which means (as many critics are quick to explain) that any successor to Obama can just walk away from it. (I'll believe that will actually happen when I see it happen.)
Being a lawyer, I was surprised when Obama cut his "review" deal with Congress a few months ago, which requires Congress to muster enough votes to override Obama's promised veto -- quite a bit different from "no deal UNLESS the Senate approves," which would have been the case if this were a "treaty." I figured then that Obama must have counted the votes and knew Congress would never override his veto. His vote-counting appears to have been accurate (Schumer notwithstanding -- in fact, my strong hunch is that Obama always counted Schumer as a "no" vote).
THAT was when the fate of this deal was sealed.
Treaties require Senate approval. This deal doesn't –– which means (as many critics are quick to explain) that any successor to Obama can just walk away from it. (I'll believe that will actually happen when I see it happen.)
Being a lawyer, I was surprised when Obama cut his "review" deal with Congress a few months ago, which requires Congress to muster enough votes to override Obama's promised veto -- quite a bit different from "no deal UNLESS the Senate approves," which would have been the case if this were a "treaty." I figured then that Obama must have counted the votes and knew Congress would never override his veto. His vote-counting appears to have been accurate (Schumer notwithstanding -- in fact, my strong hunch is that Obama always counted Schumer as a "no" vote).
THAT was when the fate of this deal was sealed.
8
The GOP is duping their base. Remember when the original outline was released. All of the experts were frankly amazed that the outline was that strong. This worried the GOP. No way did they want to give Obama an easy win on foreign policy since they have been against everything he has done for six years, but they also really did not want to kill the deal. What did they do? They came up with the Corker bill. They knew that their chance of overriding a presidential veto was virtually non existent. The Corker bill gave them two things. One: The agreement would almost certainly pass. Two: They could scream and holler and gin up the base for 2016. This was really quite smart considering that the base still hasn't caught on. They are willing to shut down the government for other things, but when they want you believe that the lives of millions of Americans hinge on this deal, they pass the Corker bill. It is pure politics. They have not presented one nuclear physicist or nuclear non-proliferation expert to back up their story. The take the month of August off when they say that the lives of millions hang in the balance. If you really think about it, they either duped the base or Obama has beaten them again. Neither one of these bods well for the GOP.
8
Schumer and other politicians in the NY state have a very large contribution and voter base that Israel supports. He is protecting his job and knows by coming out against it the fix is already in that the deal will go through. He will be able to point back and say see, I voted against, I tried. With politicans I just don't see alot of conscience its more about keeping their power and how best to make it look like they're on our side.
9
"I am for the Iran nuclear deal because it will probably keep the U.S. and Israel out of war with Iran during the accord's time frame."
And longer, I predict. If this deal DOESN'T go through (though it will), we'll know less about what Iran is doing than we'll know if the deal DOES go through. True, that doesn't mean we can't bomb Iran anyway -- as we did with Iraq in 2003 (sometimes you guess wrong, after all). But it would be nice to know ahead of time, for a change, whether we're justified in bombing some country, disbanding its army, and converting its Army officers into ISIS commanders.
With this deal, the odds of that happening are increased. If Iran cheats, we'll know it -- sooner -- and can bomb Iran then if we like. If Iran doesn't cheat, as I predict, by the time this deal ends, we'll know a lot more about Iran's nuclear program than we know today. We can cut a new deal then if we're still worried, or decide that maybe Iran isn't working on a bomb after all.
Either way, it makes much more sense to do this deal.
And longer, I predict. If this deal DOESN'T go through (though it will), we'll know less about what Iran is doing than we'll know if the deal DOES go through. True, that doesn't mean we can't bomb Iran anyway -- as we did with Iraq in 2003 (sometimes you guess wrong, after all). But it would be nice to know ahead of time, for a change, whether we're justified in bombing some country, disbanding its army, and converting its Army officers into ISIS commanders.
With this deal, the odds of that happening are increased. If Iran cheats, we'll know it -- sooner -- and can bomb Iran then if we like. If Iran doesn't cheat, as I predict, by the time this deal ends, we'll know a lot more about Iran's nuclear program than we know today. We can cut a new deal then if we're still worried, or decide that maybe Iran isn't working on a bomb after all.
Either way, it makes much more sense to do this deal.
14
If Aipac has all this money to run commercials on nearly every Television channel, then its supporter, Israel, obviously no longer needs our assistance. End all aid to Israel. It is sticking its nose in our foreign affairs. The Iran deal is good for the USA, Schumer should do what's best for us!
32
Preventing a nuclear Iran is in Americas best interest, which Sen Schumer's is doing by opposing Obama's surrender.
Funny you should mention money, in Obama's Iran surrender Iran will get more money than the U.S. has give Israel in its entire existence. Even Obama admits this money will fund terrorism
Funny you should mention money, in Obama's Iran surrender Iran will get more money than the U.S. has give Israel in its entire existence. Even Obama admits this money will fund terrorism
Amen! I am tired to death of having $3.5 billion dollars of our tax dollars going to this little, belligerent nation, just so that it can turn around and use those very same dollars to buy our Congress to do what ever it orders (read Sen. Schumer). BTW that's roughly $500 for every man, woman & child living in scarcely impoverished Israel. Compare that with less than $1 for each person living in truly impoverished Africa.
2
This may well be a very shrewd tactical move on Schumer's part; as a New York Senator he must keep the faith with the adamant and often militaristic Pro-Israel lobbies as well as kowtow to donors from the Wall Street war profiteer class.
By objecting to the Iran Treaty he appeases both groups yet perhaps knows full well that the Dems will block any Obama veto override bid by the GOP.
'tis called "havng one's cake and eating it too" which explains Schumer's long tenure as the Senator from NY - and likely Senate Majority Leader after 2016 election cycle.
By objecting to the Iran Treaty he appeases both groups yet perhaps knows full well that the Dems will block any Obama veto override bid by the GOP.
'tis called "havng one's cake and eating it too" which explains Schumer's long tenure as the Senator from NY - and likely Senate Majority Leader after 2016 election cycle.
4
Girl rand is also a New York senator. She is voting. For it. Schumer needs to leave
Kudos to Sen. Schumer for standing up to the threats, blackmail, intimidation and personal attacks from the Obama administration... to do what is right.
Sen. Schumer gave an articulate explanation as to why this is a bad deal. Obama and his apologists respond with threats, insults and invective.
That says it all.
Sen. Schumer gave an articulate explanation as to why this is a bad deal. Obama and his apologists respond with threats, insults and invective.
That says it all.
8
As a card-carrying conservative crackpot troll I can say without fear of contradiction that I have heaped as much overheated vitriol on Senator Schumer as any man. However, his inability to go along with this deal with Iran and his bravery in standing up against his party and Our Dear Leader have given me a new, albeit grudging, respect for El Chucko. I am Jewish. No person who remembers what happened in the 1930s, when the world accepted an evil regime's promises and ignored their sincere vows to murder every Jew they could get their hands on, could ever support this deal. No American, cognizant of the growing mood of anti-Semitism on the left and the blind eye the Progressives seem to have in regard to extreme Islam could ever support this deal. I haven't supported Senator Schumer in the past and I'll certainly be calling him names before the week is out but on this one he has my sincere support and admiration.
12
I'd sure like to see one iota of evidence of "growing anti-Semitism on the left," my friend. What I have seen is intensive dislike of the right-wing Bibi Netanyahu and his government of scofflaws, who have scuttled Israel's 50-year reputation for supporting civil rights even for opponents, and who used to abide by international agreements.
Loathing the government of Israel and its Prime Minister is the opposite of anti-Semitism, in my opinion. Those of us who take that position want what's best for Israel and all its citizens, as we want what's best for America and Americans--and the right wing in both countries will never deliver anything but the worst to both peoples.
Loathing the government of Israel and its Prime Minister is the opposite of anti-Semitism, in my opinion. Those of us who take that position want what's best for Israel and all its citizens, as we want what's best for America and Americans--and the right wing in both countries will never deliver anything but the worst to both peoples.
Introducing Judas Schumer, Senator from Israel and Wall Street, and AIPAC puppet.
26
Introducing Benedict Arnold Obama, President of Iran and ISIS puppet
I don't know whether Schumer's decision is the result of conviction after his soul-searching analysis or political calculation. But it is not good for the U.S. As an American Jew who supports Israel, I believe the President is right. The deal resulted from a negotiation which, by definition, requires that all parties believe it is in their best interests. Given that fundamental point, no negotiated deal can satisfy everyone. So, is this good for the U.S.? In my view, yes, unequivocally. Iran stops developing nuclear weapons in exchange for an end of sanctions. Why not view the 10 years of the agreement as an opportunity to develop economic and political ties that a nuclear weapon will be against their best interest and be too costly for them? Also, why should we believe Netanyahu and other right-wing hawks who predict the worst from Iran? They have been wrong so many times in the recent past, that it is hard to put much credence in their predictions. In addition to all this, I believe the most important reason for Americans to support the deal is that killing it will undermine the ability of future American leaders, Republicans as well as Democrats, to negotiate with anyone on the world stage when they know they cannot have confidence in the results of that diplomacy?
17
Your logic is commendable. One cannot come to any conclusion but that Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of resolving differences with Iran, and WITH U.S. backing can bully their way to dominance in the Middle East by keeping sanctions on Iran and weakening them. Netanyahu's group likewise does not want peace with the Palestinians. NO two state resolution. Again, they want dominance in the Middle East. Peace is not a priority. They want the largest military and, yes, nuclear weapons to maintain an unfair advantage in the area....THUS "say no" to the Nuclear deal which several countries have achieved, for no other reason but to continue their aggressive self-serving agenda.
5
Benjamin Netanyahu becoming an honorary Republican is a tad disturbing. Israel has enough problem getting support in this world without demanding that their supporters here do exactly as they wish.
This was a very tough call for Schumer. But I would bet, as the article says, that he knows there aren't the votes to override a veto.
The Republicans present this as if the big bad Iranians got Kerry in a room and confused and disoriented him. Then they made him give up impossible concessions that smart Republican negotiators would have rejected. There is no mention that China, Russia, France, Germany, and the UK also agreed to the deal, and will likely proceed in some fashion with us or without us.
A pretty stark choice- take the deal, or do as Netanyahu says. Start a war with a billion Muslims that will never end, or try for peace. I hope there are enough in Congress that will do the right thing.
This was a very tough call for Schumer. But I would bet, as the article says, that he knows there aren't the votes to override a veto.
The Republicans present this as if the big bad Iranians got Kerry in a room and confused and disoriented him. Then they made him give up impossible concessions that smart Republican negotiators would have rejected. There is no mention that China, Russia, France, Germany, and the UK also agreed to the deal, and will likely proceed in some fashion with us or without us.
A pretty stark choice- take the deal, or do as Netanyahu says. Start a war with a billion Muslims that will never end, or try for peace. I hope there are enough in Congress that will do the right thing.
16
The Iranian mullahs becoming Democrats is even more disturbing
Mr Schumer has shown his stripes, unqualified support for Jonathan Pollard,full support fot Iraq War and now betrayal of his President and Party. No room for him in the Democratic Party or in the hearts of Americans.
25
Totalitarian leftists. How quaint.
When in all our history does an American President make a deal with a country who's leaders shout 'Death to America" and Death to Israel". Obama and the Democratic Party are disgraceful to attack anyone who disagrees with this dangerous policy.
7
2015 accept it
21st century is a good time to talk to our adversaries. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, let them not carry old grudges of their grandfathers.
1
I suggest you read what the 29 nuclear scientists said in these same pages of the NY Times. They are better experts than you, me or the rest of these commenters.
1
Would corporations that have wanted to conduct business in Iran have even dreamed that it would be possible to have sanctions lifted before the Obama Administration began its very public negotiations? Obama thought he could get the Iranian leadership to agree to unannounced inspections anywhere in the country to insure that work on a nuclear bomb would end. Had he been able to do this, then there would be no reason to continue sanctions.
Obama's negotiators were not able to get what he wanted. but once the "genie was out of the bottle", that is, once Obama had made real the idea of lifting sanctions, he could no longer return to the status quo. Now he is claiming that he is getting the best deal possible. Had he insisted the negotiations be kept secret until he had achieved what he wanted, he would not have backed us into the corner we are in today.
Obama's negotiators were not able to get what he wanted. but once the "genie was out of the bottle", that is, once Obama had made real the idea of lifting sanctions, he could no longer return to the status quo. Now he is claiming that he is getting the best deal possible. Had he insisted the negotiations be kept secret until he had achieved what he wanted, he would not have backed us into the corner we are in today.
5
Funny Dick Cheney's Halliburton had no trouble doing business in Iran back in the 2000's despite our so-called sanctions. An
Israel Attack on the Iraqi nuclear Facility
Imagine that never happened and assess the respose of the US and the UN
The attack was strongly criticized around the world, including in the United States, and Israel was rebuked by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly in two separate resolutions.Media reactions were no less negative: "Israel's sneak attack ... was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression", wrote the New York Times, while the Los Angeles Times called it "state-sponsored terrorism". he destruction of Osirak has been cited as an example of a preventive strike in contemporary scholarship on international law.
Imagine that never happened and assess the respose of the US and the UN
The attack was strongly criticized around the world, including in the United States, and Israel was rebuked by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly in two separate resolutions.Media reactions were no less negative: "Israel's sneak attack ... was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression", wrote the New York Times, while the Los Angeles Times called it "state-sponsored terrorism". he destruction of Osirak has been cited as an example of a preventive strike in contemporary scholarship on international law.
6
According to many Iraqi nuclear scientists interviewed by US interrogators after the 2003 Iraq invasion (none of which scientists had anything to gain by admitting to having devoted years of their lives to developing a bomb that could be used against the US or Israel), the immediate result of Israel's attack on Osirak was that Saddam Hussein ordered that all nuclear-related R&D be shifted from peaceful nuclear energy to developing a nuclear weapon, and that is pretty much all those scientists worked on for the remainder of the Eighties.
The attack on Osirak was hailed as a wise preventive move by the Israeli press and the supportive US and Western European press. Consider the source. And then consider what we later learned from the actual Iraqi scientists who worked on Iraq's nuclear program after that attack.
The attack on Osirak was hailed as a wise preventive move by the Israeli press and the supportive US and Western European press. Consider the source. And then consider what we later learned from the actual Iraqi scientists who worked on Iraq's nuclear program after that attack.
6
When American soldiers come home form Iran in flag draped coffins Americans will blame Israel and AIPAC. When that happens things will get really ugly for Israel. Schumer and Bibbi are making Israel a lot less safe.
18
Nothing wrong with being Israel First if you are not among other things a US Senator. The fact that in his leadership position he opposes his President and Party and instead comes down on the side of Netanyahu and Israel is a blatant act of misplaced and disturbing allegiance.
26
Simple calculation: If Aipac's Senator Schumer is against it-it must be good for America and its citizens. Thanks Chuck for the illumination!
17
AIPAC is as bad as the NRA. Maybe worse.
34
Bullies that control our politicians.
4
Cannot believe ANYONE was surprised by Schumer's decision. Owned lock stock and barrel by AIPAC. Always has been, always will.
25
Couldn't agree more. When any issue involves Israel, here is how Schumer always votes:
1. If Israel's and America's interests are the same, he votes for America's interest.
2. If Israel's and America's interests are different, he votes for Israel's interest – and, oh yeah, issues a statement explaining in great detail why he's actually acting in America's best interests even if that's not apparent.
1. If Israel's and America's interests are the same, he votes for America's interest.
2. If Israel's and America's interests are different, he votes for Israel's interest – and, oh yeah, issues a statement explaining in great detail why he's actually acting in America's best interests even if that's not apparent.
3
Of. Purse Obama negotiated this surrender. Obama is owned lock. Stock. And barrel by radical Islam. Always has been, always will
I am a life-long democrat who has voted for Senator Schumer in the past. I care about protecting Israel from those who would destroy it, if they could. I am for the Iran nuclear deal because it will probably keep the U.S. and Israel out of war with Iran during the accord's time frame. It also MAY bring a change in Iran's long-term belligerence towards the U.S. and its allies. The fact that Senator Schumer is against the deal is reason enough for me to vote for someone other than him the next time he runs for re-election. I see his vote against the deal as a vote for going to war with Iran.
20
Schumer’s decision is absolutely disgraceful. He’s forgotten whom he is supposed to represent. Netanyahu, a foreign head of state, is more than willing to have the lives and limbs of young American men and woman put at risk in yet another middle east war, this time with a much bigger, more dangerous, and better armed adversary. Netanyahu would gladly stand by while American society bankrupts itself in the process if it helps further what he perceives to be the best interests of his country. Schumer needs to focus on the best interests of the U.S. and ignore the hyperbolic ravings of Bibi, armchair hawks, and donors. Schumer has forever lost my vote. I have lost all respect for him.
27
Schumer should put America first not Israel. Though I am a Democrat I cannot support him. I am glad he is not from Michigan because I would not vote for him.
16
When Chuck Schumer starts working against the US interests, but in support of the Israeli war monger Netanyahu's favor his voice loses dimishes, as it should.
18
My, such hostile ad hominem attacks in response to Schumer's position, and from such liberal minded readers.
How striking to see so many folks attack the person rather than his views on policy.
This is not a new low... just more of the same from the self-acclaimed "progressive" mind. If in fact this is progress we're all in big trouble.
How striking to see so many folks attack the person rather than his views on policy.
This is not a new low... just more of the same from the self-acclaimed "progressive" mind. If in fact this is progress we're all in big trouble.
14
Why didn't Schumer have the guts to say what he really felt months ago? That is easy to answer. Because he would have looked as if he was in league with the Republican letter signers of the much maligned "don't-do this" advice to the Iranian government. I was one of its critics then as well.
But now, the same people who decried that letter are now supporting Schumer, saying he made a measured decision. What balderdash. Schumer never was for this agreement; I always knew that, because like other typical congressional hypocrites, he didn't have the guts to say so BEFORE the legislation passed. That is precisely why Obama has high approval numbers for his intellect and honest consistency and the Congress' numbers are in the tank near the drain plug.
Is there any other explanation?
But now, the same people who decried that letter are now supporting Schumer, saying he made a measured decision. What balderdash. Schumer never was for this agreement; I always knew that, because like other typical congressional hypocrites, he didn't have the guts to say so BEFORE the legislation passed. That is precisely why Obama has high approval numbers for his intellect and honest consistency and the Congress' numbers are in the tank near the drain plug.
Is there any other explanation?
9
"Is there any other explanation?"
Not that I see. I'd say you've nailed it.
Not that I see. I'd say you've nailed it.
I guess kids from Iowa dying in the sand of Iraq wasn't good enough for Mr Schumer, now they have to bleed out in the sands of Iran.
20
The only way war with Iran will happen is if Obama's surrender is approved by congress
I do not believe Chuck Shumer thought long and hard about his decision. I believe he looked at the numbers, realized that there was not enough support in the Senate to override the President's veto and declared he was against the bill. The man is nothing if not calculated. I am not saying he is not a true supporter of Israel but he is, after all, a politician, and all politicians check to see which way the wind is blowing. Chuck knows that his vote will have no impact on the eventual approval of this deal. This way he can have his cake and eat it too.
5
Or maybe he knows something we don't and he won't tell?
To those asking why Schumer made this decision or who thought this was a decision made out of principle - I posit this:
AIPAC "sent 60 activists to Mr. Schumer’s office to lobby him last week". That and the millions they put into Schumer's coffers are more important than principle for the Senator.
I am a supporter of Israel but not Netanyahu. Israelis live in a very dangerous neighborhood. I think this Deal makes it less dangerous - Netanyahu disagrees. That's fine. I don't vote for him but I do (or did) vote for Senator Schumer.
A little historical background - Netanyahu supported the Iraq War - he lobbied for it in our Congress. Senator Schumer voted for the Iraq War. Getting rid of Hussein was supposed to make the area safer - it did the opposite. They have a terrible record; why think it is any better.
I was also a supporter of AIPAC - that's gone too. My support and money on behalf of Israel will go to J Street.
AIPAC "sent 60 activists to Mr. Schumer’s office to lobby him last week". That and the millions they put into Schumer's coffers are more important than principle for the Senator.
I am a supporter of Israel but not Netanyahu. Israelis live in a very dangerous neighborhood. I think this Deal makes it less dangerous - Netanyahu disagrees. That's fine. I don't vote for him but I do (or did) vote for Senator Schumer.
A little historical background - Netanyahu supported the Iraq War - he lobbied for it in our Congress. Senator Schumer voted for the Iraq War. Getting rid of Hussein was supposed to make the area safer - it did the opposite. They have a terrible record; why think it is any better.
I was also a supporter of AIPAC - that's gone too. My support and money on behalf of Israel will go to J Street.
23
Chuck Schumer is pure politics. The only reason he is voting against the Deal and not for it is because he knows that his vote for the Deal it meaningless when it comes to getting to a veto proof vote against the Deal. If Chuck were the deciding vote to get to a 60 vote veto proof Deal killer and he voted against the Deal that would be courageous. That is surely not the case here. As I said, Pure Politics.
5
President Obama has been criticized for not being "American enough" or "pro Muslim "..." not born in this country"...yet these Congressmen and Congresswomen who are now following their REAL leader in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, are quietly given a pass, more or less, as having "seriously" considered the pros and cons of the pending nuclear deal with Iran, and ultimately found it to be a flawed resolution, and will vote against it....EXACTLY what Netanyahu desires. The truth, based on his actions, is that President Obama is dedicated to improving not only situations in the U.S., but also dedicated to improving situations in the Middle East. WHO is the patriot here ?...and WHO is the traitor ?
15
The truth is that Obama takes his orders from the Mullahs. Clearly, Sen Schumer's is the patriot and Obama is the traitor
Introducing Zephyr Rain Teachout, the new Junior Senator from the Great State of New York.
The Jews who are opposed to working toward peace in Israel, or with Iran, or using diplomacy before opting for war may not be as loud, as organized, or monetized, as the factions who have been cranking it up on the airways, but, perusing the spontaneous outpouring from us in these comments, Schumer may have made a career ending miscalculation.
The Jews who are opposed to working toward peace in Israel, or with Iran, or using diplomacy before opting for war may not be as loud, as organized, or monetized, as the factions who have been cranking it up on the airways, but, perusing the spontaneous outpouring from us in these comments, Schumer may have made a career ending miscalculation.
10
Schumer knows all too well that this legislation will survive any Congressional attempt to derail it. He is betting with good odds that Congress will not be able to muster the votes to override an Obama veto. So Schumer is in a no lose situation. He cements his pro-Israel credentials with a vote against the legislation, then watches as Obama gets his way when the legislation survives. Schumer has his cake and eats it too.
7
I can just imagine the pressure being brought on not only Senator Schumer but the other Jewish elected officials. Last evening, out of the blue, I received an unsolicited telephone call asking me to contact my elected representatives and tell them of my supposed opposition to the nuclear treaty with Iran. Why me? My only connection, besides my faith, is I donate money to various candidates and groups which put me on someone's list. I wonder how much of Senator Schumer's announced position was influenced by those who acted on calls such as I received. And I also wonder how many people were as annoyed as I in listening to that call.
15
I know some Jewish voters who called his office and told him not to vote for the Iran nuclear deal. They asked me to call (I am Christian) and I said I would not because I felt Barack Obama was doing the right thing. They were not pleased but I told them it was good for our country and our interests come first not Israel's. I am a Republican who did not vote for Mr. Obama but felt this was one of his finer moments.
20
I for one would not want Senator Schumer as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, it smells. This is not a decision made on what is best for America or, for that matter national security, but is done by the pressure of AIPAC and other Jewish lobbyist who have distorted the agreement, and they have refused to truly discuss and debate the subject with the president advisors, but these lobbyist have chosen to meet with the warmongers, the fanatics, and the Obama haters to attack not only the President but anyone who dares to question Israel or the Jewish lobbyist who want America to go to war with Iran. If you have over ninety percent of nuclear experts supporting the agreement and you have England, France, Germany, and incredibly China and Russia supporting and finalizing the agreement, and our military supporting the disarmament of Iran but the warmongers in Israel, AIPAC and Republicans in our own Congress thirst for war and now have Schumer on their side, he is disloyal. Schumer has revealed that he is not trustworthy not only to the president but to the American people, that he is man who places America second to Israel and AIPAC. The trust in Schumer is gone. Who does he represent in the Senate if he becomes the Democratic Leader of the Senate? He does not represent me and if Schumer replaces Reid, I can only wonder what he and Clinton would do to get us more involved in the Mid East fearing to upset the Jewish lobby in America.
13
Our political reality in the time of power lobbies and Citizen United.
Used to be God, King, and Country. Now it is My Job, My donors, my party, and my country if it is not too inconvenient and doesn't interfere with my reelection.
the most charitable motto I can ascribe to Sen Schumer is my donors, my ethnicity, my Israel, my country, and my President maybe.
Used to be God, King, and Country. Now it is My Job, My donors, my party, and my country if it is not too inconvenient and doesn't interfere with my reelection.
the most charitable motto I can ascribe to Sen Schumer is my donors, my ethnicity, my Israel, my country, and my President maybe.
13
Dear Fellow Liberals,
It is possible to support the Iran deal, hate the current Israeli government, and disagree with Schumer without calling him a traitor! Aren't we the same people who are smart enough to recognize disgusting Republican dog-whistles, like when they talk about "urban" problems, "inner city" issues, and "border control"?
Well guess what, you should educate yourself about "dual loyalty" and "traitor" accusations. Or that "he should go back to Israel." For god's sake, you sound like Pat Buchanan telling certain Americans to "go back to Africa."
Please. We might be on the right side of the issues, but that doesn't mean you aren't also incredibly ignorant (or worse). Criticize Shumer and Israel all you want (I certainly do), but leave these kinds of accusations back in the 1940s where they belong.
It is possible to support the Iran deal, hate the current Israeli government, and disagree with Schumer without calling him a traitor! Aren't we the same people who are smart enough to recognize disgusting Republican dog-whistles, like when they talk about "urban" problems, "inner city" issues, and "border control"?
Well guess what, you should educate yourself about "dual loyalty" and "traitor" accusations. Or that "he should go back to Israel." For god's sake, you sound like Pat Buchanan telling certain Americans to "go back to Africa."
Please. We might be on the right side of the issues, but that doesn't mean you aren't also incredibly ignorant (or worse). Criticize Shumer and Israel all you want (I certainly do), but leave these kinds of accusations back in the 1940s where they belong.
20
Dear fellow liberal,
I am not a liberal I am an independent progressive. When Americans learn that they have been sold out by the very people they thought they elected to protect democracy in America and learn they have been selling us out the entire time we are entitled to call them a traitor and tell them to go back to the country they actually represent. Nothing regressive about it. Unlike "conservatives" telling the poor people of colors other than white to "go back to where you came from when we enslaved/hired you because we don't need you anymore." Do you see the difference?
I am not a liberal I am an independent progressive. When Americans learn that they have been sold out by the very people they thought they elected to protect democracy in America and learn they have been selling us out the entire time we are entitled to call them a traitor and tell them to go back to the country they actually represent. Nothing regressive about it. Unlike "conservatives" telling the poor people of colors other than white to "go back to where you came from when we enslaved/hired you because we don't need you anymore." Do you see the difference?
7
That's a fair criticism. The use of labels like "traitor" smacks of ignorant, right-wing rhetoric, turns anger into hate and smothers useful dialogue.
3
Dear NewsReader:
I congratulate you on this comment, but I fear you are wrong. It is possible for you to state your disagreement with others civilly. Whatever your political views, you are a liberal in the classic sense. Along with John Stuart Mill, you understand that one cannot honestly hold a belief unless one is willing to listen with an open mind to others who challenge it. With Learned Hand, you recognize that "[t]he spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."
Unfortunately, many of your confreres on the left don't hold those views. Vilification, personal attack, the belief that conservatives are not just wrong but evil, increasingly typify the left.
This is not a new phenomenon. I am old enough to have been in law school at the time of the invasion of Cambodia and the killings at Kent State. The students held a mass meeting for the purpose of demanding that the school administration cancel exams (it was May) so that everyone would have the time to protest. I doubt if there were many, if any, in the auditorium who disagreed that the events that had occurred were terrible. But anyone daring to suggest that ordinary Americans might not be too impressed if our protest took the form of not taking our exams was immediately shouted down. It was a seminal event in my increasing disillusion with the left.
By the way, the school administration acceded to the demands and we took no exams that spring. A bad, and writ large, a fateful decision.
I congratulate you on this comment, but I fear you are wrong. It is possible for you to state your disagreement with others civilly. Whatever your political views, you are a liberal in the classic sense. Along with John Stuart Mill, you understand that one cannot honestly hold a belief unless one is willing to listen with an open mind to others who challenge it. With Learned Hand, you recognize that "[t]he spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."
Unfortunately, many of your confreres on the left don't hold those views. Vilification, personal attack, the belief that conservatives are not just wrong but evil, increasingly typify the left.
This is not a new phenomenon. I am old enough to have been in law school at the time of the invasion of Cambodia and the killings at Kent State. The students held a mass meeting for the purpose of demanding that the school administration cancel exams (it was May) so that everyone would have the time to protest. I doubt if there were many, if any, in the auditorium who disagreed that the events that had occurred were terrible. But anyone daring to suggest that ordinary Americans might not be too impressed if our protest took the form of not taking our exams was immediately shouted down. It was a seminal event in my increasing disillusion with the left.
By the way, the school administration acceded to the demands and we took no exams that spring. A bad, and writ large, a fateful decision.
4
Americans should be outraged over this course of events, and Jews despondent.
No one should be surprised.
No one should be surprised.
10
Senator Schumer just lost my vote for kowtowing to Israeli rhetoric and APEC rather doing what he was elected to do (and adhering to the oath he took each time he was reelected), to serve the people of the State of New York and therefor in tandem, the people of the United States of American, HIS country, too, to which his loyalty should be undivided.
22
"In quick succession, two other prominent Jewish Democrats, Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Mr. Sherman announced their opposition." At some point, these elected officials need to determine which country they live in and which country they were elected to represent!
While we have degenerated into a "pay to play" form of government, if we as an immigrant based nation maintain loyalties to our "old" countries or any other religious or ethnic cause, at the sacrifice of out nations security, that becomes literary treason!
While we have degenerated into a "pay to play" form of government, if we as an immigrant based nation maintain loyalties to our "old" countries or any other religious or ethnic cause, at the sacrifice of out nations security, that becomes literary treason!
21
We know what country they live in, the US and also the country to which they are loyal: Israel.
The ither day I wrote a comment in response to an article about Israelies doing a lot of soul searching after the death of a gay girl at the hands of a Jewish extremist. At the time I said that Isreal should focus on their own domestic issues instead of having their Prime Minister try to be the puppet President of the U.S. through the Rwpublicans. I was wrong on two counts - 1. It is not just through Republicans but also Democrats like Schumer and 2. America needs to gets its house in order by voting in politicians who put America and not Isreal (or any other country) first. Howard Schultz' op ed piece this week lays the frame work of the type of people we should be looking for and Schumer is not a servant leader.
18
Netanyahu bears no small amount of guilt for burning that chile to death; his hatred of Arabs is equal to his lust for power at any cost.
This is the guy who wants to lead Senate Democrats? He is way too beholden to the state of Israel and its radical lobbyists. Senator Schumer has revealed his true loyalties and the interests of the U.S. takes second place. Schumer is fine as a New York Senator but unfit to be the leader of a big tent Democratic Party.
25
I have been a constituent of Senator Schumer, on and off, since he was an assemblyman back in the 70's. Until this recent decision, I have been a supporter. As a sitting senior senator from New York, the senator's first responsibility is to the people of New York; his next priority is to protect the interests of the United States. Stability in the Middle East is critical to that interest. Senator Schumer's position is not rooted in logic or careful analysis of the terms of the agreement with Iran nor does it consider in a thoughtful why what path could possibly stabilize the Middle East with the least bloodshed. Instead, his position is a pragmatic caving to fear and outworn failed policies of the Bush and Netanyahu administrations. With this decision, he signals clearly that he is not suited to either the leadership of the Democrats in the senate or to his seat in the senate itself.
26
Maybe if oil-rich Iran's capo di tutti capi, the illegitimate, unelected Ayatollah in his little costume and 6th century headgear, had not just this week put out a book describing the destruction of the US and Israel and had otherwise displayed good faith then maybe this deal would have had a chance with Democrat Schumer who is inclined to support the president.
Do we want to see these brainless, Twelver religious fanatics with any nuke capability? It would be the Shia version of ISIS except with nukes. I wouldn't even trust them with an x-ray machine.
Do we want to see these brainless, Twelver religious fanatics with any nuke capability? It would be the Shia version of ISIS except with nukes. I wouldn't even trust them with an x-ray machine.
1
I have no problem with President Obama saying that those who oppose the JCPOA are "making common cause with those in Iran chanting "Death to America," simple because it is true. The phrase "making common cause" means just that, you share a common cause. Hardliners in Iran that oppose the JCPOA want it scuttled, as do some persons in America. They have a common cause. Plain and simple. Motivations may differ, but the objective here is the same. It brings to mind the Arabian saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." If you don't like the association, what can I say except, "you lie down with dogs, you get fleas."
7
Oh, of course: those opposed to the agreement for a variety of reasons (no anytime/anywhere inspections, weeks' worth of advance notices for them, immediate lifting of sanctions, no U.S. participants in the inspection teams, an inspection protocol which is secret to all except the IAEA ..) are really, in their hearts, chanting Death to America as well.
The level of discourse within the comments accompanying this article is telling. Agreement proponents "know" what's best, and "know" the motivations of everyone with a contrary position. With that certainty there is no need to listen to other arguments; obviously there can be nothing there worth listening to.
Thus the conclusion that anyone not of a like mind to such unalterable conviction acts from nefarious purposes, is in the pocket of "Jewish interests," has "dual loyalties" and is a "traitor." An easy conclusion, then, that "such people" shouldn't be permitted in elective office anyway.
You suggest that those with legitimate objections to the current proposal deserve the association being drawn between them and the Iranian hard-liners.
Well, why stop there? Read these letters. Exactly what inference by association to the plain bigots so well-represented here should we draw for you?
The level of discourse within the comments accompanying this article is telling. Agreement proponents "know" what's best, and "know" the motivations of everyone with a contrary position. With that certainty there is no need to listen to other arguments; obviously there can be nothing there worth listening to.
Thus the conclusion that anyone not of a like mind to such unalterable conviction acts from nefarious purposes, is in the pocket of "Jewish interests," has "dual loyalties" and is a "traitor." An easy conclusion, then, that "such people" shouldn't be permitted in elective office anyway.
You suggest that those with legitimate objections to the current proposal deserve the association being drawn between them and the Iranian hard-liners.
Well, why stop there? Read these letters. Exactly what inference by association to the plain bigots so well-represented here should we draw for you?
8
Someone wrote Schumer is brave to make this decision - I believe he made it because he's a coward. He couldn't stand up to the powerful interest arrayed against the Deal and he caved rather than being a leader. The President is brave. Staying with the status quo is easy - taking a chance to make the future better is courageous.
The reasons Schumer gives for going against our President are so weak. He worries that Iran could have nuclear weapons in 10 years - Iran could have nuclear weapons in 2 years without the Deal. The sanctions were working, he says. Yes, they were - but only because they were supported and enforced by the international community. We were not alone in the negotiations on the Deal. The support for continued sanctions from the other participants are over. Going alone will just make the U.S. outliers and the sanctions worthless
So, what's the real reason Senator Schumer? I'll answer. He's weak. He supports the loudest voices who send him the most money. He's been in the pocket of Wall Street forever. He also supported the War in Iraq.
He designed this bit of trechery to be announced after his big event with Amy Schumer against guns violence and to coincide with the first Republican debate. He's great at publicity - lousy at governing. He's lost my vote forever.
The reasons Schumer gives for going against our President are so weak. He worries that Iran could have nuclear weapons in 10 years - Iran could have nuclear weapons in 2 years without the Deal. The sanctions were working, he says. Yes, they were - but only because they were supported and enforced by the international community. We were not alone in the negotiations on the Deal. The support for continued sanctions from the other participants are over. Going alone will just make the U.S. outliers and the sanctions worthless
So, what's the real reason Senator Schumer? I'll answer. He's weak. He supports the loudest voices who send him the most money. He's been in the pocket of Wall Street forever. He also supported the War in Iraq.
He designed this bit of trechery to be announced after his big event with Amy Schumer against guns violence and to coincide with the first Republican debate. He's great at publicity - lousy at governing. He's lost my vote forever.
18
There is an awful lot of soft-pedaling when the issue is criticism of Israel and the extent to which AIPAC influences our foreign policy. The power of this lobby is astonishing when one considers the relatively small percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Jewish.
I'm gratified that many of the critics of Schumer's crass capitulation are Jewish..and their numbers seem to be growing... but still...the power of AIPAC money in our shameless Congress may prevail.
Obama is doing what he regards as best for the U.S., not what is best for Israel. As it should be.
I'm gratified that many of the critics of Schumer's crass capitulation are Jewish..and their numbers seem to be growing... but still...the power of AIPAC money in our shameless Congress may prevail.
Obama is doing what he regards as best for the U.S., not what is best for Israel. As it should be.
17
Schumer has proved by his decision to oppose the Iran Nuclear Deal that he is a crypto Isreali firster. Shame on him for opposing a deal which would provide safety and stability to Middle East.
14
Thankfully Sen Schumer loves America and therefore opposes the deal that would guarantee a nuclear Iran and nuclear war in the Middle East. Obama is an Iran firster
This is not about Israel, or about war in the Middle East. It's about staying alive in the US.
N. Korea or Pakistan can send a warhead harmlessly into the pacific. Iran will send it to NY, via ICBM or by ship. Don't give them more money. Count on having to stop them. And not with boots on the ground.
They are our declared enemy. That hasn't changed and won't change.
Lenin declared his intentions to rule the world, but Germany sent him to lead Russia--and we didn't try hard enough to drive the Communists from power while that was possible. They wound up nuclear, and of course a permanent and dangerous enemy.
Hitler declared his intentions, but it was more convenient for England to appease him. How many millions of lives would have been saved by wiping him out sooner? (Our friends the French sent Khomeini back to Iran--check that out.)
Was it worthwhile for Truman to get 35,000 Americans (2.5 million people total) killed in order to save half of Korea from the Kims? I think so, but that's debatable. This one isn't debatable, because it isn't about some other country, it's about surviving in the US.
Irrational hope springs eternal. They called Rafsanjani a "moderate." Now he's an ayatollah. Iran's "progress" in acquiring money and arms and then attacking enemies is amazing. When will we get the message?
Don't collude with them, stop them dead while we can.
"Fighting Joe" Dunford is more worried about Putin. He's dead wrong. Putin is an atheist.
N. Korea or Pakistan can send a warhead harmlessly into the pacific. Iran will send it to NY, via ICBM or by ship. Don't give them more money. Count on having to stop them. And not with boots on the ground.
They are our declared enemy. That hasn't changed and won't change.
Lenin declared his intentions to rule the world, but Germany sent him to lead Russia--and we didn't try hard enough to drive the Communists from power while that was possible. They wound up nuclear, and of course a permanent and dangerous enemy.
Hitler declared his intentions, but it was more convenient for England to appease him. How many millions of lives would have been saved by wiping him out sooner? (Our friends the French sent Khomeini back to Iran--check that out.)
Was it worthwhile for Truman to get 35,000 Americans (2.5 million people total) killed in order to save half of Korea from the Kims? I think so, but that's debatable. This one isn't debatable, because it isn't about some other country, it's about surviving in the US.
Irrational hope springs eternal. They called Rafsanjani a "moderate." Now he's an ayatollah. Iran's "progress" in acquiring money and arms and then attacking enemies is amazing. When will we get the message?
Don't collude with them, stop them dead while we can.
"Fighting Joe" Dunford is more worried about Putin. He's dead wrong. Putin is an atheist.
5
This deal is bad for the worlds. Congratulatioms to Schumer for his opposition.
5
Senator Schumer is an intelligent and gifted man who is, in many respects, a good senator. However, elected officials in the United States are not just morally but legally bound to represent the interests of the United States and not that of a foreign power. Senator Schumer may not literally have violated the Logan Act by representing Israel's interests in the Middle East--rather than those of the United States--but as an envoy for a foreign power rather than a representative of the people of New York he should step down from office.
11
I don't know who is thinking about making Mr. Schumer the head of the democrats in Congress but I, for one, am going to make sure it doesn't happen. He's worse than the "conservatives" because he takes care of the top 1% while pretending to represent 99% of us. According to Wikipedia, "Schumer's top nine campaign contributors are all financial institutions that have contributed over $2.5 million to the senator." Good People of New York- send him back to where he came from - or Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer
15
You're going to make sure that does not happen? Please tell us how!
Chuck Schumer never met a microphone he didn't like. He usually talks a lot and says very little. He is actually for this so-called "deal" with Iran, but he has to look good for his Jewish constituents, so of course he'll publicly denounce it. He knows full well it's going through.
6
You liberals are a joke, this deal gives Iran nukes and billions. What needs to be done is take the nuke sites out and cripple Iran with sanctions!
5
You hawks are a dirty joke. This deal stops Iran from developing nukes and opens up their country to the world community. What needs to be done is abandon failed policies of preemptive war and Middle East meddling. The sanctions worked, but the rest of the world is lifting them, and the US acting alone would be ineffectual and counterproductive. It is time to work on making an effort at continual peace, not continual war.
This proves Chuck Schumer's Jewish allegiance so good for him with his decision. He has truly voted with his conscience so no one can fault him for it.
I'm so happy for Obama as a lifelong democrat I want open borders and give billions to Itan so they can continue to fund terror. I am in total agreement that Obama is slowing collapsing the U.S. Coward Oiven strategy and Saul Alinsky are our tools!
2
Just as criticism of any aspect of Israeli policy is deemed by some to be anti-Semitic or self-hating, it was inevitable that its now anti-Jewish to point out the virtual one-to-one concordance between what the Likud says in Israel and what Aipac advocates here. Certainly Aipac has the right to advocate anything it wants, short of treason. But if its not permissible to point out the remarkable concordance of these views, let's ask those who claim anti-Jewishness is the heart of the problem, what they would say if some pro-Palestinian or pro-Muslim rights group came out foursquare in favor of the accord and backed their words up with huge outlays of cash for advertising purposes. What would they do: write this support off as sheer coincidence and make no reference to it?
10
After a disastrous proxy war against Iraqu which has destabilized the whole Middle East, Israel and its US lobby is encouraging another one, Please!!!!
26
A comment on the comments:
The sheer number of Democrats denouncing Schumer should put to rest the notion that the left is just as partisan as the right. Sure, there are bipartisan right-wingers , just not as many.
The sheer number of Democrats denouncing Schumer should put to rest the notion that the left is just as partisan as the right. Sure, there are bipartisan right-wingers , just not as many.
2
The sad part is, America will be left far far behind in the coming decades. As countries like India jump in to do business with Iran leading to mutual prosperity of both nations. India is also a string Israeli ally their partnership growing by the day. Stronger Asia. Central Asian countries are going to benefit tremendously. And global economic power, growth, opportunities will shift eastward towards Asia and India. Americans will watch as their economy lags behind because so far since WWII they have used war, defense related sales, as their power and economic force. 21st century is here, move over Anerica, people like Schumer will not allow you to prosper while rest of the globe reaps benefits of peace with Iran.
11
Senator Quisling.
12
What is missing in the article is why the opposition.Does it take Iran to recognize Israel's right to exist? To remain sovereign and to continue to exist; We must always remain on guard. The use of a theory to prove another theory is pure ignorance. The Ayatollah wants us in a prone position while he remains upright and arrogant. Like all contracts it can be interpreted or renegotiated as seen fit. It does have to suit both sides to be acceptable even if it means unconditional surrender. Apply pressure as needed, trust no one, and live another day.
3
Let's be straight about something. President Obama is (rightly) portraying this vote as one of the most consequential foreign policy decisions in a generation. It deals with the approval of an agreement with a foreign power. I've yet to hear an explanation of why this accord, unlike all previous arms control agreements, is not a treaty, which the Constitution requires be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
What we're talking about instead is the administration's effort to garner one-third plus one of the votes in either house of Congress to sustain a veto of what will be bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House opposing the treaty (oh, excuse me, the "executive agreement").
In other words, in an act of unprecedented (and unconstitutional) willfulness, President Obama is willing to effectuate an agreement raising the gravest issues of national security over the heads of the American public's elected representatives, and despite the emerging 2 to 1 consensus of the public, as reflected by recent polling, that this is a bad agreement.
Obama loyalists evidently believe this is consistent with democracy. I think it is a disgrace.
What we're talking about instead is the administration's effort to garner one-third plus one of the votes in either house of Congress to sustain a veto of what will be bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House opposing the treaty (oh, excuse me, the "executive agreement").
In other words, in an act of unprecedented (and unconstitutional) willfulness, President Obama is willing to effectuate an agreement raising the gravest issues of national security over the heads of the American public's elected representatives, and despite the emerging 2 to 1 consensus of the public, as reflected by recent polling, that this is a bad agreement.
Obama loyalists evidently believe this is consistent with democracy. I think it is a disgrace.
8
The irony is, if this traitor went to work in the Knesset, we'd still be paying his salary.
10
We're paying the salary and greens fees and vacations for the traitor Obama
I'm betting that Schumer thinks the veto override will not get enough Democrat votes. So the Iran deal will stand. It's not like he or the other Jewish Democrats siding with Netanyahu are actually risking being responsible for killing the deal. He's safe, he thinks. Sure, the majority of his constituents who don't have nearly the same concerns for Israel that he does will be very angry for a time, but after the deal goes forward, all will be forgotten and forgiven.
I think Schumer is right in part. Not all the Zionists and the war party are aware of it yet, but they have been whipped by Obama. The deal will stand. As to whether people will forget and forgive, not so sure about that.
But... what if they actually succeed in killing the deal?
One senses that frustration on the part of ordinary Americans who are fed up with the outsized Israeli influence on their government is already at a boiling point. Just read the comments here. The word "pitchforks" comes to mind.
I think Schumer is right in part. Not all the Zionists and the war party are aware of it yet, but they have been whipped by Obama. The deal will stand. As to whether people will forget and forgive, not so sure about that.
But... what if they actually succeed in killing the deal?
One senses that frustration on the part of ordinary Americans who are fed up with the outsized Israeli influence on their government is already at a boiling point. Just read the comments here. The word "pitchforks" comes to mind.
11
A couple of things.
Yes, in all likelihood we have been "whipped by Obama." That's not too surprising, since he has the whip hand: the ability to exercise of raw power, the Constitution and representative government be damned. He exercised that power by submitting his Iran deal as an "executive agreement" so that he only needs one-third plus one of the votes in one house of Congress to prevail. (Of course, he didn't want the Congress to have ANY say on his deal, but on that he would have faced a veto-proof bipartisan rebellion.)
Second, you may "sense" that "Americans . . . are fed up with the outsized Israeli influence on their government" based on the comments you read here. But you are making a classic Dewey-Truman mistake. The opinions of readers of the New York Times are not exactly representative of those of the American public as a whole. If you look at polls done with a more scientific sampling technique, you will find overwhelming support for Israel among this country's citizenry. I don't think the Israelis have much to worry about; ordinary Americans know who their friends are.
Yes, in all likelihood we have been "whipped by Obama." That's not too surprising, since he has the whip hand: the ability to exercise of raw power, the Constitution and representative government be damned. He exercised that power by submitting his Iran deal as an "executive agreement" so that he only needs one-third plus one of the votes in one house of Congress to prevail. (Of course, he didn't want the Congress to have ANY say on his deal, but on that he would have faced a veto-proof bipartisan rebellion.)
Second, you may "sense" that "Americans . . . are fed up with the outsized Israeli influence on their government" based on the comments you read here. But you are making a classic Dewey-Truman mistake. The opinions of readers of the New York Times are not exactly representative of those of the American public as a whole. If you look at polls done with a more scientific sampling technique, you will find overwhelming support for Israel among this country's citizenry. I don't think the Israelis have much to worry about; ordinary Americans know who their friends are.
1
It's plain to me. A deal that amounts to a verifiable contract is better than the Status quo for Israel and the World. Schumer should not be elevated to Senate minority leader if is allegiance Is to Israel and not his Party or his President. Republicans stick together to block everything our President and the Democratic Party strive for and when he is asked to back an historic accord Schumer shows his true colors. Shame on him!
19
I believe that this deal is the best thing moving forward. Its better to talk to Iran than to have a situation like we now have with South Korea. The sanctions will end with or without us as the rest of the world is for this deal. I think Senator Schumer has turned his back on the US, the people of NYS that elected him, his President, his friend John Kerry and his Party. He did this because the Israel lobby told him to. Its time for him to retire and he should never be considered to take over from Harry when he goes.
14
American's are tired of Israel sticking their nose into our politics and buying off our politicians. We have supported Israel for years sending them billions in cash and weaponry. They just need to butt out for a change.
23
Kareena if Florida, this is truest in Florida where Jewish folks come to retire. Their voices reach Capitol Hill and Schumer's votes.
2
This is despicable - i work to see this man defeated in the next election
Jerry NYC
Jerry NYC
25
Another Obama drone huh? Yes we can! I guess you want billions to fund terrorism they will get miles anyway this deal is a joke!
1
It s time for Schumer to run for political office in Israel. Go, Chuck, go! Remember this is the same guy who was a cheerleader for the Iraq war at the time Israel was saying Saddam Hussein was its biggest enemy.
21
And please take AIPAC with you to Israel. Then do not complain of antisemitism in the world.
It just goes to show that the senator represents foreign interests first.
20
More like religion first. No different from Islamists who put religion above region.
6
Will Teachout please run for Senator of NY next year?
12
Come on, Chuck. Be an American and you'll change your mind on the Iran deal. If there is no deal, warmongers like Bibi and Lindsay will send the poor children of your district, looking for a military career to escape poverty, Dis-proportionally into another stupid war against a stupid Mideast nation. Bibi's precarious position in the world is trouble of hid own making: he is no peace maker. If he wants Iran bombed, why hasn't he done it? Why, of course, he'd rather we did his dirty work for him.
15
To my mind, having listened and read most of what Sen. Schumer has had to say about the Iran Deal, his decision to oppose it was a foregone conclusion. There was simply no doubt in my mind that he would side with Israel against his own President -- and yet he still expects to be the Leader of the Democrats in the Senate. Such unpatriotic, not to mention disloyal, torpedoing of his President's and fellow Dems' efforts to achieve a workable compromise with Iran is just one more instance in which Israel takes precedence over the weal and welfare of both his party, and to my mind, again, and of his country. Bah! Humbug!
22
How interesting it is that so many readers of the NYTimes would make comments that attack the messenger, in this instance Sen. Schumer , rather than the message, the analysis and, in so doing, question his abilities because he happens to be Jewish. The sheer number comments suggesting dual loyalty and the like, the obvious undercurrent of anti-Semitism in many of these comments, is disturbing but, frankly, not at all surprising. Would anyone accuse John McCain of dual loyalty? It just so happens that many thoughtful people, who are not Jewish, vigorously oppose this deal. Indeed, most of the members of Conggress who oppose this deal are not Jewish. Yet they are not attacked in the same way as in Sen. Schumer. What does that say about this country?
10
McCain is only loyal to war. Bomb bomb he said.
6
Sen Schumer is not "the messenger". He is a US senator elected to represent and vote in the best interests of the State of New York and the USA, not AIPAC, and yes, they're very different in this case.
While you see criticism of Sen Schumer as having anti-Semitic motives, I see a Senator more concerned with the political math that says ne can vote no, keep the contributions from AIPAC flowing and still know the Senate wont override the inevitable veto.
Sen. Schumer is a shill for AIPAC, always has been.
While you see criticism of Sen Schumer as having anti-Semitic motives, I see a Senator more concerned with the political math that says ne can vote no, keep the contributions from AIPAC flowing and still know the Senate wont override the inevitable veto.
Sen. Schumer is a shill for AIPAC, always has been.
7
The notion that we are getting "nothing" in this deal is absurd. The two facilities that Bibi Netanyahu lusts to bomb, Fordo and Nantaz, are going to be disabled by this pact.
Yes, it's true that the Iranians could do work elsewhere, but wouldn't that be just as true if these two facilities were bombed?
But the best thing abou this deal, is that prevarication is a two way street - there is nothing to stop us from lying about the deal, and breaking our word in the future if we feel like it; which means that if we really need a war, we can have a war anytime we want.
Any idiot can easily turn peace into war, but even the smartest man in world, can't easily turn war into peace.
Yes, it's true that the Iranians could do work elsewhere, but wouldn't that be just as true if these two facilities were bombed?
But the best thing abou this deal, is that prevarication is a two way street - there is nothing to stop us from lying about the deal, and breaking our word in the future if we feel like it; which means that if we really need a war, we can have a war anytime we want.
Any idiot can easily turn peace into war, but even the smartest man in world, can't easily turn war into peace.
24
I am disturbed by the preponderance of comments questioning the loyalty of Schumer, because he is Jewish and pro-Israel. Not only are commenters able to read Schumer's mind and know his intent, but they are cocksure that he made his decision because he was beholden to AIPAC, Israel and Netanyahu, who he put before his own country. He has been called a traitor and been told to join the Knesset in Israel. This is reprehensible and unacceptable for the NYT comments section.
The possibility that Schumer felt there were major problems with the agreement and it was therefore not good for America wasn't considered as a logical reason for his decision, even though recent polls show that Americans are split fairly evenly for and against it. Yet, when his non-Jewish Democratic NY colleagues, Kathleen Rice and Grace Meng also opposed the deal, there was no discussion of where their loyalties might lie. This ugliness is reminiscent of Jewish students applying for certain committee positions at their colleges and experiencing the unique pleasure of having their loyalty questioned.
I believe people should be able to speak out in favor of or against the nuclear agreement, without fear of being demonized, ridiculed, or having their loyalty questioned, regardless of their religious beliefs or feelings towards Israel.
The possibility that Schumer felt there were major problems with the agreement and it was therefore not good for America wasn't considered as a logical reason for his decision, even though recent polls show that Americans are split fairly evenly for and against it. Yet, when his non-Jewish Democratic NY colleagues, Kathleen Rice and Grace Meng also opposed the deal, there was no discussion of where their loyalties might lie. This ugliness is reminiscent of Jewish students applying for certain committee positions at their colleges and experiencing the unique pleasure of having their loyalty questioned.
I believe people should be able to speak out in favor of or against the nuclear agreement, without fear of being demonized, ridiculed, or having their loyalty questioned, regardless of their religious beliefs or feelings towards Israel.
13
Once sanctions are lifted the people of Iran will be happier than ever with their dictators and the dictators will continue to pursue the goal of getting a nuclear weapon. Once Iran has a nuclear weapon they will give it to all their allies. The world will all have nuclear weaons soon. Iran will never stop working towards building nuclear weapons. The only hope is regime change. Iran's dictators are embarrased that Iran doesnt already have the bomb and they will stop at nothing to get it. Only a fool believes Iran. Meanwhile Iran tells its own people that nothing with change. Come on Carol. Iran will get the bomb faster and its people will never uprise again as they would have if sanctions and electric cars continued. This agreement with IRAN is all wrong. Iran hasnt agreed to anything. They wont even allow us to truly verify. Vote No to this agreement.
I am a democrat. I voted for Obama. I am completely against this article.
Iran is not to be trusted. Sanctions on Iran were working and with the rise of Electric Cars and the fall in the price of gas Iran was hurting. What my grandfather and his generation always told us was that regime change would happen in Iran once the people got tired of their dictators. That will never happen now.
I am a democrat. I voted for Obama. I am completely against this article.
Iran is not to be trusted. Sanctions on Iran were working and with the rise of Electric Cars and the fall in the price of gas Iran was hurting. What my grandfather and his generation always told us was that regime change would happen in Iran once the people got tired of their dictators. That will never happen now.
5
Obama is all wrong! He caved in everything and didn't even get our 4 Americans back! Dems should NOT SUPPORT THIS FUNDING OF TERRORISM!
4
Let me reiterate what I believe is the Republican Pentagon/C.I.A. strategy...............
( I don't drink or drug )
In the 1980's, the C.I.A. supported the mahujadeen and Osama Bin Laden in their fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets are forever trying to gain warm water ports ( even though ships are now obsolete sitting ducks ) for their Navy.
Then 911 occurred and we invaded Afghanistan to destroy Al Queada led by Bin Laden and then also wound up pitted against the ruling lunatics there, the Taliban. Afghanistan is on the eastern boundary of Iran. So then what? Well, then the Pentagon invaded Iraq on the western boundary of Iran to depose Saddam Hussein and take Iraq away from any Russian occupation from the north, and you guessed it; to keep them from getting a warm water port on the Persian Gulf with adequate supplies of oil.
So now, we are occupying both Afghanistan and Iraq and next on the agenda is Iran in the middle to complete the trifecta of Russian boundary southern flank nations. But the Russians got friendly with Iran probably because they felt threatened by our military on their southern flank.
Now that we have left Iraq and Afghanistan, the heat is off, so Russia helped us make an agreement with Iran not to make weapons. Anyone in Congress who doesn't see this gift of diplomacy and cooling of war is a fool.
The heat is off but could come back if this agreement fails. It really is important. Vote for peace, please. Thanks.
( I don't drink or drug )
In the 1980's, the C.I.A. supported the mahujadeen and Osama Bin Laden in their fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets are forever trying to gain warm water ports ( even though ships are now obsolete sitting ducks ) for their Navy.
Then 911 occurred and we invaded Afghanistan to destroy Al Queada led by Bin Laden and then also wound up pitted against the ruling lunatics there, the Taliban. Afghanistan is on the eastern boundary of Iran. So then what? Well, then the Pentagon invaded Iraq on the western boundary of Iran to depose Saddam Hussein and take Iraq away from any Russian occupation from the north, and you guessed it; to keep them from getting a warm water port on the Persian Gulf with adequate supplies of oil.
So now, we are occupying both Afghanistan and Iraq and next on the agenda is Iran in the middle to complete the trifecta of Russian boundary southern flank nations. But the Russians got friendly with Iran probably because they felt threatened by our military on their southern flank.
Now that we have left Iraq and Afghanistan, the heat is off, so Russia helped us make an agreement with Iran not to make weapons. Anyone in Congress who doesn't see this gift of diplomacy and cooling of war is a fool.
The heat is off but could come back if this agreement fails. It really is important. Vote for peace, please. Thanks.
5
Hello! Obama pushed this deal and you call it Republican??? This is Obamas funding of terror
2
Schumer spent a great deal of time listening to all sides of this debate (as reported by the Times today). He has access to the important information in this situation and took a position that could be politically unpopular among democrats in his own state not to mentionthe entire country.
My problem is that we, the people, have received very little information about the risks of this deal. From my standpoint, without access to all of the information that Schumer had when making his decision, is a deal which, by everyone's accounts, (no one denies it) will lead to an Iranian nuclear bomb within 15 years and will lead to an financially empowered Iran within one or two years, capable and willing to support so many terrorist organizations across the middle east as it has been doing with less money. It is not only the security of Israel that is at stake here...it is the balance of power in the region and that is why it is opposed by each and every one of the regional powers from Turkey, to Saudi Arabia, to Jordan, to Kuwait as well as Israel.
This is not about loyalty to Obama whether right or wrong and it is not about loyalty to Israel whether right or wrong.. It is about a Senator who came to his conclusions that this was not right, but rather wrong, after the kind of careful consideration that we all should be giving the agreement. I wish Obama, Kerry and all of the Senators who are marching lockstep behind them, would put the same care into their votes and actions.
My problem is that we, the people, have received very little information about the risks of this deal. From my standpoint, without access to all of the information that Schumer had when making his decision, is a deal which, by everyone's accounts, (no one denies it) will lead to an Iranian nuclear bomb within 15 years and will lead to an financially empowered Iran within one or two years, capable and willing to support so many terrorist organizations across the middle east as it has been doing with less money. It is not only the security of Israel that is at stake here...it is the balance of power in the region and that is why it is opposed by each and every one of the regional powers from Turkey, to Saudi Arabia, to Jordan, to Kuwait as well as Israel.
This is not about loyalty to Obama whether right or wrong and it is not about loyalty to Israel whether right or wrong.. It is about a Senator who came to his conclusions that this was not right, but rather wrong, after the kind of careful consideration that we all should be giving the agreement. I wish Obama, Kerry and all of the Senators who are marching lockstep behind them, would put the same care into their votes and actions.
6
Your comment seems to deny that Kerry and Obama have worked on this agreement for over a year. Do you think they have not given at least as much consideration and deliberation with the other five countries on all aspects of this issue? Do you think Schumer's 4-week second-hand listenings carry as much as or more weight than Obama's and Kerry's hands-on involvement? If so, that is pretty illogical.
Obama has been working on this agreement since before his second term. The French abhorred the idea, the British were nervous about it - really nervous. Google it and you will see. If you can read French you will see much more. The Russians and the . Chinese have for some time been desirous of increasing their influence in the Iranian orb, and China is openly trying to create an Asian bloc which would diminish American interest through banking and trade establishments though though both the Rissians and the Chinese were constrained by their agreements with the US, Britain and France. The Israelis, Turks, Saudis, and Kuwaitis have found common cause in their opposition. Obama is obviously a smart man, but Is Obama any smarter than the leadership of those four countries who know that they are existentially threatened by this agreement? Do you really believe that Kerry, a two year Secretary of State, has come out with the best deal.
We have been out thought, out negotiated and basically feebly beaten in these negotiations and, from what I can piece together as to the reason why, it has been because Obama was willing to be too compromising in order to have this "accomplishment" as a legacy. We Americans and the entire region at Iran's borders will be such with that legacy which will be one of a great proliferation of nuclear weaponry which may well fall into the hands of terrorists and madmen. These risks are being acknowledged but understated by our administration.
We have been out thought, out negotiated and basically feebly beaten in these negotiations and, from what I can piece together as to the reason why, it has been because Obama was willing to be too compromising in order to have this "accomplishment" as a legacy. We Americans and the entire region at Iran's borders will be such with that legacy which will be one of a great proliferation of nuclear weaponry which may well fall into the hands of terrorists and madmen. These risks are being acknowledged but understated by our administration.
1
Let's ban war.
Let's get rid of our arsenals of weapons and stop setting up the circumstances that will create war.
Simplistic, yes.
But quantum physics shows us that what we think is what we create.
They have planted the seeds of war again simply in the threat. Shameful!!
Only Peace for the way forward in the 21st C.
Let's get rid of our arsenals of weapons and stop setting up the circumstances that will create war.
Simplistic, yes.
But quantum physics shows us that what we think is what we create.
They have planted the seeds of war again simply in the threat. Shameful!!
Only Peace for the way forward in the 21st C.
4
"but resistance to the accord among Democrats is concentrated in two heavily Jewish regions, the New York City area and South Florida. In recent weeks, Representative Steve Israel of New York, the most senior Jewish Democrat in the House, and Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, came out against the deal"
The above says it all. It is natural to expect American jewish lawmakers to support Israel's interests more than the American interests; after all every person of jewish origin living any where in the world is automatically a citizen of Israel whether he formally applies for citizenship or not.
The above says it all. It is natural to expect American jewish lawmakers to support Israel's interests more than the American interests; after all every person of jewish origin living any where in the world is automatically a citizen of Israel whether he formally applies for citizenship or not.
4
Sadly, you are correct.
1
Yes, we should ban all Jewish and Muslim politicians, whose loyalties are not to America. It's worth asking the same question of Indian and Chinese politicians, as well, as we compete in the global economy. And black politicians? How do we know they won't favor programs that benefit other black people?
See where I'm going with this?
See where I'm going with this?
1
While Schumer's conscience-driven and meticulously researched choice on the Obama Iran agreement may not scuttle it, it has scuttled a period relatively free of antisemitism in the U.S. There has been an underlying tone of antisemitism for some time in both progressive and far right circles, focused largely on Middle East and fundamentalist issues. Now the dogs of hell are unleashed and one can expect a rising tide of hostile actions as well as words. This will come as a shock to younger, secular and progressivist American Jews but will be all too familiar to their elders and to the extreme orthodox. In the end the individual most responsible will be Obama with his polarizing claims about opponents of the Iran agreement, which are entirely lacking in merit. It is a bitter irony that the first black president has presided over rising racial, ethnic and religious conflict in the U.S. on multiple fronts. But then, he and progressives will blame it all on the conservatives and the Jews.
7
Chuck Schumer should face a serious primary challenger in 2016 for this. He should also be challenged in his efforts to become the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.
Lets be clear. Those who would scuttle this deal do so because they want war with Iran. They should have the courage of their convictions and come out and say it. But they won't because they know the American people have no stomach for another elective war. Schumer and AIPAC may object to being labled war-mongers by some supporters of Obama administration, but that is precisely what they are. Their reasoning now is no more convincing that it was when essentially the same argument was being made by the same people in support of an authorization of an invasion of Iraq.
It should be remembered that Schumer's children will not be fighting in the war that he is advocating. That dirty work will be unloaded on other peoples children. Both of Schumer's daughters are Harvard graduates. One works for the Council of Economic Advisors while the other works for Facebook. Their comfortable lives will not suffer any inconvenience when the US goes to war with Iran at their father's behest.
Lets be clear. Those who would scuttle this deal do so because they want war with Iran. They should have the courage of their convictions and come out and say it. But they won't because they know the American people have no stomach for another elective war. Schumer and AIPAC may object to being labled war-mongers by some supporters of Obama administration, but that is precisely what they are. Their reasoning now is no more convincing that it was when essentially the same argument was being made by the same people in support of an authorization of an invasion of Iraq.
It should be remembered that Schumer's children will not be fighting in the war that he is advocating. That dirty work will be unloaded on other peoples children. Both of Schumer's daughters are Harvard graduates. One works for the Council of Economic Advisors while the other works for Facebook. Their comfortable lives will not suffer any inconvenience when the US goes to war with Iran at their father's behest.
21
Reading about the 700 members AIPAC sent to Washington to lobby against the deal with Iran, I wondered to myself how many of those people (i) believe that Palestinians are an "invented people" (quoting Newt Gingrich) (ii) Palestinians should be kicked out of the West Bank and absorbed into Jordan. (iii) Believe that a video showing an Palestinian man being killed by IDF snipers is "Paliwood."
Unless AIPAC members tell me otherwise, I am inclined to think that a majority of the 700 believe in (i)--(iii). If so, what is one to think of their credibility and motives?
Unless AIPAC members tell me otherwise, I am inclined to think that a majority of the 700 believe in (i)--(iii). If so, what is one to think of their credibility and motives?
9
One of the complexities of the deal with Iran is the fact that several other nations are parties to it. This isn't just an Iran versus USA situation. I find lacking in all the opposition statements, the advertisements, and even the President's statements about the deal any significant references to those third parties. There's an obvious arrogance in the minds of many that the USA determines what its allies and China and Russia will do if we fail to support the plan. I find the failure to posit any alternatives, as well as to refer to the other parties, from those opposed to the plan, such as Schumer, questionable and indefensible.
5
Schumer's position on the this does not really surprise me as he also voted to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. We need a real Democrat who will support America.
14
I know of no one in this country who voted for Mr. Netanyahu to represent us.
Mr. Schumer, shame on you !
Mr. Schumer, shame on you !
20
It's being reported that since his decision to undermine the president and oppose the nuclear agreement with Iran, Sen. Schumer has been avoiding cameras -- the first time in his 34-year career in Washington that this has ever happened. What a pathetic way to make history.
20
Suppose Israeli security officials could convince Netanyahu that "the deal isn't that bad that we can't live with it and certainly less critical than an open breech with the only ally we have in the world", and Netanyahu finally agrees, stating "okay, the Americans can go ahead with the deal". My presumption is that the new Aipac directive, to which Schumer would heartily assent, would be "under the inspired leadership of the Prime Minister, we state our unequivocal support for the deal and regret any past confusion on this score."
6
Can the politicians in Washington for once put politics, money and favoritism aside and do what is best for the US and the world? This deal isn't perfect and comes with some downside,
but the downside of walking away from it is far far greater
but the downside of walking away from it is far far greater
9
Who does Senator Schumer report to as commander in Chief? Netanyahoo or President Obama? I'm confused now. Who elected Senator Schumer? The same people who elected the President. Now, who does Senator Schumer serve? The People of the United States or the Prime Minster of Israel? He's just sent the world a bumbling confusing message. I don't like seeing the President getting stabbed in the back and in effect he's stabbing the majority of Americans who voted for our President in the hopes that he would make the best decisions for our country. As far as I'm concerned, he's a traitor to the Democratic Party and an agent for Netanyahu's 'NO' to peace/'YES' to war agenda. He's clearly sold out his party and all of us who voted for the President - those who elected him. Concerning Schumer, I would vote 'NO' to anything he now wants to help further his career in the United States. But hey, maybe Netanyahu has a special post waiting for him or something like that over in Israel so that he can manage the war in the real country of his choice.
14
That Mr. Schumer opted for Talmudic reasoning and chose to join the ranks of the Zionist Flat Earth Society over the Iranian nuclear disarmament treaty does not augur well for enlightened government.
11
Can we speak honestly about the problem of AIPAC. Not being Jewish, I have no ties to Israel. I recognize the pull Israel has for my Jewish friends and colleagues, but I don't have the same feelings. If you have ties to Israel, there may be a real conflict between ones feelings for the US and feeling for Israel. And for dual citizens the conflict is stronger. AIPAC may have the legal right to lobby as it does, but it is no more in our interests (US interests) than any other lobby for a foreign cause.
19
The no vote by Senator Schumer was not unexpected as he has always supported Israel in their endeavors. What I see is that the party should think twice before making him Majority leader as he is not an independent thinker where Israel is concerned. We will NOT go to war for Netanyahu or Israel and out foreign policy should reflect the best interest of the US and not a foreign government.
14
Has any one pondered that only 2 countries officially oppose the Iran Deal: North Korea and Israel, along with all the Republicans and some democrats out of "misguided" concerns for Israel, as well as some hardliners/conservatives in Iran,and Saudi Arabia? "Chest thumping utterance of "We are the Great," and a myopic view of the World, I believe, will accelerate America's diminishing influence in the Real World. Sanctions and economic leverages, in the face of world opposition or disagreement will surely dissipate over time, leaving the region and the World more chaotic.
Obama and the Democrats have some understanding of the changing nature of the geopolitics and doing their best to keep America's positive and viable influence in the World. Republicans have a history of misjudgments and poor understanding of dynamics of geopolitics: Their policies have cost American lives and influence starting from losing South Vietnam after five years of so called negotiations, and more recently their blunderbuss involvement in Iraq (giving rise to Iran's influence there), and a total lack of understanding of the Middle East dynamics that led to 9/11. They don't seem to understand the ISIS and Al Queda's who are bent on attacking fellow Muslim moderates as well as the West, or any country allied with the West, including Israel, and they are the mortal enemies of the Shias of Iran.
It is a very complicated picture. Hopefully the American public will become aware of this!
Obama and the Democrats have some understanding of the changing nature of the geopolitics and doing their best to keep America's positive and viable influence in the World. Republicans have a history of misjudgments and poor understanding of dynamics of geopolitics: Their policies have cost American lives and influence starting from losing South Vietnam after five years of so called negotiations, and more recently their blunderbuss involvement in Iraq (giving rise to Iran's influence there), and a total lack of understanding of the Middle East dynamics that led to 9/11. They don't seem to understand the ISIS and Al Queda's who are bent on attacking fellow Muslim moderates as well as the West, or any country allied with the West, including Israel, and they are the mortal enemies of the Shias of Iran.
It is a very complicated picture. Hopefully the American public will become aware of this!
6
I am trying to restrain my fury, my disappointment. I am sorry but this raises the question more than ever: is the first loyalty of Jewish Americans to the USA or to a very fractured Israeli State that in several domains behaves in a disturbing way: to name a few, disproportionate violence over the several Intifadas, three assaults on Gaza that have fatalities of 100:1, 500:1 or whatever, no measure for the extent of catastrophic infrastructure damage, schools, hospitals, homes destroyed in Gaza, in the last blitz, more than 500 children killed, 19 entire families erased from the earth every generation for all time. Earlier, the Lebanon catastrophe and the massacres at Sabra and Chatilla.
Rachel Corrie, murdered by Caterpillar pulverization and the USA is silent.
Oren, Dermer, born in the USA but assaulting the USA especially President Obama in a fashion that hints at exploiting the race card. Oren has been flagrant in the use of the race card.
Contrast this with politicians with Irish ancestry in the Senate and Congress, unrelenting in denouncing IRA violence (too unilateral in my view in their condemnations) but unalterably for dialogue, negotiations.
Very disappointed with Schumer - have voted for him twice, may do so again but for sure abstain if there's not a serious contest.
Fantastic statement from Senator Sanders - Chuck should explore what it is to live without $$$ from Wall Street.
Rachel Corrie, murdered by Caterpillar pulverization and the USA is silent.
Oren, Dermer, born in the USA but assaulting the USA especially President Obama in a fashion that hints at exploiting the race card. Oren has been flagrant in the use of the race card.
Contrast this with politicians with Irish ancestry in the Senate and Congress, unrelenting in denouncing IRA violence (too unilateral in my view in their condemnations) but unalterably for dialogue, negotiations.
Very disappointed with Schumer - have voted for him twice, may do so again but for sure abstain if there's not a serious contest.
Fantastic statement from Senator Sanders - Chuck should explore what it is to live without $$$ from Wall Street.
15
Why does every serious presidential candidate always visit Israel? Because of the Chuck Schumers of Congress. Because of the AIPACs. I'll be ready and willing to vote for any presidential candidate in the next election cycle that makes it a point NOT to visit Israel. We need American political leaders who put America first.
19
Schumer has ensured that the US may never have a Jewish president. The question of dual-loyalty has slipped its anti-Semitic bonds and fairly entered mainstream consideration. Think about that, Chucky!
10
Gotta love it. Someone who blames anti-semitism on a Jew! Talk about blaming the victim. Doesn't get much more anti-semitic than that!
1
You make much of the opposition to this deal by politicians who happen to be Jewish.
Maybe it's because these American politicians are aware of the fact that, for an Iranian ICBM, New York is about 15 minutes further away than Tel Aviv?
Shame on you, NYT.
Maybe it's because these American politicians are aware of the fact that, for an Iranian ICBM, New York is about 15 minutes further away than Tel Aviv?
Shame on you, NYT.
6
The Administration caved in to the Mullahs on every important point in their desperation for a deal, the inspection mechanisms are a joke, it allows the Iranians hundreds of billions of dollars with which to advance their terrorism-based foreign policy in the region and to develop ICBM technology, the secret side deals (!), and a nuclear arms race involving the Saudis, Egyptians, Turks, etc. will now ensue.
5
We need a Senate leader whose is pro-America an not pro-Israel. I hope Senator never becomes Senate minority or majority leader!
11
Too bad Schumer caved in to Aipac and Bibi - out of fear for his political life, most likely. He used to be one of my favorite Democratic senators. I lost a lot of respect for him. Israel only cares about Israel. Bibi scared all the Jews into voting for him again, sad day for the Israeli left who still care about peace.
8
The accompanying article about President Obama's testy exchanges with AIPAC, etc. over the Iran agreement is weirdly slanted to make it seem as though the President is being unreasonable, when in fact it is the agreement's opponents whose complaints reek of self-pity and hypocrisy. They object to being called "warmongers" even though the only logical outcome of their stance is war. And they insist on being considered above criticism, suggesting that to do otherwise empowers the anti-Semites.
7
Schumer voted for the Iraq war - a complete debacle in every way. Now he takes the side of the war-mongering demagogic right wing, and helps grease the ways for yet another Middle East war. He worries about Iran in 10 years, but it is incomprehensible to me that the Senator cannot foresee the near-term consequences of failure of this nuclear deal. Consequently, I view his decision as evidence of lack of real leadership quality, and as tainted by feckless political expediency.
11
This is such a disappointment, and I'm not even a registered Democrat. There are many worthwhile and respected Iranian-Americans who transcend petty politics. We need to offer more, not less, respect to every-day Iranians who inhabit the same world we do.
9
I understand the desire of many politicians to scuttle the deal, but I'm not sure that they see all the consequences: firstly it is discredit the US government in front of the international community, secondly, it is the rupture of relations with the West's main ally in the Middle East, and thirdly, it is unreasonable blocking of the economy of another country.
3
Talking about ulterior motives, such as Sen. Schumer's alleged deference to Israeli/Netanyahu interests, I allege the US administration has rushed the Iran nuclear accord because time is running out on its incumbency so the deal needs to be closed now and for no other reason. Not because it's the only deal or a good deal or even a bad deal.
I don't think Obama or Kerry or others are especially bad at foreign policy. They've continued a sorry state of affairs that has tracked decades.
With an upper hand from the start, this crew managed to screw up relations with, alienate and uncontain Russia. Iraq spun out of control. Libya. Afghanistan. Need I go on? What an incompetent superpower.
I don't think Obama or Kerry or others are especially bad at foreign policy. They've continued a sorry state of affairs that has tracked decades.
With an upper hand from the start, this crew managed to screw up relations with, alienate and uncontain Russia. Iraq spun out of control. Libya. Afghanistan. Need I go on? What an incompetent superpower.
4
How disappointing - Chuck Schumer decides to vote for what's in the best interest of religious group in a country 6,700 miles away rather than for the people and country he was actually elected to represent.
11
President Obama should be supported in his efforts to get the agreement with Iran passed. The Israelis are out of line. If this is a "family" fight, they are cousins and should let the Americans decide for themselves.
7
Mr. Schumer's decision is very disappointing but also eye opening. I have had questions about this man for a while, since he seems less a Democrat in terms of addressing income inequality and his support for the Iraq War, but this decision exposes him as someone who should not be in a position of leadership in the Democratic Party. I am sure he thinks that this is a freebie, where he can maintain unfettered ties with Israel and slog through a re-election at home and still win by a wide margin. Perhaps, he can, but he may have made the wrong bet on both accounts. He is a DINO, and has got to go. Hopefully, he will be challenged in the primary.
11
I am Jewish. I am a long-time admirer of the Senator. But I am appalled by his decision. To put it gently this is all about the power of the AIPAC lobby, not about the merits of the deal. He just lost my support for being the next minority leader.
15
Hopefully, the people of New York will defeat Schumer in 2016. He can then take a lucrative job as a lobbyist for AIPAC, or better yet, move to Israel where his loyalties are. He certainly doesn't belong in the Democratic leadership.
9
Is Shumer allowing his religion to dictate his vote(s)? Is Shumer in the thrall of the yahoo Netanyahu? Does Shumer grovel at the feet of Bibi? Who is Shumer working for? Us or the Israelis?
8
Chuck Schumer voted to go to war with Iraq. We know how that turned out.
Senator Schumer chose to support 47 traitors and its author (a freshman opposing Senator) over the wise judgment of his own party. He also chooses to promote another war with another Middle East country that hasn't attacked Israel.
Perhaps Chuck Schumer can volunteer his own family members to fight the next war over there? It's only fair for hawks to lead the way.
Senator Schumer chose to support 47 traitors and its author (a freshman opposing Senator) over the wise judgment of his own party. He also chooses to promote another war with another Middle East country that hasn't attacked Israel.
Perhaps Chuck Schumer can volunteer his own family members to fight the next war over there? It's only fair for hawks to lead the way.
13
Chuck Schumer: a man who knows who his donors are.
13
Of course, the liberal undercurrent is that the Jewish Senator Schumer is a Netanyahu tool and a victim of AIPAC lobbying rather than a patriot concerned just as much for American security as well as the security of Israel and the Middle East in general. A perfectly prudent position in the face of a murderous regime, a leader in exporting terror worldwide, vowing to destroy Israel, and referring to the United States, with all of the freedoms they lack, as the 'Great Satan'.
The Iranian fundamentalist terrorist theocracy are precisely the people that other people don't want to do business with. Repeatedly, they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. They should be shunned and sanctioned until they modify their behavior to comply with civilized standards and basic humanity. Such an agreement as Obama espouses rewards that behavior rather than discouraging it.
The Iranian fundamentalist terrorist theocracy are precisely the people that other people don't want to do business with. Repeatedly, they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. They should be shunned and sanctioned until they modify their behavior to comply with civilized standards and basic humanity. Such an agreement as Obama espouses rewards that behavior rather than discouraging it.
4
Funny, Dick Cheney (Chairman) and Halliburton had no trouble doing business with Iran.
The most outrageous parts of Schumers action was his supposed hemming and hawing the past couple of weeks, walking around with a note pad taking notes and pretending to be in deep contemplation while in reality planning on dissing the president. The fact that he announced it during the Republican clown show, t soften his hypocrisy shows where his loyalty lies! Hopefully, he won't make it to head of the Democratic senate
10
This is no surprise. Chuck Schumer was right there with the Bush administration, the neocons and Netanyahu supporting the Iraq war; the same exact people who are opposing this deal. He was wrong then and he is wrong now.
Mr. Schumer knows that the only alternative to peace is war, which would delay Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon in much less time than this agreement will by our allies. This is not Obama's deal alone. If the failure of this peace agreement can be attributed to America alone, then you can kiss the sanctions by the other five nations goodbye (especially China and Russia just waiting to sell arms to Iran), along with our credibility.
There is the option of Chuck voting against it but standing with the president’s veto override for political reasons (wanting to be the next majority or minority leader of the Senate replacing Harry Reid).
Give peace a chance.
Mr. Schumer knows that the only alternative to peace is war, which would delay Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon in much less time than this agreement will by our allies. This is not Obama's deal alone. If the failure of this peace agreement can be attributed to America alone, then you can kiss the sanctions by the other five nations goodbye (especially China and Russia just waiting to sell arms to Iran), along with our credibility.
There is the option of Chuck voting against it but standing with the president’s veto override for political reasons (wanting to be the next majority or minority leader of the Senate replacing Harry Reid).
Give peace a chance.
4
Thank you Senator Schumer for promising to vote against this sell out: First of American security and Second: of the security of the best friend we have in that part of the world. Third the compromise of the security of ALL our allies in the Arab World.
It only took days for Iran to violate the agreement to keep the sanctions in place on the Iranian General who controls the Quds Force. This while Kerry is testifying before Congress that the sanctions on this individual were still in effect. Iran is already thumbing their collective noses at America and especially our President.
Just one more humilation we have to suffer under this administration...
It only took days for Iran to violate the agreement to keep the sanctions in place on the Iranian General who controls the Quds Force. This while Kerry is testifying before Congress that the sanctions on this individual were still in effect. Iran is already thumbing their collective noses at America and especially our President.
Just one more humilation we have to suffer under this administration...
5
Schumer becomes leader of the Dems' "Israel First" posse, a blood ally of the Repubs. Does that posse include enough members to make him leader of the party's Senate caucus as well?
2
I don't understand the anger towards MK Schumer; he's just supporting his leader.
7
Since the deals announcement we haven't seen a single NYT, or much other, poll on the subject. Why the wait, are we trying to give opponents to make lies stick?
3
He only opposes it because he's a Jew. He has to, otherwise, the Upper East Side will not reelect him!
3
Israel is not an ally. They are a theocratic terrorist state that is intent on genocide for its minorities. They put these minorities in prison camps, deny them food and water; when they cry out or fight back, Israel drops bombs on them.
8
Maintaining Iran's status as bogeyman is the right wing's modus operandi for maintaining power in Israel. If this agreement were to go through and Iran abandoned their nuclear program, the right wing conservatives in Israel would lose the next election.
6
I am happy to identify myself as an American Democrat and liberal who will utterly and completely turn his back on Israel should they continue to meddle in our political process in this way. We are not your stooges or your lackeys.
BACK OFF.
I think many Americans are still largely unaware of how serious this rift has become. My family is Jewish, but I am furious with Israel's heavy-handed interventions into our political process, and the repeated humiliation of our President.
AIPAC would do well NOT to be responsible for compromising this deal. Chill out, AIPAC. In trying to win this fight you risk losing the larger war.
Do American Jews imagine it is really a good idea to throw in their lot with the Christian extremists of the Republican Party?
Because that's what we are looking at here. Increasingly, the American left resembles the European left in its attitude toward Israel. A serious breach over this deal and this will become a wound which WILL NOT HEAL.
Your choice, Israel. We are basically the only friends you have in the world. Do you assume that armfuls of cash will continue to make us friends? Don't fool yourselves.
BACK OFF.
I think many Americans are still largely unaware of how serious this rift has become. My family is Jewish, but I am furious with Israel's heavy-handed interventions into our political process, and the repeated humiliation of our President.
AIPAC would do well NOT to be responsible for compromising this deal. Chill out, AIPAC. In trying to win this fight you risk losing the larger war.
Do American Jews imagine it is really a good idea to throw in their lot with the Christian extremists of the Republican Party?
Because that's what we are looking at here. Increasingly, the American left resembles the European left in its attitude toward Israel. A serious breach over this deal and this will become a wound which WILL NOT HEAL.
Your choice, Israel. We are basically the only friends you have in the world. Do you assume that armfuls of cash will continue to make us friends? Don't fool yourselves.
20
The optics of Senator Schumer opposing this hard fought, reasonable agreement, while the President Reuvin Rivlin of Israel warns Prime Minister Netanyahu that opposition to the Iran deal further isolates Israel and harms the US-Israel illuminates Rivlin's point. America already guarantees the survivorship of Israel with---American values, not Israel's Apartheid nor the Likud's imperialistic vision.
America is getting tired of the invasive and overreaching agenda of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his American Neocons. If the Iran Deal fails in Congress, what will be the next step? Go back and argue some more and rattle our sabers? Hilarious. Invade? Even more hilarious. America is not going to invade anyone. Besides, Iran knows what Israel chooses to ignore---Americans are tired of war.
America is getting tired of the invasive and overreaching agenda of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his American Neocons. If the Iran Deal fails in Congress, what will be the next step? Go back and argue some more and rattle our sabers? Hilarious. Invade? Even more hilarious. America is not going to invade anyone. Besides, Iran knows what Israel chooses to ignore---Americans are tired of war.
10
Schumer's opposition to the Iran nuclear deal is simply unpatriotic and shameful for he has placed the narrow and selfish interest of a small group of moneyed people over the interest of the US and American people.
9
Schumer just proves that he is more beholden to Israel than he is to the United States. Nothing but treasonous legislating.
12
Just imagine if all other ethnic/immigrant groups started to do that? German Americans beholding to Germany, Spanish Americans to Spain, Indian Americans beholding to India, Pakistani Americans to Pakistan, Irish Americans beholding to Ireland, Italian Americans beholding to Italy, Kenyan Americans to Kenya, Arab Americans to Arab states....etc etc. We will all have dual citizenships, one foot here, one foot there. Our legislators will legistate in both America and the country of their ancestor's origin. What fun.
Why don't the deal's supporters start talking about the merits of the deal in terms of the facts? Could it be because nothing about this deal weigh in its favor at least as far as America and its allies are concerned? So it's not surprising that AIPAC is lobbying against it.
And perhaps Obama ought to explain why he's lobbying so forcefully for something that a majority of members congress oppose and that paves the way for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
And perhaps Obama ought to explain why he's lobbying so forcefully for something that a majority of members congress oppose and that paves the way for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
10
Wait America has allies? Are these like friends for.. umm geopolitical Americans? 1944 is a GREAT year.
More Jewish group think. How about thinking for yourself, like how to make peace for your future generations?
1
Those who now use our negotiations with the USSR as justification for negotiating with the terror state of Iran have a gross misunderstanding of the dynamics that existed between the US and USSR and what now exists between the US and Iran. For one, both the US and USSR already had nuclear weapons and were both considered superpowers at the time. Therefore the US treated the USSR as an equal during the negotiating. The fact that the President is now using those negotiations as a blueprint to deal with Iran elevates them to a position on the world stage that they have not earned or deserve. And diminishes the prestige of this nation on the world stage as the sole superpower because of a failure to negotiate from a rightful position of projected strength instead of an uncharacteristic projected position weakness. Such behavior does not endear us to our enemies. On the contrary it only emboldens them and makes them more brass. A fact that we are now witnessing from the likes of China, Russia and even Iran.
10
I don't think of New Yorkers as naive, but I'm starting to wonder.
Do you NY voters really think Chuck Schumer cares what you think? Are you aware of just how big his victory margins have been? He could lose a million votes, and gain just a few, and still win re-election in a landslide. He couldn't care less what any of you think. AIPAC, yes. Netanyahu, possibly. Voters? Not unless he thinks there's a remote chance that he could lose the next election; I'm sure he doesn't think that.
Do you NY voters really think Chuck Schumer cares what you think? Are you aware of just how big his victory margins have been? He could lose a million votes, and gain just a few, and still win re-election in a landslide. He couldn't care less what any of you think. AIPAC, yes. Netanyahu, possibly. Voters? Not unless he thinks there's a remote chance that he could lose the next election; I'm sure he doesn't think that.
14
If we are at war with Iran come Nov 2016, Chuck may pay for this idiocy at the polls.
You don't know ny and you don't understand Jewish sentiment on this. Schemer was right to fear them but he was wrong to do wrong
We would like NYT to run a tally of Democrats who have announced their position pro & con on the front page with a list of names when expanded.
This is the most important issue facing your readers this summer as made clear by the commentators.
This is the most important issue facing your readers this summer as made clear by the commentators.
18
It was my hope that Schumer would make the right decision - to stand up for diplomacy and against hardliners that believe war is always option #1. He is up for reelection in 2016 and as a lifelong Democrat and New Yorker, I'm voting for someone else.
32
"Look at what happened in North Korea..."
Yes, let's look.
We cut a deal with North Korea that called for NK to shut down its nuclear reactors in exchange for our not blocking food shipments to NK. NK shut down its reactors, but we kept blocking the food shipments. NK said: "Hey, once we shut down our reactors, which we've done, you're supposed to stop blocking food shipments." We replied: "Well, we remember the reactor-shutdown part. Did we say we'd stop blocking food shipments? Sorry, I guess that part slipped our mind." NK then replied: "Well, now that we've reminded you, we expect you'll stop blocking the food shipments, right?" The US replied: "We'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, thanks for shutting down your reactors."
We didn't stop blocking food shipments, and eventually NK lost hope that we ever would. It fired its reactors back up, withdrew from the NNPT, and the rest is history. Would the US have behaved differently if the tables were turned?
Still want to "look at North Korea?"
Yes, let's look.
We cut a deal with North Korea that called for NK to shut down its nuclear reactors in exchange for our not blocking food shipments to NK. NK shut down its reactors, but we kept blocking the food shipments. NK said: "Hey, once we shut down our reactors, which we've done, you're supposed to stop blocking food shipments." We replied: "Well, we remember the reactor-shutdown part. Did we say we'd stop blocking food shipments? Sorry, I guess that part slipped our mind." NK then replied: "Well, now that we've reminded you, we expect you'll stop blocking the food shipments, right?" The US replied: "We'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, thanks for shutting down your reactors."
We didn't stop blocking food shipments, and eventually NK lost hope that we ever would. It fired its reactors back up, withdrew from the NNPT, and the rest is history. Would the US have behaved differently if the tables were turned?
Still want to "look at North Korea?"
9
Not exactly a good comparison. With Seoul slightly over an hour's drive from North Korea, another war on the Korean peninsula was not exactly a good option. And people were actually starving in NK, which added certain moral dimensions to any decisions re food shipments.
1
Here is Mr. Sanders’s full statement supporting the deal.
“The test of a great nation is not how many wars it can engage in, it is how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner. The war in Iraq, which I opposed, destabilized the entire region, helped create and expand Al Qaeda and the Islamic State and cost the lives of 6,700 brave men and women, and resulted in hundreds of thousands in our armed forces returning home with PTSD and traumatic brain injury. I fear very much that many of my Republican colleagues do not understand that war must be a last resort, not a first resort. The United States must do everything it can to make certain that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, that Israel is not threatened by a nuclear Iran and that a nuclear arms race in the region is avoided.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have worked through an extremely difficult and complicated process with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia and of course Iran. This agreement is obviously not what many of us would have liked, but it beats the alternative: a war with Iran that could go on for years.
“The test of a great nation is not how many wars it can engage in, it is how it can resolve international conflicts in a peaceful manner. The war in Iraq, which I opposed, destabilized the entire region, helped create and expand Al Qaeda and the Islamic State and cost the lives of 6,700 brave men and women, and resulted in hundreds of thousands in our armed forces returning home with PTSD and traumatic brain injury. I fear very much that many of my Republican colleagues do not understand that war must be a last resort, not a first resort. The United States must do everything it can to make certain that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, that Israel is not threatened by a nuclear Iran and that a nuclear arms race in the region is avoided.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have worked through an extremely difficult and complicated process with the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia and of course Iran. This agreement is obviously not what many of us would have liked, but it beats the alternative: a war with Iran that could go on for years.
40
"This agreement" doesn't even include terms consistent with the provisions which the president and Secretary of State insisted were mandatory a few short months ago. And the alternative now is .. war, apparently, according to the pronouncements of those whose earlier promises have been forgotten?
Yes, good job Mr Schumer. The Iran deal stinks. Proof just yesterday photos from high up showing construction into a mountain. I dont think its a bomb shelter their building. Then yesterday a Iranian big shot banned from leaving Iran as part of the agreement goes to Moscow.. Whats up Obamadeal. Mr Schumer drive on. Do whats good for the country. Not for Obamas legacy. Iran will never live up to any deal with the US because they hate us. The daily speeches from their supreme leader will tell you that.
9
So you think that another Middle East war is a better choice, huh? "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Ho hum.
Chuck Schumer, and many others, will have their brief moment in the sun, but when the 60 days is up, this deal will go forward. Maybe the Schumers of the world will turn out to be right -- Iran will cheat. Maybe not (I predict "not"). But either way, this deal is going forward. All this oppositional chatter is just white noise. What WILL matter is something we'll find out 6 months or a year from now: whether Iran will "cheat." Let's all pay attention -- we HAVE to, since the Schumers of the world won't.
Chuck Schumer, and many others, will have their brief moment in the sun, but when the 60 days is up, this deal will go forward. Maybe the Schumers of the world will turn out to be right -- Iran will cheat. Maybe not (I predict "not"). But either way, this deal is going forward. All this oppositional chatter is just white noise. What WILL matter is something we'll find out 6 months or a year from now: whether Iran will "cheat." Let's all pay attention -- we HAVE to, since the Schumers of the world won't.
7
Well said.
Reading the responses to this article, I sense that the line is being crossed between valid criticism (of Schumer) and character assassination. I don't like that sort of thing, which is why I don't read the Daily News or the NYPost. So readers of the New York Times, please consider: There are a number of thinking people in this country -- liberal Democrats among them -- who oppose the Iran nuclear deal because they believe it would endanger the U.S. (i.e., without reference to Israel).This strikes me as a reasonable position -- whether you agree with it or not. Chuck Schumer has a right to hold that position without being accused of putting Israel first and without having his integrity called into question...just because he happens to be Jewish.
9
Eyes on re-election, not acting like a Senator who has no deep concern for diplomacy. It appears Sen. Schumer is no mensch.
8
A move right out of the Netanyahu playbook - flip-flopping to protect your own hide.
Isn't this the same Senator Schumer who, after careful consideration, determined that the carried interest tax windfall for hedge-fund managers was in the best interest of the country? I'm confident that his decision had nothing to do with the hedge-fund donors his campaigns, just as I'm confident that this decision had nothing to do with campaign donations.
31
Schumer, your decision is a disgrace. You have proven that you are captured by Wall Street and the Israel lobby. Your vote totally contradicts the overwhelming majority of the people who you represent. But you listen to the dollars, not the voters.
No where is there any mention of better feasible solution. You don't have a better solution (don't just say a better deal because we all know how vacuous that is). Sure, compromises were made in this deal but that is what negotiation looks like. You have been around the block enough to know that. Your position on this is totally disingenuous. You have lost my vote forever.
No where is there any mention of better feasible solution. You don't have a better solution (don't just say a better deal because we all know how vacuous that is). Sure, compromises were made in this deal but that is what negotiation looks like. You have been around the block enough to know that. Your position on this is totally disingenuous. You have lost my vote forever.
29
What truly puzzles me is that Israel seems quite unconcerned about Pakistan's nuclear weapons while hyperventilating about Iran, which doesn't have any yet. I can pretty much predict that if, god forbid, Israel ever gets nuked, it'll be by a Pakistani nuclear weapon, delivered into Arab hands.
11
Absolutely right that Pakistan is potentially the loosest nuclear cannon - a country that festers with Islamic fanatic fundamentalism, ruled by a military elite with a veneer of a weak corrupt democracy.
4
Senator Schumer and others opposed to the nuclear treaty with Iran claim that the Iranian politicians are not to be trusted and this treaty poses an existential threat to Israel. Yet, Iranian hardliners, who are the most vociferous in their hatred of Israel, are opposed to the deal. For these extremists it is the West that can never be trusted and any compromise and negotiation poses an existential threat to their brand of fanaticism that paints the USA as the great Satan. Reneging on the treaty plays into the hands of the Iranian hardliners. I am not naive to think the Iranian fanatics will stop shouting "death to Israel" or "death to America" after the treaty is signed. However, the implementation is a positive step forward and indicates that politicians in both Iran and in USA and associated allies would rather negotiate than go to war. Considering the misery, unnecessary suffering and trillion dollar waste that resulted from the Iraqi war, every effort should be made to avoid another disaster.
10
AIPAC reminds me of the anti-Castro Cuban exile community in Florida: far more political influence than their numbers warrant, fanatical in their extremist demands for unconditional surrender, and blind to the reality that war will not result in it.
This deal is not about suppressing supposed terrorism on the part of Iran. It is about preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Period. Full stop. End of story. If AIPAC wants negotiations concerning tit-for-tat violence in the Middle East, let them go to their enemies and negotiate about those issues with them.
Meanwhile Chuck Schumer has sold out his country, his president, and his political party for no good reason. He knows what the stated objectives and terms of this deal are. Caving in to AIPAC extremists should end his political carreer, and I hope it does.
This deal is not about suppressing supposed terrorism on the part of Iran. It is about preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Period. Full stop. End of story. If AIPAC wants negotiations concerning tit-for-tat violence in the Middle East, let them go to their enemies and negotiate about those issues with them.
Meanwhile Chuck Schumer has sold out his country, his president, and his political party for no good reason. He knows what the stated objectives and terms of this deal are. Caving in to AIPAC extremists should end his political carreer, and I hope it does.
29
The fact remains if President Jeb Bush was promoting this deal, the democrats would be free to express how they truly feel about it and would overwhelming vote against it. The fact that only a handful of democrats have the character to express their heart demonstrates how far the politique has fallen in this nation. And considering the life and death repercussions of such a deal, their silence is deafening. Decades from now after the world is rebuilding from the calamity birthed by this deal, their will be documentaries on the cowardice of the democrats entitled 'Their silence was deafening'.
7
New York politicians are doomed to be suppressed by Jewish lobbyists, but New York is not representative of the U.S. I vote to pass this deal with Iran.
11
Iran is not going to attack Israel. The cost would be too high.
Sleazy backdoor dealings -- sure. Supporting terrorists -- maybe, but not that much more than the rest of the Middle East. (Saudi Arabia, our ally, has a bad record there, too. Remember 9/11?) But Iran attacking Israel? Not going to happen. Not as long as the U.S. is Israel's ally. Iran doesn't want nuclear war any more than any other country does. They aren't crazy. They aren't North Korea. They are a functioning nation with their own internal politics and young people eager for more contact with the West. They may not like the American government, they may hate Israel, but they are not going to attack Israel unless they themselves are attacked.
Anyone with sense knows this. Schumer is just posturing for his Upper West Side donors. He doesn't know how fully people see through him. I suspect he will learn.
Sleazy backdoor dealings -- sure. Supporting terrorists -- maybe, but not that much more than the rest of the Middle East. (Saudi Arabia, our ally, has a bad record there, too. Remember 9/11?) But Iran attacking Israel? Not going to happen. Not as long as the U.S. is Israel's ally. Iran doesn't want nuclear war any more than any other country does. They aren't crazy. They aren't North Korea. They are a functioning nation with their own internal politics and young people eager for more contact with the West. They may not like the American government, they may hate Israel, but they are not going to attack Israel unless they themselves are attacked.
Anyone with sense knows this. Schumer is just posturing for his Upper West Side donors. He doesn't know how fully people see through him. I suspect he will learn.
18
Perhaps it's time we begin checking our Congressmen regarding their allegiances and loyalties before casting our votes in the future. It seems we have a group or two who follow directions from another country. This, along with our prepaid delegates, Is degrading and corrupting our Congress. Senator Schumer is not the person to take the leading Democratic position when Harry Reid retires, in my opinion. Dick Durbin is a much better choice for the position. Senator Schumer has shown his weakness regarding unbiased thinking. It is a frightening eye-opener to see the behavior of so many in Congress regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal...opposing it even before reading it...following the lead of Netanyahu...who plainly does not want a resolution of any kind with Iran. Our democracy is broken.
12
Here's hoping that Senator Schumer and others of the Jewish faith who are anti the Iran deal have remembered to "erect a (mental) wall of separation between government (governing) and religion." Only then (with clear unbiased minds) can the wisest decision be made.
3
Clearly this guy is not loyal To America and not loyal to his own party. He can not be a leader of the Senate Democrats while undermining the Democratic President, who is supposed the leader of all Democrats. I think he should be kicked out of the Senate Democratic leadership. If the Democrats fail to do that, then you may say goodbye to the Democratic Party and its ideals. This is another example that proves the two party system we have iis an American myth and why the two party system is failing.
10
This has little to do with our two party system, and everything to do with Israel and its overweening influence on American politics.
KUDOS to Senator Chuck Schumer.....many of us out here who oppose this deal support and respect your decision.
6
So you support a traitor. He is supposed to be an American senator and not an Israeli mole in the senate. It is despicable and unpatriotic.
1
As a lifelong NY democrat I can honestly say Schumer will never again get my support. It is astonishing that he can even be considered a leader in the party he so easily turns his back. He serves his israeli masters now not the democratic party
26
It is abundantly clear that Senator Schumer has chosen to be a lap dog to misguided Israeli supporters rather than stand behind his President for what is in the best interests of the US, and, not so incidentally, in really the best interest of Israel.
Sad that AIPAC money and extreme Jewish voters have bought his loyalty.
Unfortunately, this is the same type of pressure that pushed us into the Iraq war.
If Schumer is successful in derailing this deal, and we are again pushed into an unnecessary war he will be a pariah rather than a respected senior senator.
Sad that AIPAC money and extreme Jewish voters have bought his loyalty.
Unfortunately, this is the same type of pressure that pushed us into the Iraq war.
If Schumer is successful in derailing this deal, and we are again pushed into an unnecessary war he will be a pariah rather than a respected senior senator.
18
Schumer was elected to represent all of NY state, and he has failed us miserably. If he's still being considered to take on Harry Reid's position among Democrats in the Senate, I have to quote the NY Post headline tonight : "Chuck no! " That really says it all.
Kudos to our other senator, Gillibrand, who is smart, serious and fights for the issues that concern us all and will make our lives better. She has stated her public support for the Iran deal, and for our President.
Kudos to our other senator, Gillibrand, who is smart, serious and fights for the issues that concern us all and will make our lives better. She has stated her public support for the Iran deal, and for our President.
13
I love it: "CHUCK NO". Please everybody pass that one on. Hey, if he can vote NO to the peace deal, then I would like to vote NO to him gaining any positive career moves up in the Senate.
Israel can protect itself. The USA cannot. Think TSA, Secret Service, the hacking of the Pentagon, our arming ISIS via transfers mediated by the Iraqi army, failure of the red line ultimatum in Syria, losing Afghanistan and Iraq wars. We stand helpless but many of us remember Israel taking out the Iraqi nuclear reactor and years later the Syrian one. Time to see if we can survive without Israeli intervention.
Ok let Iran increase its terror campaign and when it joins North Korea, Schumer will have been ousted but his judgement vindicated.Glad I live in the backwoods of Vermont.
Ok let Iran increase its terror campaign and when it joins North Korea, Schumer will have been ousted but his judgement vindicated.Glad I live in the backwoods of Vermont.
1
I assume good faith but this is not the first time Senator Schumer has drunk warmonger KoolAid. He voted for the Iraq war because he swallowed the story of Saddam's WMD.
Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me.
Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me.
13
Most voted yes on the Iraq war. We're all our politicians duped by war mongers?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollca...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollca...
Good point. Except for the warmongers among them, most were; or were swept into a bad vote by expedience (happens on the Hill) However. Bob Graham, who earned a place on anyone's Profiles in Courage honor roll, didn't drink the KoolAid. . As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence. he knew the intel, saw that it didn't compute and voted no.
Hill Democrats will have to stiffen their s[omes, emulate Graham and resist the venom and money from AIPAC and others to vote in favor of putting JCPOA's nuclear handcuffs on Iran.
Note: Among others. Bernie Sanders didn't vote for the Iraq war either.
Hill Democrats will have to stiffen their s[omes, emulate Graham and resist the venom and money from AIPAC and others to vote in favor of putting JCPOA's nuclear handcuffs on Iran.
Note: Among others. Bernie Sanders didn't vote for the Iraq war either.
Mr. Schumer refusal to support the Iran deal shows where his priority lies. Mr. Schumer like many Jewish Americans seem to want to side with Israel on many issues forgeting who it is they represent. I would never vote for Chuck Schumer again. I hope he is voted out of office.
12
Congratulations to Senator Schumer. This "deal" is nothing more than a cave-in. It leaves Iran closer to a bomb and more actively supporting terrorism then when the "sanctions" were first imposed. In terms of a deterrent, this is far worse than the North Korean "deal". If Iran was not interested in making a bomb and long range missiles then they wouldn't have had all the equipment and operations in the first place. And Iran is not giving up any of the bomb equipment or any of the "hidden" operations sites. And no-one should blame Israel for wanting to disarm a nation that openly calls for the murder of every one of its citizens. And by the way, the frequent cheer in Iranian government sessions and on the streets is "Death to Americans".
5
Senator Schumer chose to support his foreign Prime Minister over his domestic President. He is a disgrace, in very sense of the word, to himself and to the United States.
12
Having politicians who are loyal to another country is not something the United States should tolerate.
15
Here's an editorial from Jerusalem Post, admitting how wide spread Settler attacks on Palestinians are, how Shin Bet has been ineffective in dealing with it despite extreme measures taken to curb it. The entire piece is well worth reading, and enlightening in terms of the morality of supporters of settlements in WB. The kind of information one would expect from the Jerusalem Bureau Chief instead the puff pieces we tend to get.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Jerusalem-Post-Editorial-Delicate-balance-4...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Jerusalem-Post-Editorial-Delicate-balance-4...
8
The nuclear deal with Iran, in its present form, is an interim step. With it in force, the U.S. could not gain an ironclad commitment by today’s Iranian government to observe its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty which it has signed. President Obama, much like Bill Clinton, practices pragmatic incrementalism with a nation controlled by religious fanatics. He recognized the possibility that the Senate and House would not pass the agreement in its present form. In my view, he was counting on it so that in the next round of negotiations he could take a tougher negotiating position. So, Senator Schumer’s opposition to the present deal serves the President’s goal of securing better terms particularly with regard to inspection, verification and enforcement of the terms of the final agreement. This would not have been possible if the Senate endorses the agreement in its present form.
1
Chuck Schumer:
A wolf in Lieberman's clothing.
A wolf in Lieberman's clothing.
20
I am Jewish.
Vietnam Vet - 2 tours
I am tired of politicians - most of whom have never heard a shot in anger, or have served their country in uniform - beating the drum beat of war. All of it for their own political ends. Go to Arlington - look at that huge garden of stone.
Iran is a threat. Communist China is a threat. Russia is a threat. ISIS. Al Queda, are all threats.
But the biggest threat is failure to substitute national/religious/economic fear to give comfort to our enemies. Our real enemies are the hard liners in Iran, Israel, US, and Europe credence in there hate mongering.
The nuclear deal with Iran is built on verification. If the Iranians fail to live up to any part of the agreement - then the deal is off. Period.
Then, and only then, should we let slip the dogs of war.
Vietnam Vet - 2 tours
I am tired of politicians - most of whom have never heard a shot in anger, or have served their country in uniform - beating the drum beat of war. All of it for their own political ends. Go to Arlington - look at that huge garden of stone.
Iran is a threat. Communist China is a threat. Russia is a threat. ISIS. Al Queda, are all threats.
But the biggest threat is failure to substitute national/religious/economic fear to give comfort to our enemies. Our real enemies are the hard liners in Iran, Israel, US, and Europe credence in there hate mongering.
The nuclear deal with Iran is built on verification. If the Iranians fail to live up to any part of the agreement - then the deal is off. Period.
Then, and only then, should we let slip the dogs of war.
34
Thanks. You certainly are qualified to dictate policy.
1
I am not "dictating" anything.
I simply feel that the huge effort put forward by all of the nations involved in the negotiations with Iran should be given the opportunity to either succeed or fail.
The alternative is, should we survive as the human race, to tell our children and grand children that an educated, knowledgeable generation of adults (us, by the way) should not attempt to work out differences with an those who seek to build and (possibly use) horrific weapons of mass-destruction.
If we don't build bridges of understanding with our opponents, then we might as well put our national effort into building coffins.
I simply feel that the huge effort put forward by all of the nations involved in the negotiations with Iran should be given the opportunity to either succeed or fail.
The alternative is, should we survive as the human race, to tell our children and grand children that an educated, knowledgeable generation of adults (us, by the way) should not attempt to work out differences with an those who seek to build and (possibly use) horrific weapons of mass-destruction.
If we don't build bridges of understanding with our opponents, then we might as well put our national effort into building coffins.
I don't know why this comes as a surprise. Schumer has proven throughout his career that he always puts Israel's interests over those of his own country in any and every foreign policy matter. Israel is the only foreign country that can be said to have its own senator representing them in the US Congress.
17
Let's not forget our Republican representatives who invited Bibi to address Congress just before during his reelection campaign.
Look at the photo.
Schumer's eyes are slightly sifted in two different directions.
A pasted on plastic simile under serious circumstances. Uhmmm.
Look at the photo.
Schumer's eyes are slightly sifted in two different directions.
A pasted on plastic simile under serious circumstances. Uhmmm.
I suppose I can understand the absolute panic of the Israelis and their willingness to crush all opposition. After all, who would know better about the secret development of nuclear weapons in large numbers than the little homeland that did? Israel built and constructed hundreds, perhapsd over a thousand nuclear,(thermo-nuclear too?) weapons in the 1950s though the 70s and then has consistentlu\y lied about it even as they continued to spy on and ridicule their greatest benefactor -(The US under Truman invented israwel-it would be a memory otherwise). They must know and recognize every doge, lie and trick in the book for getting your friends and those who you practically cannot live without-to believe you are always on the side of the angesls. To see Iran turn around and , for all anyone knows , do an imitation of Israel pretending to be a peaceful, non nuclear state, must be more than galling-it must feel as though someone filmed them with a long lens, through a time machine and is now making deliberate fun of them using Iran as a bewhiskered dummy with a similar mystery religion.
This must be the worst dream of many in ISrael-to realize that others, many who dislike them, are thinking the same thoughts they are.
It's like the dream in which the dreamer realizes:"My Gosh! Where are my clothes? Everyone can see me and I am stark naked, in class on Monday morning. . .!"
This must be the worst dream of many in ISrael-to realize that others, many who dislike them, are thinking the same thoughts they are.
It's like the dream in which the dreamer realizes:"My Gosh! Where are my clothes? Everyone can see me and I am stark naked, in class on Monday morning. . .!"
7
"Dual loyalty" is one of the most pernicious canards leveled against Jews. But the behavior of Sen. Schumer and quite a few other Jewish leaders only reinforces that ugly stereotype. Is the Iran deal bad for America? No one speaks to this, only whether it is good for Israel - even worse, whether it is good for Israel according to Netanyahu and AIPAC. And if it is good for the US - serving our overall strategy in the Middle East, including terrorist attacks on the homeland - but not what Israel wants? Whose interests then prevail?
20
Yes, it is one of the most pernicious canards, as you put it. And it is rarely heard in American politics, which I have been watching closely since the 80s. But it is certainly on the rise and is heard with increasing frequency. The American left has completely run out of patience with Israel, both in terms of its continued unjust occupation of Palestinian land and its repeated interventions into our sovereign politics, in the form of repeated bribing of our elected officials. There is no other word for it - they attempt to hijack our political system with threats and bribes.
It is an ugly charge, but it has the unfortunate feature of being correct and accurate in 2015.
It is an ugly charge, but it has the unfortunate feature of being correct and accurate in 2015.
2
Is this an illustration of Trump's observation about politicians, if you give them money, you can expect them to take your calls and do what you say?
12
It's truly sad when politicians intentionally ignore the impact of their decisions on others by disassociating themselves from it. Would the democrats be so intent on pushing this deal through if Iran was located a few hundred miles from our border instead of several thousand. There seems to be blinders over the eyes of the democrats that prevents them from logically analyzing what John Kerry has done. It's inexplicable that they are incapable of seeing how bad this deal really is. Maybe they do see and have chosen to ignore their conscious for sake of chairmanships and the like. If this is the case, they are not only throwing Israel under the bus, they are throwing this nation under the bus as well. In the case of Rep. Schumer the impact of his decision has hit close home and has prevented him from playing politics as usual. You would only wish that the rest of the democrats would become true statemen and put the well being and safety of their country above their selfish ambitions.
4
"Would the democrats be so intent on pushing this deal through if Iran was located a few hundred miles from our border instead of several thousand."
You are essentially saying we should vote ISRAEL's perspective on this issue. People rarely have the indiscretion to put the point so directly.
You do realize we are a sovereign nation, not beholden to the politicians of a foreign power, and not legally or temperamentally inclined to seek Israeli approval of our foreign policy?
You are essentially saying we should vote ISRAEL's perspective on this issue. People rarely have the indiscretion to put the point so directly.
You do realize we are a sovereign nation, not beholden to the politicians of a foreign power, and not legally or temperamentally inclined to seek Israeli approval of our foreign policy?
2
Schemer should be ashamed of himself. We made deals on nuclear arms with the USSR, which was a far greater threat to us than Iran.
23
Jim, you're logic is grossly flawed. We negotiated with a USSR that was already nuclear armed. Believe me, if it had been in our power to prevent the USSR from becoming nuclear armed (which we now have concerning Iran) we would have. And there never would have been a cold war.
2
So when Iran nukes Israel....I am pretty sure the I told you so might in this instance..mean nada
2
Conventional war is a bad idea. Nuclear war is absurd.
1
It may be politically incorrect to characterize Sen. Schumer's decision as a case of misplaced loyalty. And in his heart of hearts Schumer's knows that.
6
Schumer is just wrong, wrong, wrong. I wish I didn't have to say that.
11
Chuck Schummer should pray that the deal is passed by congress, otherwise he is doomed in Democratic party and forget about Majority leader position.
12
"the senator was being lauded by New York constituents, his office said".
That was certainly not unanimous, I wrote him through his Senate website within two hours of the announcement expressing my disgust and disagreement with his decision, explaining my reasoning. I had also written a couple of weeks ago expressing my support for the deal. His office's announcement seems to imply broad support. Just how many constituents really lauded his decision, and how many did not?
That was certainly not unanimous, I wrote him through his Senate website within two hours of the announcement expressing my disgust and disagreement with his decision, explaining my reasoning. I had also written a couple of weeks ago expressing my support for the deal. His office's announcement seems to imply broad support. Just how many constituents really lauded his decision, and how many did not?
15
Surely the Democrats are not crazy enough to name him Majority Leader. The Brit defeat of Cantor on an anti-Wall Streett, semi-anti Semitic program clearly illuminated what is just below the surface. The next recession will be blamed on Citigroup and any attempt at a bank bailout will bring all the old prejudices about banking to the fore. If it is associated with something in Mideast that can be blamed on Netanyahu, bar the doors.
1
The proposed deal with Iran has it flaws, but it represents the best deal to which the US could get Iran and, more importantly, the other members of the P5+1 to agree. Unless Senator Schumer is able to identify a viable alternative to the existing proposed deal, it makes no sense to oppose it.
The other members of the P5+1 are not going to continue sanctions against Iran if the US rejects the deal to which they agreed. Unilateral sanctions imposed by the US were insufficient to force even a small and weak country such as Cuba to change its policies, so it makes no sense to believe that they unilateral sanctions would have a significant impact on Iran.
The other members of the P5+1 are not going to continue sanctions against Iran if the US rejects the deal to which they agreed. Unilateral sanctions imposed by the US were insufficient to force even a small and weak country such as Cuba to change its policies, so it makes no sense to believe that they unilateral sanctions would have a significant impact on Iran.
9
Britain, Germany, France and Russia have already conducted trade missions to Tehran with some of their industries they wish to promote. Germany, "everyone must follow the rules", has been selling Beamers and Mercedes to Iran all along. We are on the outside looking in and likely will be for years to come because Bibi said so.
How unusual to see Mr. Schumer side with Israel instead of the US. Sorry folks, the dual loyalty issue just doesn't go away.
12
Yes, well whose fault is it, really, that it keeps coming up?
After the repeated humiliation of our President, the bribery of our elected officials, the overweening arrogance of that state and its Prime Minister, I think it's completely understandable if the American left has had enough.
After the repeated humiliation of our President, the bribery of our elected officials, the overweening arrogance of that state and its Prime Minister, I think it's completely understandable if the American left has had enough.
1
Mr. Schumer is a friend of Wall Street and of never-ending war in the Middle East. Why doesn't he just switch to the Republican side and make it official.
22
I wish christopher Hitchen would still alive today and give a lecture to those who are acting like Iran with nuclear bomb is not a big deal....
3
The scariest thought? While I don't agree with Sen. Schumer on this, it is without question one of the central near-term issues facing our national government. I bet Donald Trump, the apparent GOP front-runner, doesn't even have a cogent thought to contribute to this debate.
1
It is a shame when senators who are supposed to represent the voters, choose to represent out side country just because of the religious connections Dems are bitten with two such recently One from CT - Lieberman and now Schumer it is sickening
13
Chuck makes me proud to be a Brooklynite! Why should party loyalty trump common sense. Obama caved on every point, but Chuck didnt cave to Obama. I see many liberal Jewish Dems lining up to attack him. When will Jewish voter get over their guilt trip and start voting using their common sense. Obama, Pelosi, et al are no friend of Isreal, our great ally. And it case you are wondering, I am a GOY! 100 percent!
5
Iran has been developing nuclear capabilities since the 80's. I lived in Europe then and none of those European countries got their knickers in a knot over that.
It is only when Israel cranks up the propaganda machine that some Americans feel compelled to fight another war for them. Europeans could not care less.
Schumer should resign, he is a liability in his position with his frail sense of loyalty.
It is only when Israel cranks up the propaganda machine that some Americans feel compelled to fight another war for them. Europeans could not care less.
Schumer should resign, he is a liability in his position with his frail sense of loyalty.
30
Senator Schumer gives three reasons not to support the Iran deal and provides an alternative that includes pursuing ‘diplomacy once more.’
If the deal only concerned ‘nuclear restrictions for the first ten years,’ he thinks it ‘plausible’ to claim 'an imperfect deal' better than nothing. But the imperfect deal frees up Iranian funds to use for terrorism, and after a decade, Iran will be positioned to develop a bomb. He concludes that these last two problems outweigh any gain from an imperfect deal.
But the Senator makes some troubling assumptions. Without a deal, he assumes, Iran will not develop a bomb. He thus avoids the question, ‘Is it better to have terrorism from a country without nuclear weapons or with nuclear weapons?’ He assumes that Iran will be willing to negotiate again, but the only way we can prevent Iran’s developing a bomb now or after a decade is to negotiate away its nuclear capacities — a condition Iran has rejected.
But his reference to the ‘Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran,’ indicates another unstated assumption: we will bomb their facilities if they move to develop a weapon.
These assumptions are troubling because they mean that the Senator has no good alternative to the ‘imperfect deal’ and that he is willing for us to go to war if Iran does not accept the implausible alternative he proposes. He gives legs to President Obama’s claim that the choice is between the accord or another war.
If the deal only concerned ‘nuclear restrictions for the first ten years,’ he thinks it ‘plausible’ to claim 'an imperfect deal' better than nothing. But the imperfect deal frees up Iranian funds to use for terrorism, and after a decade, Iran will be positioned to develop a bomb. He concludes that these last two problems outweigh any gain from an imperfect deal.
But the Senator makes some troubling assumptions. Without a deal, he assumes, Iran will not develop a bomb. He thus avoids the question, ‘Is it better to have terrorism from a country without nuclear weapons or with nuclear weapons?’ He assumes that Iran will be willing to negotiate again, but the only way we can prevent Iran’s developing a bomb now or after a decade is to negotiate away its nuclear capacities — a condition Iran has rejected.
But his reference to the ‘Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP), the best military deterrent and antidote to a nuclear Iran,’ indicates another unstated assumption: we will bomb their facilities if they move to develop a weapon.
These assumptions are troubling because they mean that the Senator has no good alternative to the ‘imperfect deal’ and that he is willing for us to go to war if Iran does not accept the implausible alternative he proposes. He gives legs to President Obama’s claim that the choice is between the accord or another war.
9
Can someone please explain without rancho,r without emotion. without hate how the "snapback" works if Iran cheats? What exactly are we snapping? I don't see us asking or getting the 100 billion back? If Iran buys all it needs with that money before the "snapback" how are sanctions going to have much effect then? That horse has left the barn. And you don;t think that countries not party to the agreement won't want to deal with Iran or work as middlemen as they probably are doing now? Is that some kind of secret, or why have so many banks been fined for laundering Iranian money to second parties?
10
This is not really a sincere question since it already assumes the answer the writer wants.
But the fact is that the sanctions started several years ago from point zero and were effective. Iran knows this. The Iranians do not want the sanctions to snap back and the provision is a sensible one to help get the result we want. But it is one provision among many to provide safeguards to compliance.
In the end, no agreement can provide certainty. But neither can war as we have so recently learned again.
But the fact is that the sanctions started several years ago from point zero and were effective. Iran knows this. The Iranians do not want the sanctions to snap back and the provision is a sensible one to help get the result we want. But it is one provision among many to provide safeguards to compliance.
In the end, no agreement can provide certainty. But neither can war as we have so recently learned again.
4
It is high time that the American voters voted out of office those Senators who place Israel's interest above the interests of the US.
33
I always mostly like Chuck Schumer but he has lost me completely. No more votes and gravely disappointed. Shame on Mr. Schumer, shame, shame, shame.
You will be history, and that is sad because, until this, you have offered much and I really felt you were for America and all Americans, but it appears your loyalty is not to your own country or president. RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS!!! Is Israel really a secular nation?
You will be history, and that is sad because, until this, you have offered much and I really felt you were for America and all Americans, but it appears your loyalty is not to your own country or president. RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS!!! Is Israel really a secular nation?
30
Senator Schumer should remember that he is a United States Senator, not a member of Israel's Parliament. He is supposed to serve these United States interests, not another nation's.
Anyway, Israel is the meanest, biggest dog in the Middle East, and the one with nuclear weapons. Let Israel protect itself.
Anyway, Israel is the meanest, biggest dog in the Middle East, and the one with nuclear weapons. Let Israel protect itself.
34
I don't understand when people claim this deal will prohibit Iran for obtaining nuclear weapons when it clearly allows that in 10 years time. Iran looks at events in the very long run unlike a good many commentators here. But there is no reason to worry: To points:
if this deal works then Obama would have earned the peace prize. No worries.
If not then perhaps it will solve all of our problems as none of us will be left alive to worry.
if this deal works then Obama would have earned the peace prize. No worries.
If not then perhaps it will solve all of our problems as none of us will be left alive to worry.
9
So here is a thought Mark: why don't we take the ten year reprieve offered by "the bird in hand" we have now, to write the much lauded but never seen "better deal"? By the end of this 10 years, in 2026 when we may all be underwater anyway, even Bibi and Boehner might be able to stumble onto something, especially now that Schumer has joined their team.
So interesting how most of the commenters critical of Schumer's decision give him no credit for using rational thought and logic. He is simply attributed with impure motives - pandering to the Jewish lobbyist, being a shill for Netanyahu, trying to retain the Jewish voting bloc, etc. I'm sure when Schumer's makes decisions this crowd likes, it's his well reasoned brilliance that forms the backbone of those decisions. Such hypocrite So!
6
@adongeorge Atlanta 7 hours ago
"I find it interesting that Senator Schumer waited until after the last Daily Show with Jon Stewart was taped before announcing his decision. The Daily Show would have pummeled him possibly resulting in serious adverse affects among NY residents."
I thought of the same thing. He is a clever politician. He chose the night of the 1st Republican Primary and last Daily Show. May I highly recommend John Oliver on Sunday nights on HBO. He is excellent political commentator as well. I'm also hoping Colbert will have Jon as his guest frequently.
"I find it interesting that Senator Schumer waited until after the last Daily Show with Jon Stewart was taped before announcing his decision. The Daily Show would have pummeled him possibly resulting in serious adverse affects among NY residents."
I thought of the same thing. He is a clever politician. He chose the night of the 1st Republican Primary and last Daily Show. May I highly recommend John Oliver on Sunday nights on HBO. He is excellent political commentator as well. I'm also hoping Colbert will have Jon as his guest frequently.
10
I am tired of both Senator Menendez and Senator Schumer. Neither is voting with America in mind. One is pro Cuban exile and the other pro Isreal. Both put theses pet causes over America. Neither belongs in the Senate as a Democrat. It is time to jettison these tired old relics. I for one will not vote for or approve either for any Democratic office or leadership position. I will encourage Hillary to ignore them on my donations to her and vote for whomever runs against them.
22
Chuck Schumer has made his allegiances quite clear over the years.
"Schumer, speaking at an Orthodox Union event in Washington D.C, in June 2010, made comments that were later criticized[126] regarding Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip. He called on Israel to "strangle them economically until they see that's not the way to go". He explained that the current Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is justified not only because it keeps weapons out of the Palestinian territory, but also because it shows the Palestinians living there that "when there's some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement."[127][128] He also said, "The Palestinian people still don't believe in a Jewish state, in a two state solution... They don't believe in the Torah. They don't believe in King David. So, they don't think it's our land..."[129]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer
"Schumer, speaking at an Orthodox Union event in Washington D.C, in June 2010, made comments that were later criticized[126] regarding Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip. He called on Israel to "strangle them economically until they see that's not the way to go". He explained that the current Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is justified not only because it keeps weapons out of the Palestinian territory, but also because it shows the Palestinians living there that "when there's some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement."[127][128] He also said, "The Palestinian people still don't believe in a Jewish state, in a two state solution... They don't believe in the Torah. They don't believe in King David. So, they don't think it's our land..."[129]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer
20
It is disheartening, to say the least, to have Senator Schumer abandon his president and the cause of peaceful resolution of international disputes.
He and the Republican Hawks had better pray that enough Democrats of principle and courage support this agreement that has the support of virtually the entire world. That is because, if Senator Schumer and his Republican Friends like Senator McConnell block the agreement, the following occurs as day follows night:
Iran proceeds to do as it wishes with no other country willing to continue sanctions.
Netanyahu appears on the stage and demand that the USA stop Iran from building a bomb since there is now nothing to stop Iran from proceeding.
What do Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell do next?
The chaos that follows rejection of this Agreement becomes their responsibility. Are they prepared to go to war to satisfy Mr. Netanyahu?
He and the Republican Hawks had better pray that enough Democrats of principle and courage support this agreement that has the support of virtually the entire world. That is because, if Senator Schumer and his Republican Friends like Senator McConnell block the agreement, the following occurs as day follows night:
Iran proceeds to do as it wishes with no other country willing to continue sanctions.
Netanyahu appears on the stage and demand that the USA stop Iran from building a bomb since there is now nothing to stop Iran from proceeding.
What do Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell do next?
The chaos that follows rejection of this Agreement becomes their responsibility. Are they prepared to go to war to satisfy Mr. Netanyahu?
12
Schumer's rationale seems to have been weighted in favor of the smaller constituencies of his faith community and/or extra-national concerns over those of state and national defense. He should not become Senate Minority leader.
20
The deal is too short in duration. That is why it is a stupid deal. We can never get this opportunity back--with a global sanctions regime, with the chaos on Iran's doorstep, with oil in a glut. We should have dismantled Iran's nuclear infrastructure. This deal let's them keep it and then use it again unfettered after 10 short years. Sure, I guess Obama is right that the then President can still go to war if he or she chooses--so is he saying his only objective was to kick the can down the road, because that's all this deal accomplishes? Again, a terribly wasted opportunity by the administration and actually a step backwards in national security.
Anyone with their head on straight should agree, if given a moment of quiet reflection, that it is a terribly bad idea to put nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian theocrats, who promote an ideology just a few technicalities off from the same expansionist, jihadist, Islamist extremism that threatens the whole world with suicide-based terrorism on a daily basis.
Anyone with their head on straight should agree, if given a moment of quiet reflection, that it is a terribly bad idea to put nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranian theocrats, who promote an ideology just a few technicalities off from the same expansionist, jihadist, Islamist extremism that threatens the whole world with suicide-based terrorism on a daily basis.
7
It's an awful deal and I applaud Chuck Schumer for his decision.
7
Have you read the document? No of course not. Neither has Schumer, I'd bet the house on that.
You know what fella, there are nine nuclear nations. Five, the U.S., China, Russia, France and England respect the conventions and authority of the IAEA. Another is North Korea, it does not abide by international nuclear conventions and authorities. Two others are India and Pakistan, a whole lot more dangerous to the world hating one another and bristling with nuclear weapons and not respecting international nuclear oversight.
And the ninth? The ninth is Israel with an estimated 80 nuclear weapons and it not only does not respect or participate in international nuclear controls, it doesn't even admit it has them. Maybe from the perspective of Teheran, Israel's nuclear arsenal is the threat and danger.
And if you know anything about the history of the development of the atomic bomb then you know that virtually to a man and woman the scientists involved in the Manhattan project believed, knew and asserted that knowledge to design, develop and build nuclear weapons was and would be known to scientists all over the world.
There are no secrets in this except those kept by nations like Israel, India and Pakistan, not to mention North Korea, four countries that absolutely should not be permitted to have nuclear weapons.
And the only thing that will keep Iran from joining the club is this agreement.
You know what fella, there are nine nuclear nations. Five, the U.S., China, Russia, France and England respect the conventions and authority of the IAEA. Another is North Korea, it does not abide by international nuclear conventions and authorities. Two others are India and Pakistan, a whole lot more dangerous to the world hating one another and bristling with nuclear weapons and not respecting international nuclear oversight.
And the ninth? The ninth is Israel with an estimated 80 nuclear weapons and it not only does not respect or participate in international nuclear controls, it doesn't even admit it has them. Maybe from the perspective of Teheran, Israel's nuclear arsenal is the threat and danger.
And if you know anything about the history of the development of the atomic bomb then you know that virtually to a man and woman the scientists involved in the Manhattan project believed, knew and asserted that knowledge to design, develop and build nuclear weapons was and would be known to scientists all over the world.
There are no secrets in this except those kept by nations like Israel, India and Pakistan, not to mention North Korea, four countries that absolutely should not be permitted to have nuclear weapons.
And the only thing that will keep Iran from joining the club is this agreement.
1
Yes I read it and it's still awful!
Senator Schumer's rationale for opposing the accord is on his official website.
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/my-position-on-the...
Personaly, I (RonnieC, not speaking for Sara) think that we should not make any agreement that helps a regime/country that kidnapped, tortured, and ransomed American diplomats in 1980. Iran has yet to atone for that crime.
Iran has already sworn to not get nuclear weapons via the non-proliferation treaty. If they violate that, the enforcement mechanisms will kick in, right?
http://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/my-position-on-the...
Personaly, I (RonnieC, not speaking for Sara) think that we should not make any agreement that helps a regime/country that kidnapped, tortured, and ransomed American diplomats in 1980. Iran has yet to atone for that crime.
Iran has already sworn to not get nuclear weapons via the non-proliferation treaty. If they violate that, the enforcement mechanisms will kick in, right?
4
Hopefully it will doom Schumer's ambitions. His stance is against the majority of his NY constituency. He will never get my vote again.
24
As a Jewish American, I'm glad to see that other Jewish legislators will support the Iran nuclear deal despite Senator Schumer's foolhardy decision not to. Mr. Schumer's dangerous position - sure to undermine even a modicum of stability in the region - is disturbing to say the least.
20
The media always call the US President the most powerful person in the world but I am beginning to doubt it. The most powerful person is the Israeli Prime Minister as he commands enormous influence over our politics. Why? How?
18
The article, while generally fair in describing the support or opposition to the Iran accord among Jewish leaders in the Congress, failed to clearly cite Senator Dianne Feinstein's continued support for the deal:
http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.650590
http://www.haaretz.com/beta/1.650590
4
To all those uninformed, or intentionally misleading readers of posts here with the "first let's see a copy of the document".
Here it is, it's been online for a while now.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html
Here it is, it's been online for a while now.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html
1
He needs to be primaried next year.
8
Yes and Democrats of NY are missing a real opportunity to fill their coffers from irate Democrats all over the country because we would all pay to primary Schumer. There is no one else I would rather see "Cantored". If the Tea Party can do it to Eric Cantor, Democrats should be able to pull it off. Now that is a big game trophy we all want to finance.
I think Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois would make an outstanding majority leader.
12
FAR better than Schumer.
The Times yesterday made it seem like Schumer was studiously researching the deal (his "dog-eared" copy and all) before making this weighty decision. More likely he was counting votes. Confident he wasn't killing the deal, he did what was right for his constituents and donors. If anything confirms the deal is solid for Obama, this was it. And to those Democrats annoyed over this, in the end Schumer knows you'll vote for him.
1
I am a lifelong Democrat and a constituent of Senator Schumer who is deeply disappointed in his decision to abandon his own President and vote to reject the Iran nuclear deal that could provide a major opening for lasting peace in the Middle East. Certainly he must know that there is no other deal available and that the sanctions will now be lifted by the other major world powers who negotiated the deal with us and have already approved it. What that means to me as an American first and a Jew second is that Israel will now be even more isolated from the world community and threatened as Iran is now free to finish assembling nuclear weapons in the next few months as predicted. And with Saudi Arabia also promising to develop its own nuclear weapons, we will have unleashed a major arms race. In a region already engulfed in multiple wars and genocidal terrorists like ISIS, I wonder how Mr. Schumer can really justify voting to reject a deal that immediately makes Israel, the Middle East, and the world a much less safer place.
15
When will it become apparent to American Jews that taking their marching orders from Netanyahu is great for the rightwing elements in Israeli society, but destructive of their own position in the US? The scenario I foresee is that if the Iran accord fails to pass, Iran will begin a nuclear bomb program, and soon enough Netanyahu will proclaim another existential crisis that "can only be solved" by direct US military intervention on Israel's side. And as naturally as the night follows the day, AIPAC, which might as well call itself the US branch of Likud Inc, will beat the drumbeats of war, Schumer will "agonize" and "most reluctantly" conclude that "we must fight", many American Jews march anyway in lockstep with whatever Netanyahu wants, and it's the Iraq War all over again, only this time written "Iran". And when the body bags of dead American soldiers start returning, more non-Jewish Americans are bound to raise the question of dual loyalty.
But the ultimate delusion is to imagine that Netanyahu would regret having generated anti-Jewish sentiment in the US. The stronger that sentiment, the greater the possibility of immigration to Israel of future soldiers and settlers. But, in a way, his is the honest position, i.e. right now, for many American Jews "it's Israel right or wrong, regardless, but it's too comfortable here for us to become Israeli citizens and live there, so let's keep having it both ways."
But the ultimate delusion is to imagine that Netanyahu would regret having generated anti-Jewish sentiment in the US. The stronger that sentiment, the greater the possibility of immigration to Israel of future soldiers and settlers. But, in a way, his is the honest position, i.e. right now, for many American Jews "it's Israel right or wrong, regardless, but it's too comfortable here for us to become Israeli citizens and live there, so let's keep having it both ways."
27
This may be harsh but I do question the loyalty of these Jewish American politicians towards their own country. They have failed test again and again whenever asked to take a stand against the Israeli Government. These people will have no hesistation in sending American soldiers to fight and to die in another stupid war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel. I for one am truly and sincerely disgusted.
22
Something about this stinks. This Iran Deal is the first intelligent step the U.S. has taken in a long time. I would want nothing to endanger Israel, but this continued thirst for war over negotiation is a lost cause and completely unsustainable. It is time to try what Obama and Kerry have worked out. I'm disappointed in the Senator - his decision is weak, and comes across as moderately political (yes, that is a dirty word).
11
Don't understand the surprise...NYC is hugely pro Israel....Chuck wants to get re elected. A vote for this treaty is viewed as anti Israel in NYC...so end of story yet the NYT manages to go on for another 1,000 words.
7
Sen. Schumer claims to have thought very long and hard about the Iran agreement, and who can doubt him? With apologies to Samuel Johnson: "Nothing so concentrates the mind as the thought of losing tens of millions in campaign contributions."
22
Actually, between 2009 and 2014 Schumer received $275,199 from pro-Israeli individuals and PACs, with most of it coming from individuals. https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2014&ci... Over his career, he received $799,899 https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&... Hardly, tens of millions. Next time, look up the data before making a slanderous comment.
1
I would like any of the politicians who oppose this deal to answer one simple question - what will we do if Russia and China (who are clearly no friends of ours) decide that they will not be party to any more sanctions with Iran and/or resume trade (or military cooperation) with Iran? It doesnt take a foreign policy expert to see that this scenario is a godsend for either country because the US will be left with egg on its face if Congress walks away.
8
When was the last time your Senator or Cogressperson called your home and asked for your opinion on a pending bill or treaty?
Huh?
Mine............never! And I'm 60 years old.
I suppose they only listen to robocallers to their office.
You know, the special interests.
We shouldn't have to call them. They should poll us.
Huh?
Mine............never! And I'm 60 years old.
I suppose they only listen to robocallers to their office.
You know, the special interests.
We shouldn't have to call them. They should poll us.
2
"We shouldn't have to call them. They should poll us."
That's the kind of attitude that has the .02% running the country into bankruptcy through Wall Street and wars. You need to call, you need to write, you need to do the same when they vote your way to thank them. Gillibrand needs phone calls and emails thanking her, because the other side is demonizing her as we speak.
That's the kind of attitude that has the .02% running the country into bankruptcy through Wall Street and wars. You need to call, you need to write, you need to do the same when they vote your way to thank them. Gillibrand needs phone calls and emails thanking her, because the other side is demonizing her as we speak.
2
So now the only question remaining is, when we see the name "Sen. Charles E. Schumer" introduced in news articles from now on, will it -- in the spirit of truth in labeling -- be followed by the abbreviation "D-N.Y." ... or "D-I"?
12
I have voted for Senator Schumer in every election that he has run in, no more. His decision on this issue reveals him to be a person with divided loyalties; I thought that I was voting for a person for whom USA interests came first.
22
Obviously Chuck is more influenced by the conservative Israeli lobby and like minded NY constituents than the average Senator so for him he was really between a rock and a hard place. He wasn't undecided for so long because he was carefully examining the intricacies of the inspection details, he was waiting for the behind the scenes vote tally of committed Senators to make the deal safe from override before coming out against it. Schumer is a master at counting votes and he counts 34 or more for the deal. You will see more and more public declarations of support in the next few days and this story will be over. He waited until he knew his vote wouldn't destroy the deal and privately he is probably for it.
2
To the extent that I can, I will do everything possible to prevent Senator Schumer from leading Democrats. I know he has done heroic service for Israel. Wall Street, and tried to represent New York interests when he can.
I did not serve as a USAF pilot and as a professor to see Schumer squander the prospects for peace. If Israel wants war with Iran, they should use their troops, weapons and the nuclear triad they have developed with the help of France, Germany, and the United States.
American deserve better from Israel than we have gotten. Schumer makes it far worse.
I did not serve as a USAF pilot and as a professor to see Schumer squander the prospects for peace. If Israel wants war with Iran, they should use their troops, weapons and the nuclear triad they have developed with the help of France, Germany, and the United States.
American deserve better from Israel than we have gotten. Schumer makes it far worse.
28
Are these people forgetting which country they were elected to represent?
15
This is exactly why we must have legislation prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship from holding elected office in this country. Wonder how much Israel paid him. It wasn't a matter of what he truly believes or he would have made a decision already. He was just waiting for more money. Horrible!
13
I think the Senator from New York, once so respected by so many, has gambled away any credibility he ever had. And for what?
22
I don't think Mr. Schumer is fit to be the next leader of the Democrats in the Senate. He is a consistent defender of Wall Street, and does not realize the damage defeating the Iran agreement would do to his country (i.e., the U.S.) and to Israel as well. Shame on him.
22
Pres. Obama skillfully put together a coalition of friends and not-such-friends to develop workable sanctions that forces Iran to the bargaining table, to produce an agreement that will kep Iran from a nuclear bomb for the forseeable future. Sen Schumer and Rep Engel want to scuttle this plan, leaving Iran free of sanctions (China and Russia will not follow the US Senate)and free to develop a bomb. It seems to me that ANY one opposed to this Agreement MUST provide a realistic alternative. NONE HAVE. What a disgrace!
13
At one time we had a Senator Knowland, called the Senator from Formosa for his support of Chiang Kai Shek.
Now we have Senator Schumer, the senator from Israel.
Now we have Senator Schumer, the senator from Israel.
13
No one ever said Schumer's no vote would doom the deal. What was said was that his yes vote would doom opposition to the deal and ensure its passage. There's a big difference.
3
Israel is trying to goad America into a war with Iran and Schumer is trying to help.
21
Will someone please remind the Senator that he is a United States Senator and does not represent Israel.
A real Leader tells his constituents when they are wrong.
Especially when they have nothing better to suggest.
A real Leader tells his constituents when they are wrong.
Especially when they have nothing better to suggest.
16
Man, the Obama administration is as ungrateful as they come. Sen. Schumer has loyally carried this administration's water for years and defended it artfully on occasions too numerous to mention. Now, just this one time, on a matter of conscience, Schemer goes against the administration's line and the president's press secretary is willing to throw the senator under the bus. Does this administration have a memory that is more than a week old? Does it have any sense of balance, or proportion? Apparently not.
8
There are innumerable U.S. Senators who oppose the agreement, including Democrats like Senator Menendez and the great majority of the Senate who oppose this agreement are Christian yet Schumer's religion (Jewish) is being cited by many, including the NYT, as being the principal reason he is opposing it. Since it may cost him his position as Senate Minority leader or Majority leader perhaps this vote earns him a "profile in courage". The old claim, directed against Jews throughout the centuries, of divided loyalties has arisen again. Can the stench of antisemitism be far behind?
7
"The old claim, directed against Jews throughout the centuries, of divided loyalties has arisen again. "
Gee, do we need more proof of divided, heck, singular loyalty to Israel?
Gee, do we need more proof of divided, heck, singular loyalty to Israel?
8
The 'antisemitism' card is getting old in light of all this country has done for Israel.
9
Oh please. It is Israel which created its own enemies in the US by openly insulting and defying the US president and openly supporting one side in the last presidential elections.
The amount of money AIPAC, Adelson and the Koch brothers pour into politicians pockets is staggering. The republican candidates for president are lining up like beggars at the feet of Adelson and the Koch's.
AIPAC donated almost a million dollars to junior senator Tom Cotton's campaign, and he turns out to be one of the most rabid pro Israeli, virulent anti Iranian people out there. He insults Iran and Iranians with impunity but when someone dares to criticize Israel, the anti semite bomb is tossed into the fray like a hand grenade.
Israel, AIPAC, Adelson and the Koch's don't hide what they do...they proudly announce that they support Israel even against America, if they feel like it.
Calling them out for that isn't Anti Semitism.
The amount of money AIPAC, Adelson and the Koch brothers pour into politicians pockets is staggering. The republican candidates for president are lining up like beggars at the feet of Adelson and the Koch's.
AIPAC donated almost a million dollars to junior senator Tom Cotton's campaign, and he turns out to be one of the most rabid pro Israeli, virulent anti Iranian people out there. He insults Iran and Iranians with impunity but when someone dares to criticize Israel, the anti semite bomb is tossed into the fray like a hand grenade.
Israel, AIPAC, Adelson and the Koch's don't hide what they do...they proudly announce that they support Israel even against America, if they feel like it.
Calling them out for that isn't Anti Semitism.
2
The NYT should report how much money, if any, Chuck Schumer took from any interest groups opposing this deal.
22
Do they really have to? If you haven't figured out that he and many other Congresspersons receive trucks full of money from AIPAC, and conduct themselves accordingly (you know, as a matter of personal principle)...well, I don't know what to say.
2
I hope we work with all our power in the state of New York to remove this man from the United States Senate. In this decision he does not represent the people our state. He does not work for the good of the people of New York or of the people of the United States. I'm disgusted. Nice guy, maybe, but not for us. I'm shocked at his betrayal of our interests.
23
Tell you what, first let us see a copy of this deal, oh, that's right. Nobody has been allowed to see it. Nobody.
3
Huh? Everyone has seen it. Articles I've read say Schumer has been seen carrying around a copy of it. Seriously. Get your facts straight!
I am utterly amazed of how quick the Democrats have turned on Senator Schumer. The senator gave legitimate reasons why he could not support the Iran nuclear deal. Giving the Iranians 24 days advance notice before visiting a nuclear site is nonsense. Try passing a law that gives criminals 24 days notice prior to raiding their lairs; I suppose the majority of the lock step, rank and file Democrats would have no issue with that either.
4
They always threaten you with campaign donations to force you to do what they want...Trump is right.
4
President Obama.........you need to address the Congress in their echo chamber just as passionately as Netanyahu did. You must argue your case before the full body.
4
What a surprise. I'm shocked. really, I am.
Americans live in a "democracy." But we have no choice over whether or not to support Israel with as much money, weapons, troops, and power as Israel demands. Like gun control, Israel is not negotiable, it is a bond upon all American taxpayers. Schumer is a functionary of that system.
11
You'all do realize there are several other countries entering into the Iran Agreement. France, Germany, the UK, China and Russia. Folks here act as though the President has cart blanch tp set these accprds strictly as he sees fit?
3
As fine a Senator as he is, I think this action disqualifies him from leadership in the Democratic caucus in the Senate.
I know he is sincere, and that his conscience is speaking to him. But his reasoning is shaky, and his job as a Senate leader is whip the votes for the President's agenda. He's not doing that now and he's going against that function. He has effectively resigned as a leader of the Democrats in the Senate.
I know he is sincere, and that his conscience is speaking to him. But his reasoning is shaky, and his job as a Senate leader is whip the votes for the President's agenda. He's not doing that now and he's going against that function. He has effectively resigned as a leader of the Democrats in the Senate.
12
What an act by Schumer to be wrestling with his decision over the last many days. It seems he likely and predictably caved in to AIPAC, netanyahu and political contributions put at risk rather than make a good, reasoned decision. Israel depends on us to always fuel the fire and never the peace. It's a stale formula. New thinking is required. Schumer should be ashamed. Btw when Iranians shout 'death to America' it's the same as a retail clerk reflexively saying 'have a nice day' to you and not really caring about you having a nice day...silly how this is repeatedly cited as a reason to support a war...
6
I'm two years older than Chuck Schumer, and I remember well the days when the Shah was overthrown by Khomeini. I also lived in Washington, and, as a son of a diplomatic columnist for the Washington Star, I was a frustrated International Relations major who wanted nothing more than to go to Tehran, Damascus, or Beirut. Unlike some of my ancestors, I never inhabited the halls of Congress, but I still retain strong opinions about the world we live in.
Even though I have been entranced in the past by the cogent musings of Netanyahu and so many other Jews whom I adore, I believe that President Obama has begun a positive new phase in working to put the past behind us. As a young man, I hated to see the world which Khomeini had started, and I knew it would probably evolve into something far more dangerous. It did, and decades later I went to Iraq to help our soldiers in 2010-11 The world got bad, once again, and it remains so.
But I take strong exception to is the pandering of all American politicians like Schumer to the Israeli lobby which bears no resemblance to the wonderful positive world which Golda Meir and the founders envisioned for her country. Admittedly, she was overwhelmed by the events of the Olympics which took her youth, but it is not some excuse to force the Americans to dance in lockstep to the new stressful tunes put forth by Netanyahu. I had thought him far too understanding to have gone this way, but he has, and we must realize it, like our president does.
Even though I have been entranced in the past by the cogent musings of Netanyahu and so many other Jews whom I adore, I believe that President Obama has begun a positive new phase in working to put the past behind us. As a young man, I hated to see the world which Khomeini had started, and I knew it would probably evolve into something far more dangerous. It did, and decades later I went to Iraq to help our soldiers in 2010-11 The world got bad, once again, and it remains so.
But I take strong exception to is the pandering of all American politicians like Schumer to the Israeli lobby which bears no resemblance to the wonderful positive world which Golda Meir and the founders envisioned for her country. Admittedly, she was overwhelmed by the events of the Olympics which took her youth, but it is not some excuse to force the Americans to dance in lockstep to the new stressful tunes put forth by Netanyahu. I had thought him far too understanding to have gone this way, but he has, and we must realize it, like our president does.
11
From the article:
"... many Democrats suggested that he had stated his opposition only after the deal appeared safe. For supporters of the deal in Congress, Mr. Schumer’s decision will force a redoubling of efforts."
Anyone else see an inconsistency in those two sentences?
This deal is done, and Schumer knows it. It would have been a tougher call for him if his vote had really mattered. But it won't.
"... many Democrats suggested that he had stated his opposition only after the deal appeared safe. For supporters of the deal in Congress, Mr. Schumer’s decision will force a redoubling of efforts."
Anyone else see an inconsistency in those two sentences?
This deal is done, and Schumer knows it. It would have been a tougher call for him if his vote had really mattered. But it won't.
The Iran treaty, as written, is toast.
First and foremost, Sen. Schumer isn't remotely like Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose adamant, over-the-top opposition to this or, seemingly, any treaty however structured and styled actually works to endorse it. Acting as his own lawyer Netanyahu has a fool for a client. In contrast, Schumer is a lawyer of distinction and competence with access to a jury of legal experts. He isn't winging it. He doesn't study alone. And unlike Netanyahu he doesn't want to manipulate the United States into a war to destroy Iran for him.
Schumer's probity and intellect qualify him to be President of the United States. I believe he would make a superb one. If he finds crippling problems in the document Kerry negotiated something must be profoundly wrong with it at a foundational level -- in its architecture. I hope to read a detailed analysis of those foundational problems for us to study; his and others'.
What happens next is anybody's guess. But if Iran really wants a deal it will bend to Schumer's objections, as should the President. Otherwise, Netanyahu might get what he wants. That prospect alone should give pause in Tehran.
First and foremost, Sen. Schumer isn't remotely like Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose adamant, over-the-top opposition to this or, seemingly, any treaty however structured and styled actually works to endorse it. Acting as his own lawyer Netanyahu has a fool for a client. In contrast, Schumer is a lawyer of distinction and competence with access to a jury of legal experts. He isn't winging it. He doesn't study alone. And unlike Netanyahu he doesn't want to manipulate the United States into a war to destroy Iran for him.
Schumer's probity and intellect qualify him to be President of the United States. I believe he would make a superb one. If he finds crippling problems in the document Kerry negotiated something must be profoundly wrong with it at a foundational level -- in its architecture. I hope to read a detailed analysis of those foundational problems for us to study; his and others'.
What happens next is anybody's guess. But if Iran really wants a deal it will bend to Schumer's objections, as should the President. Otherwise, Netanyahu might get what he wants. That prospect alone should give pause in Tehran.
5
This is shameful.
Mr. Schumer is supposed to represent the United States of America, not Israel.
Mr. Schumer is supposed to represent the United States of America, not Israel.
14
Ah yes, Chuck Schumer...want social progressivism? You got it! A critical attitude toward Israel? Not so much. Regulation of the financial industry that actually has teeth? Let me get back to you...
Luckily for him, today's faux-gressive is, in fact, that easily bought.
Luckily for him, today's faux-gressive is, in fact, that easily bought.
6
But not cheaply, I suspect.
Suburban New York Jew here. I'll never vote for that camera hog Schumer again. Nor will I vote for my own Congre$$woman, rookie Kathleen Rice.
22
I am very disappointed in Senator Schumer's decision. I wish I did' feel this way, but I wonder if he decision was influenced by a desire to please an important political constituency rather than the national interest.
11
Those who make a big deal about chants of "Death to America" by Iranian protesters may find interesting this quotation from a December 27, 2009 Times article:
"In Tehran, thick crowds marched down a central avenue in midmorning, defying official warnings of a harsh crackdown on protests as they chanted “death to Khamenei,” referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei..."
"In Tehran, thick crowds marched down a central avenue in midmorning, defying official warnings of a harsh crackdown on protests as they chanted “death to Khamenei,” referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei..."
6
The Congress exists in a protected Echo Chamber insulated from the public by their staffs, rarely meeting with constituents and mostly special interest lobbyists. The Congress even has CSPAN monitors in their offices to hear each other. They are a truly insulated group that shuns most outsiders and their opinions and desires.
But along came Netanyahu who made an urgent and overemotional appeal to Congress to fight their own President and his peacemaking deal with Iran.
The Congress, being isolated and influenced by itself and from within should be recognized as a serious flaw in a "Government of the People" lacking intended representation.
So what is a President to do to get inside that Echo Chamber?
Well, get inside the Echo Chamber and make just an impassioned appeal for the deal as Netanyahu argued against.
All great creatures adapt.
But along came Netanyahu who made an urgent and overemotional appeal to Congress to fight their own President and his peacemaking deal with Iran.
The Congress, being isolated and influenced by itself and from within should be recognized as a serious flaw in a "Government of the People" lacking intended representation.
So what is a President to do to get inside that Echo Chamber?
Well, get inside the Echo Chamber and make just an impassioned appeal for the deal as Netanyahu argued against.
All great creatures adapt.
1
Schumer is ambitious and smarmy. I've heard him speak in person and it's clear that the former trial lawyer, like most trial lawyers, thinks especially well of himself. Schumer is also a wily politician, not given to counter or courageous leadership. How did he decide? He simply raised a wet finger to feel the position of his Jewish constituency on the Iran deal and felt a cold blast. That was more than enough encouragement to account for his cave.
19
Schumer is another politician who has no reservations about putting the lives of countless Americans and foreigners, both soldiers and civilians alike, at risk of violent death, from the comfort of his home and his offices, confident that he and his family members will be exempt.
He does so not because America's defense demands it, but for his own, largely religious, reasons. As a policy maker he will support a move that could very well force Americans who don't believe in his religion, and don't care about his religion, to fight and die for his religion.
This, when he has a thoughtful alternative that is more likely to result in peace.
This American condemns Schumer's selfish, faith-based stand.
He does so not because America's defense demands it, but for his own, largely religious, reasons. As a policy maker he will support a move that could very well force Americans who don't believe in his religion, and don't care about his religion, to fight and die for his religion.
This, when he has a thoughtful alternative that is more likely to result in peace.
This American condemns Schumer's selfish, faith-based stand.
32
With this announcement Senator Schumer opposes the reintegration of Iran into the international community. In 1920 the Senate overruled the President to keep the U.S. out of the League of Nations, depriving the world of its diplomatic weight and permitting Germany and Japan to go their way. Similarly this Senate threatens to deprive the world of U.S. leadership.
As well does the Senator in choosing this side dishonor the 34 Americans killed by Israeli warplanes in their attack on the U.S. Navy ship Liberty on June 8, 1967.
As well does the Senator in choosing this side dishonor the 34 Americans killed by Israeli warplanes in their attack on the U.S. Navy ship Liberty on June 8, 1967.
19
How is opposing this deal not in the interests of -America? I am still waiting to hear an explanation from supporters of the deal how it will meaningfully oppose Irans ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. In the past few years Obama had emphasized that the mission of the U.S. was to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program, stop them from enrichment and allow for inspections without notice. We get none of that with the current deal.
8
What prevented Iran from developing nukes over the past decades when Pakistan, India and N.korea developed theirs? After going so long without nukes, and not even using chemical weapons when it could have justified it defending itself, why would Iran choose to wait another decade, when Israel's defenses will be even stronger and their nuclear infrastructure will be a decade further behind?
How does that make any sense?
It only makes sense if Iran doesn't want nukes, just like they've been saying all along.
How does that make any sense?
It only makes sense if Iran doesn't want nukes, just like they've been saying all along.
1
The US should advise Israel that the war with Iran is all theirs financing equipment and soldiers. Maybe Israel and Iran could come to an agreement?
7
Good point. Israel eats 3 billion each year in aid from the US - almost all of it is military aid. No wonder the nation of Israel can afford to offer each of its citizens guaranteed first rate healthcare as a basic right. We can't afford it, but then our defense budget is 8 times larger than the nation with the next largest - China. We spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined.
1
It was close to $4 Billion last year and now they want to be 'compensated' with an extra 1.5 Billion on top of that.
Their entire opposition to the Iran deal is to keep Iranian economy down because they know well educated Iranians are going to present a major competition to their exports. There have already been articles in Israeli papers saying University Professors are warning that short of major investment from the government into education, the exports will take a huge hit within a few years.
Their entire opposition to the Iran deal is to keep Iranian economy down because they know well educated Iranians are going to present a major competition to their exports. There have already been articles in Israeli papers saying University Professors are warning that short of major investment from the government into education, the exports will take a huge hit within a few years.
1
If Schumer is put at the top Senate post Democrats may as well write me off. This is not a decision anyone will ignore. I will not support anyone who did this.
24
The Senator was thinking about life after retirement. He chose the path of comfort and abandoned the path that is right for America and the world.
19
Those people who are appalled and perplexed by the deep history and pervasiveness of anti-semitism should be equally concerned about Schumer's atavistic ethnocentrism and amoral political calculations.
14
This shows just how wretched our democracy has become. It is no longer about what is best for country, but what is best for the career politician. The rise of Super PACs now means everyone is for sale without accountability. Don't worry about the position you take or what your constituents think. With enough money you can buy yourself back into office. It's disgusting.
13
And it works ! Look at Trump.
He is no longer representing New York. He has lost my support permanently.
31
So everyone in NY supports the Iran deal? I was not aware of that.
As my Senator, I am extremely disappointed in Schumer's decision, but I have to respect it. It does make me remind myself that he also voted to authorize the War in Iraq, something which I will never forget. I think that one of the biggest problems that I have with people opposing the treaty, is WHAT is their alternative? If I hear a better alternative, I will go for it. But I have not yet heard a better alternative. I always strongly believe that in evaluating agreements of this type, one has to ask not one question but two: What are the pros and cons of this agreement? AND What are the pros and cons of NOT having this agreement. I feel that many politicians only do part 1 of this process...
2
Schumer did not make a knee jerk reaction and for those who think that Israel is the only reason Schumer made this decision are completely misguided. I do not care for Schumer; when there is a camera he seems to find a way to get his face on, but he is an intelligent legislator who saw this issue not only as a threat to Israel but to moderate Arabs as well. The bad blood with Iran and Saudi Arabia is well chronicled. Schumer is keenly aware of this.
For Obama to say this agreement makes the world safer is laughable. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other moderate Arab states will work to acquire nuclear weapons to mitigate the impending threat as they see it.
I also think it's pathetic that Obama compares the Republican Guard to the GOP who oppose it. Isn't this the same Obama who said he would end the partisan bickering and get things done? As a Republican I find his comment offensive. This is the same guy who said Iran must not become a nuclear Iran but got played by the Iranians like a cheap guitar. All this agreement did was kick the can down the road, just like he is doing with ISIS. Iran will still be able to enrich uranium and if anyone thinks they will wait 10 years they are fooling themselves. Iran has no intention of honoring this agreement and if they did they would not have already indicated that the inspections will not happen. Then what's the point? What happened to trust but verify?
Obama got his legacy. And we were all put at risk. Fair trade
For Obama to say this agreement makes the world safer is laughable. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other moderate Arab states will work to acquire nuclear weapons to mitigate the impending threat as they see it.
I also think it's pathetic that Obama compares the Republican Guard to the GOP who oppose it. Isn't this the same Obama who said he would end the partisan bickering and get things done? As a Republican I find his comment offensive. This is the same guy who said Iran must not become a nuclear Iran but got played by the Iranians like a cheap guitar. All this agreement did was kick the can down the road, just like he is doing with ISIS. Iran will still be able to enrich uranium and if anyone thinks they will wait 10 years they are fooling themselves. Iran has no intention of honoring this agreement and if they did they would not have already indicated that the inspections will not happen. Then what's the point? What happened to trust but verify?
Obama got his legacy. And we were all put at risk. Fair trade
4
Dick Durbin was ALWAYS the best choice to be Democratic leader after Harry Reed.
I trust this will seal the deal.
I trust this will seal the deal.
34
I am so disappointed in Senator Schumer. I thought he was a real mensch, a visionary. Someone with courage. I was wrong. All I can do with this, is write a comment and never vote for him again. Not much I guess, but here it is.
30
Senator Schumer's reasoning is specious and superficial. It is not worthy of him, making one suspect he succumbed to threats from AIPAC or their ilk. His decision not one of a statesman, but of a hack. He will to regret it.
37
it is understandable to acknowledge the thoughts that must be going through senator schumer's mind but it is also understandable to ridicule him for thinking that what he has voted is a good decision for isreal or for america. it is alright for him to want what is best for isreal but what is seems that he has forgoten is that he is representing a state in america, not the country of isreal. it can be taken any which way but my personal opinion is that he has made the wrong choice
10
It's always convenient to blame politicians. Yes, Schumer is a United States senator, but his constituents should also be reminded they are U.S. citizens.
Sen. Schumer fashions himself as a leader, but as this craven decision demonstrates, he's really a backbencher at heart.
22
Senator Schumer voted for what he believes was in the best interest of his country. Very patriotic of him. Only problem is that it wasn't for our country - the United States of America.
The more things change...
An American Veteran
1965 - 1967
The more things change...
An American Veteran
1965 - 1967
31
WHO IS THE WORLD'S FOREMOST SPONSOR OF TERRORISM ACCORDING TO JOHN KERRY.... IRAN.
Exchange between U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks questioned Secretary of State John Kerry last week:
Brooks: ..less than two weeks ago Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei led a rally that was frequently punctuated by chants of "Death to America!", and "Death to Israel!" Do you believe his comments accurately reflect Iranian government goals? Again—yes, no, or I don't know?
Kerry: I think they reflect an attitude and a rhetorical excess, but I see no evidence that they have a policy that is implementing that against us at this point in time.
Brooks: Well do you believe that Iran is the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism?
Kerry: Yes.
Brooks: And, that they will use the conventional weapons made available by the Iran nuclear treaty to kill Americans or Israelis?
Kerry: Well, they may, they may. We have, as you know, responded to that from 1979 when they took over our embassy forward. We have put sanctions in place specifically because of their support for terror, because of their abuse of human rights.
Exchange between U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks questioned Secretary of State John Kerry last week:
Brooks: ..less than two weeks ago Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei led a rally that was frequently punctuated by chants of "Death to America!", and "Death to Israel!" Do you believe his comments accurately reflect Iranian government goals? Again—yes, no, or I don't know?
Kerry: I think they reflect an attitude and a rhetorical excess, but I see no evidence that they have a policy that is implementing that against us at this point in time.
Brooks: Well do you believe that Iran is the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism?
Kerry: Yes.
Brooks: And, that they will use the conventional weapons made available by the Iran nuclear treaty to kill Americans or Israelis?
Kerry: Well, they may, they may. We have, as you know, responded to that from 1979 when they took over our embassy forward. We have put sanctions in place specifically because of their support for terror, because of their abuse of human rights.
5
And from what country came 19 of the 20 9/11 hijackers? From "state sponsor of terrorism Iran?" No, from our supposed ally Saudi Arabia. The whole problem with our middle east policy is that we can't distinguish between our "friends" and our "enemies." With friends like Netanyahu, who needs enemies?
3
To me, support for this deal is a true litmus test, not on the values of our elected officials, but whether or not they are "our" elected officials at all.
No person representing the American people can say this is not good for America. If men like Schumer wish to put other nation's well being before America's, maybe they should go and run for elections there.
I am sick and tired of elected officials like Schumer, and many other getting away with what can only be called treason. These men/women all have a sworn duty to the American people, they need to abide by that commitment, and represent the interest's of the American people.
No person representing the American people can say this is not good for America. If men like Schumer wish to put other nation's well being before America's, maybe they should go and run for elections there.
I am sick and tired of elected officials like Schumer, and many other getting away with what can only be called treason. These men/women all have a sworn duty to the American people, they need to abide by that commitment, and represent the interest's of the American people.
22
Senator Schumer has taken huge amounts of money from Jewish individuals and Jewish interests. Does anyone actually imagine he would make any decision untainted by that reality?
24
Would you consider saying the same thing but substituting "Jewish" for "black"? Try in. See if it gets published.
4
Oh yeah ochki blacks do not have allegiance to a foreign country like Jews do to Israel!
1
"... the senator was being lauded by New York constituents, his office said."
Not this constituent. But then, Schumer supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and opposed marriage equality.
Not this constituent. But then, Schumer supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and opposed marriage equality.
35
Senator Schumer always strikes me as a highly intelligent and charismatic politician but lacks backbone. Unlike Senator Levine and Representative Levine who are always trying to do right thing for the country, Schumer always kowtows to the Israeli lobby. I am just glad that most American Jews don't share his position.
24
Bare facts. Israel has nuclear weapons, Iran does not. Israel is expansionist, Iran is not. America provides more aid to Israel in cash, military aid, and "charitable contributions" than Iran's entire military budget.
Twice when I was growing up, Berlin and Cuba, America was on the brink of nuclear war. And Netanyahu unlike Khrushchev, is not somebody you can rely on not to go off the rails. For my grandchildren, not only does this six major power deal need to be approved, but it needs to be approved by a majority of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives.
Twice when I was growing up, Berlin and Cuba, America was on the brink of nuclear war. And Netanyahu unlike Khrushchev, is not somebody you can rely on not to go off the rails. For my grandchildren, not only does this six major power deal need to be approved, but it needs to be approved by a majority of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives.
49
Since Israel has not even invaded South Lebanon, and entire countries have collapsed around it without it even going into those countries (except for tiny incursions into upper Sinai), give us instances of Israel's "expansionism." My opening bid is: "NONE."
4
Charles,
Are you serious? Since its formation, Israel has seized territory from all of its neighbors (though it gave back what it seized from Egypt and Lebanon. It still holds the Golan Heights (Syria) and the West Bank, and greatly restricts Gaza (though it formally gave that back to the Palestinians). The only direction in which Israel hasn't expanded is West, and that's only because the Mediterranean Sea is there. Even to the west, though, Israel interferes with shipping in international waters.
Are you serious? Since its formation, Israel has seized territory from all of its neighbors (though it gave back what it seized from Egypt and Lebanon. It still holds the Golan Heights (Syria) and the West Bank, and greatly restricts Gaza (though it formally gave that back to the Palestinians). The only direction in which Israel hasn't expanded is West, and that's only because the Mediterranean Sea is there. Even to the west, though, Israel interferes with shipping in international waters.
9
4 Trump: Golan Heights, Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza. Not to mention violations of Lebanese air space and Syrian air space.
1
I just wrote my Democratic senators, urging them to reject Schumer's quest for a higher Senate leadership position. I urge like-minded Democrats to do the same. He is selling us out.
52
I just did the same asking them to support Sen, Schumer.
1
I wrote my Democratic senators and told them to follow Schumer's lead.
Schumer's decision, as were some following the 2008 financial crisis appear more based on his desire to adhere to the views of his more affluent supporters in order to achieve his goal of becoming Majority/Minority leader. Whether Schumer truly evaluated what Kerry. who has known war, worked assiduously towards ---and which other nations accept--- or listened only to those who ascribe solely to Netanyahu's views in making today's announcement one has to struggle with to decide.
7
Kudos to Sen. Schumer for not being bullied, intimidated, cajoled and blackmailed by the Obama administration into toeing the party line on what is a difficult decision and a dubious deal!!
6
But it is okay that he bullied intimidated and cajoled by Netanyahoo, ny Jews and Aipac to vote against his own conscience, against U.S. interests against Israelis interest and the worlds interest?
9
To whom does Senator Schumer owe allegiance--- Israel or the U.S.A.?
More than 100 former U.S. Ambassadors have endorsed this agreement. My impression is that the majority of liberal to moderate columnists have also endorsed it -- including President Obama's trenchant speech . At stake here are the credibility of U .S. diplomacy. the US government in general and own elected representatives. More importantly the risk that the failure of the US Congress to accept the agreement could lead to one more horrific war in the Middle East.
More than 100 former U.S. Ambassadors have endorsed this agreement. My impression is that the majority of liberal to moderate columnists have also endorsed it -- including President Obama's trenchant speech . At stake here are the credibility of U .S. diplomacy. the US government in general and own elected representatives. More importantly the risk that the failure of the US Congress to accept the agreement could lead to one more horrific war in the Middle East.
4
Good article from the NYT a year ago....
Cries of ‘Death to America’ as Iranians Celebrate 35th Anniversary of Revolution
TEHRAN — Mixing exhortations of death to America with admonishments to children about healthy teeth and gums, Iran celebrated the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on Tuesday, and the state news media said millions had exuberantly participated.
In the distance, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps band played songs from the 1979 revolution, as one cleric, Mohammad Moshabarati, 28, marched by, holding a long pole bearing an Islamic flag. “Everything you see here is the achievement of our supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,” he said. “Our slogan is, ‘Death to U.S.,’ and it will be so forever, no matter what President Rouhani agrees with the Americans.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/world/middleeast/anniversary-of-islami...
Thank you Senator Schumer for standing up for the safety of Americans.
Cries of ‘Death to America’ as Iranians Celebrate 35th Anniversary of Revolution
TEHRAN — Mixing exhortations of death to America with admonishments to children about healthy teeth and gums, Iran celebrated the 35th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on Tuesday, and the state news media said millions had exuberantly participated.
In the distance, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps band played songs from the 1979 revolution, as one cleric, Mohammad Moshabarati, 28, marched by, holding a long pole bearing an Islamic flag. “Everything you see here is the achievement of our supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,” he said. “Our slogan is, ‘Death to U.S.,’ and it will be so forever, no matter what President Rouhani agrees with the Americans.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/world/middleeast/anniversary-of-islami...
Thank you Senator Schumer for standing up for the safety of Americans.
7
Senator Schumer voted for the Iraq war, voted for DOMA, and now is
voting against his president and party siding with AIPAC and the republicans against the hard fought Iran Treaty. Maybe he should have been debating
last night . He has lost my NY vote.
voting against his president and party siding with AIPAC and the republicans against the hard fought Iran Treaty. Maybe he should have been debating
last night . He has lost my NY vote.
34
This vote for any and all politicians will go down as a big vote. Ironically it makes little difference since there are two major things it may do:
1) Impact sanctions. Global sanctions are off no matter how this vote goes. If the vote approves then sanctions go and hopefully American business will benefit from it. If the vote goes no then other nations will dump the sanctions and we get left out of any future business. One way or another Iran gets to trade.
2) War. The only way we go to war is if the President decides we do. Obama has decided we won't. The next President will have to make a decision. Congress is not in a realistic position to start or prevent a war. Whoever the next President is gets to go or not to go to war as she/he decides. This vote will not make any difference to it.
So the vote goes down to mark the choice each Congress member or Senator made but the result is irrelevant.
1) Impact sanctions. Global sanctions are off no matter how this vote goes. If the vote approves then sanctions go and hopefully American business will benefit from it. If the vote goes no then other nations will dump the sanctions and we get left out of any future business. One way or another Iran gets to trade.
2) War. The only way we go to war is if the President decides we do. Obama has decided we won't. The next President will have to make a decision. Congress is not in a realistic position to start or prevent a war. Whoever the next President is gets to go or not to go to war as she/he decides. This vote will not make any difference to it.
So the vote goes down to mark the choice each Congress member or Senator made but the result is irrelevant.
What happens if (when) Congress fails to ratify the treaty?
It seems very unlikely to me that the Chinese, the Russians, or even the Europeans will continue sanctions. So Iran will have trade, and we will get nothing for it.
We will have lost any means, short of war (if you think that's realistic), of controlling Iran's nuclear ambitions at the same time we will have lost any cultural influence we might have had and any trade we might have won (although there were apparently still some roadblocks to our trading with Iran).
We've been told we shouldn't trust the Iranians. Fine--but would we be placing more faith in them by allowing them to freely trade with our 'friends' (Russia and China), which will surely happen, or by a regime of regular inspections?
And someone will have to explain to me how killing this deal helps Israel.
Even if it does, it's clearly against the interests of the US, the country that I, and presumably Senator Schumer, owe allegiance.
It seems very unlikely to me that the Chinese, the Russians, or even the Europeans will continue sanctions. So Iran will have trade, and we will get nothing for it.
We will have lost any means, short of war (if you think that's realistic), of controlling Iran's nuclear ambitions at the same time we will have lost any cultural influence we might have had and any trade we might have won (although there were apparently still some roadblocks to our trading with Iran).
We've been told we shouldn't trust the Iranians. Fine--but would we be placing more faith in them by allowing them to freely trade with our 'friends' (Russia and China), which will surely happen, or by a regime of regular inspections?
And someone will have to explain to me how killing this deal helps Israel.
Even if it does, it's clearly against the interests of the US, the country that I, and presumably Senator Schumer, owe allegiance.
9
Israel, and many influential Jewish leaders in America, treat America as a client state. Israel is not an ally. Schumer should be ashamed, but will never comprehend why. Jewish people and Israel always come first which is why they should not be politicians in America. There is no question that politics in the Middle East are tricky and difficult, not only for the US but for all the Middle Eastern states. Just the way it is.
20
Ralph: Are you a candidate on the Bigotry ticket?
6
Jim -- exactly. We could bring back Edward I and expel all "those people" from this country, too, to the delight of so many of the writers who have been adding to the pile of antisemitic commentary here.
1
We need to know why Sen. Schumer caved.
9
He definitely knows something we don't.
PLEASE NOTE: The Colonel is a professional Op-Ed editor for the Sunday "Guardian" of Manchester
Below are some of the adjectives being applied to Sen. "Chuck" Schumer.
"Shameless"
"Dishonest"
"Cynical"
"Voted his conscience"
One thing you can bank on with Sen. Schumer is that he will never vote his conscience unless the vote gets him somewhere politically. He will never undertake an unsafe vote.
Even now, he waited until the Democratic votes were tallied in secret, and when he saw that the President would have sufficient votes without Sen. Schumer's vote, then, and only then, did Sen. Schumer announce his position opposing the President. It was not any real "struggle" with his
-The Colonel
Below are some of the adjectives being applied to Sen. "Chuck" Schumer.
"Shameless"
"Dishonest"
"Cynical"
"Voted his conscience"
One thing you can bank on with Sen. Schumer is that he will never vote his conscience unless the vote gets him somewhere politically. He will never undertake an unsafe vote.
Even now, he waited until the Democratic votes were tallied in secret, and when he saw that the President would have sufficient votes without Sen. Schumer's vote, then, and only then, did Sen. Schumer announce his position opposing the President. It was not any real "struggle" with his
-The Colonel
13
Colonel
I can't seem to find any of your op-ed pieces on the Guardian website. Can you post some links?
I can't seem to find any of your op-ed pieces on the Guardian website. Can you post some links?
There are an awful lot of shocked readers. Is it not possible for an educated populace to disagree without disparaging the "other party." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand, perhaps sympathize, with cynicism when it comes to politicians motives, but is that always the case? Let me offer a sobering aside. . History is pitiless when it reviews events. Chamberlain was attempting to avoid war. He was not pilloried in the news of the day, but his name lives in infamy. Does any sober analyst of the proposed deal not have qualms about compliance on the part of Iran as well as the mechanics of inspection and the related timetable? Does any believer in the merits of the deal, not have misgivings about making a deal with a country that routinely states "death to america" and yes "death to Israel?" Do those who support this proposed accord really believe that the way the negotiations were handled, with no preconditions was the work of a seasoned negotiating team?
Nonetheless, the deal may have merit, but why is there so little public debate by the best minds in our country, in an apolitical forum. Wouldn't it be useful to hear historians weigh in on this accord and perhaps see what can learned from prior deals with a state that has a history of support for terrorism with few equals? I would suggest reason, debate and openness. Unless my fellow readers feel that potentially changing their position is inimical to having one.
Nonetheless, the deal may have merit, but why is there so little public debate by the best minds in our country, in an apolitical forum. Wouldn't it be useful to hear historians weigh in on this accord and perhaps see what can learned from prior deals with a state that has a history of support for terrorism with few equals? I would suggest reason, debate and openness. Unless my fellow readers feel that potentially changing their position is inimical to having one.
3
People should only bring up Chamberlain if they know the history. Chamberlain was only buying time, which he did. His choices were to stall or fight a much superior German military machine. The UK and France couldn't have held off a party of boy scouts at the time.
As it is, even with the time that Chamberlain bought, the UK still came within weeks of losing the war.
In contrast, Iran is the one surrounded by a combined military orders of magnitude stronger than its own, some, (the US, Israel, Pakistan and India), armed with nukes and two of them have tacitly threatened Iran with them, with 'all options on the table'.
That threat takes on a more ominous meaning when you realise that includes nukes.
So if one uses the Chamberlain comparison, they should at least get it right.
As it is, even with the time that Chamberlain bought, the UK still came within weeks of losing the war.
In contrast, Iran is the one surrounded by a combined military orders of magnitude stronger than its own, some, (the US, Israel, Pakistan and India), armed with nukes and two of them have tacitly threatened Iran with them, with 'all options on the table'.
That threat takes on a more ominous meaning when you realise that includes nukes.
So if one uses the Chamberlain comparison, they should at least get it right.
The current government of Israel has a vested interest in screaming "war" and you know it. This is how Netanyahu maintains power both in Israel and the U.S. It is more cynical than perhaps even the administration of "W." That's what the historians will write.
1
You might want to reach manchester on Churchill. He disagrees with your take on Chamberlain as did Churchill. And while you're at it, if France had honored it's treaty when Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, the third reich would have been unable to fend them off. When France hesitated, Hitler continued his massive push to arm his country.
AIPAC strikes again. His first allegiance is clearly not to our country.
24
When Israel is involved we tend to see what the #1 priority is for certain politcians. The old loyalty question raised.
11
Senator Schumer so obviously pledging his allegiance to Mr. Netanyahu instead of representing the people who elected him to his office will raise a whole lot of undesirable anti-semitic and anti-Israel sentiment in the US and around the world.
If Schumer's act isn't treasounous, what is?
If Schumer's act isn't treasounous, what is?
14
Such messages are indeed flooding the commentary here, but it is unlikely they relate to Senator Schumer particularly, or even the proposed Iran agreement, beyond his representing an easy target for the bigots as they come out of the woodwork. How fortunate for us all that such sentiments are in evidence Down Under, too.
1
I am not a fan of Chuck Schumer, but it is no secret that many of his constituents are opposed to the Iran deal; are they traitors too? Or just the Jews?
This appears to be a purely political calculation by Mr. Schumer. He intends for the deal to succeed, but to keep major donors happy by voting against it.
14
Well, we will make sure he no longer worries about any donors. We want all money that makes a foreign nation favorite nation out of our politics. It's not comparable to the NRA, that's an American issue. Israel is not.
I've voted for Schumer since he first ran for the Senate in 98. But not anymore, my vote goes elsewhere. And I'm a strong supporter of a Democratic Israel. But I support the President and this hard-fought imperfect deal; Don't let One-State Solution Bibi and Casino Magnate Shelly Adelson scare you Chuck.
23
Schumer is hedging his bets. He knows that the Dems have enough votes to hold of the Republicans so he has calculated that he can still do the bidding of his handlers, take the AIPAC/Adelson/Koch cash, and still tacitly support the president.
1
Schumer has compared two 10 year scenarios, with and without this treaty and made his decision. Here are his tradeoffs at +10 years:
10 Years with treaty:
Iran is two years away from having a bomb with almost no highly enriched uranium. They are deciding on how to pursue the use of nuclear power to replace their oil dependence. They are more afraid of global warming making their land a desert than of the US. They are still members of the non-proliferation treaty (unlike Israel) so inspections are routine.
10 years from now without treaty:
(if we bomb Iran) 50%
Iran has a nuke in 3 to 8 years (based on the US military's estimate of how long they can keep Iran from going nuclear with bombing). Their economic development has been limited by the massive US bombing, but aided by the support from all European nations, Russia and China.
(if we bomb and invade Iran) 25%
Massive US bombing, and invasion drove Iran to the 1930's. We have 200,000 US troops committed to pacification, taking 1000 casualties/mo. Over 2,000,000 Iranian casualties, mostly civilian. Over 100,000 US civilian casualties from reprisal attacks on US citizens in airliners, cruise ships, and suicide raids on US port cities.
(no bombing, no agreement, no invasion) 25%
Iran is a strong economic power, still 2 months from being nuclear -- or has been nuclear power for 9 years. Israel had gotten rid of Bibi.
He chose war, or a nuclear Iran, or both, or Iran within weeks of being nuclear. Thanks Chuck.
10 Years with treaty:
Iran is two years away from having a bomb with almost no highly enriched uranium. They are deciding on how to pursue the use of nuclear power to replace their oil dependence. They are more afraid of global warming making their land a desert than of the US. They are still members of the non-proliferation treaty (unlike Israel) so inspections are routine.
10 years from now without treaty:
(if we bomb Iran) 50%
Iran has a nuke in 3 to 8 years (based on the US military's estimate of how long they can keep Iran from going nuclear with bombing). Their economic development has been limited by the massive US bombing, but aided by the support from all European nations, Russia and China.
(if we bomb and invade Iran) 25%
Massive US bombing, and invasion drove Iran to the 1930's. We have 200,000 US troops committed to pacification, taking 1000 casualties/mo. Over 2,000,000 Iranian casualties, mostly civilian. Over 100,000 US civilian casualties from reprisal attacks on US citizens in airliners, cruise ships, and suicide raids on US port cities.
(no bombing, no agreement, no invasion) 25%
Iran is a strong economic power, still 2 months from being nuclear -- or has been nuclear power for 9 years. Israel had gotten rid of Bibi.
He chose war, or a nuclear Iran, or both, or Iran within weeks of being nuclear. Thanks Chuck.
9
The blatant anti-Semitic attacks aimed at Schumer by progressives posting here are on full display and nauseating. "Israel-firster," dual loyalty etc. - this is tired anti-Semitic trope. If you exchanged France or Germany for Israel would there be such an outcry? Doubt it. We stick up for our allies and this deal threatens Israel's security. Progressives need to do some serious soul searching if they can't understand Schumer's reasonable opposition to the deal.
7
Dr . m.
It is pretty old to use the good ol "anti Semite " cover for telling the truth.
Sorry, it's not flying anymore, what's next? Are you going to blame us for Holocaust too?
The fact is simple. There is the 99% of the world who approve this deal, and state of Israel run by mr. Netanyahu who oppose this deal on the other side.
Pro- Israeli lobbyists are spending millions to influence and to push against this deal.
Mr schemer has picked his side and that is what everyone is saying here.
he has done so not based of facts or logics , otherwise the whole world just can't be stupid , but on his alligiance to state of Israel.
You can try to paint this anyway you like, but facts are facts.
It is pretty old to use the good ol "anti Semite " cover for telling the truth.
Sorry, it's not flying anymore, what's next? Are you going to blame us for Holocaust too?
The fact is simple. There is the 99% of the world who approve this deal, and state of Israel run by mr. Netanyahu who oppose this deal on the other side.
Pro- Israeli lobbyists are spending millions to influence and to push against this deal.
Mr schemer has picked his side and that is what everyone is saying here.
he has done so not based of facts or logics , otherwise the whole world just can't be stupid , but on his alligiance to state of Israel.
You can try to paint this anyway you like, but facts are facts.
7
In what sense is Israel an "ally"? Not only does Bibi's Israel seek to undermine and meddle in US policy, but israeli intransigeance vis a vis the expanding settlements has seriously destabilized the ME and has eroded confidence in US. Repudiating the Iran agreement is indeed disgraceful, but I think the venal Schumer knows that the Prez has the votes.
1
The UK, France, Germany, the entire EU are American allies and they have signed off on the agreement.
Using your argument, shouldn't Schumer be supporting them?
Using your argument, shouldn't Schumer be supporting them?
Finally a thoughtful Democrat who is not following the party line. This is tragic how partisan and unthinking Democrats have become.
7
The good Senator is protecting his turf voting bloc. Unfortunately, all of our Senators should be viewing the larger picture when it comes to governing our country. While the Iran deal may not be the best it has been thoroughly debated and thought through by several countries and their experts. This deal is definitely more than any other administration accomplished.
9
I disagree with "Wall Street's Senator" on almost every issue, but I heartily approve of his stance on this misbegotten agreement and can only hope that more Democrats will use their heads instead of worrying about the legacy of arguably the worst president this country has ever had.
5
So ashamed of our politicians. Vote American.
16
In the end, Schumer supports Israel over America. This man should not be leading any part of the Democratic party.
34
This is how Democrats lose elections. When a left leaning or Independent voter considers going to the polls they think; "What's the use? That warmonger Democrat might as well be a Republican." Good example? It was "Democrat" Ben Nelson who scuttled single payer as part of Obamacare, not some "I hate Obamacare" Republican. Good luck standing for peace in the Middle East, Hillary; when your Senate minority leader wants the bombs to fly at Bibi's request.
12
Call out to Feinstein and Boxer. Maybe if you did your homework instead of drinking Kerry Koolaid (comes in grey only ) you too would change your minds.
And it's not too late.
And it's not too late.
2
I think senators and others who put Israel befor America are traitors, be they Democrats, Republicans, liberals or born agains. Our nation is America and those in leadership of this country should not have extra-territorial loyalties.
19
I think people who question the rightful criticism of this deal and label the critics "Israel-firsters" are thinly veiled anti-semites.
1
"His successful re-election depends on my vote and yours. I called his office numerous times and I don't feel my senator listened to ME..."
Let me guess: Senator Schumer utterly ignored you, right?
Let me guess: Senator Schumer utterly ignored you, right?
3
Senator Schumer is not acting in the best interest of Israel nor the USA. As a senior Senator at times he must explain to his constituents things they don't want to hear even if it means standing up to the Netanyahu block of the Israeli political system. Netanyahu has saber rattled long enough and his approach to relations with Iran are counterproductive. The USA has been a consistent supporter of Israel, at times taking positions that have not necessarily been in our best interest. However, there is an increasing segment of us that are getting exasperated with Netanyahu's interference in our domestic politics and interference and efforts to scuttle the multinational negotiations to resolve the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons diplomatically. The Middle East has drained our treasury and caused way too much loss of life for America. The agreement that has been reached is by no means perfect but provides a platform to draw back from the brink of war. Senator Schumer must understand that he is first and foremost a US Senator, not a member of the Israeli government. His first loyalty should be to his country and his President. Senator you must support this agreement and explain to your constituents why it is in the best interest of Israel to see this agreement confirmed. There are limits to what any friendship can endure.
20
Keep in mind that Schumer knows the Iran deal will go through, no matter what he does. That being so, if some rich donor -- or Netanyahu, or AIPAC -- tells you it would mean a lot to them to have you oppose the Iran deal, then why not?
If Schumer thought this might affect his re-election chances, he might behave differently. But he knows he's a shoo-in, for as long as he wants. He knows some voters will be upset with him, but he also knows many voters will be pleased; on balance, he knows it won't make much difference either way: he wins by large margins, and that won't change.
If Schumer thought this might affect his re-election chances, he might behave differently. But he knows he's a shoo-in, for as long as he wants. He knows some voters will be upset with him, but he also knows many voters will be pleased; on balance, he knows it won't make much difference either way: he wins by large margins, and that won't change.
2
It will not affect his reelection chances much unless the impact is a war or a nuclear Iran or both. These are both much more likely within the next 10 years without the agreement than with it.
Sad and tremendously disappointed that Mr. Schumer has caved in to pressure from people who are apparently heavily invested in perpetuating endless US military involvement in the Middle East. I'll be joining MoveOn and boycotting Schumer from this point forward. New York needs a new senator.
29
Is Obama lying that the deal is good for Israel?
If not - why people accuse Schumer who doesn't agree with what is good for Israel with siding with Israel?
If not - why people accuse Schumer who doesn't agree with what is good for Israel with siding with Israel?
3
The power of the Israeli extremists is once again made evident when we see Senator Schumer failing to support the proposed Iran nuclear agreement obviously because of the pressure of the huge Jewish electorate in his senate district. With Netanyahu making visits to our Congress to influence it favorably to Israeli interests, and with Mr. Schumer apparently responding to his string being pulled by Israeli supporters, one can logically begin to wonder why Israeli extremists are so adversely allowed to dominate U.S. actions in the Middle East.
17
It seems to me that Senator Schumer did the arithmetic like this. Conservative Jews who are strongly Zionist could vote for his opponent in the next election if he doesn't oppose the treaty. Liberal Jews who would support the treaty have nowhere to go; the Republicans will nominate an anti-treaty political conservative for whom they absolutely cannot vote. So he has nothing to lose by his opposition and something to gain. On the other hand, he has nothing to gain by his support and something to lose.
5
Another democrat could seek the Democratic nomination resulting in a primary.
2
I was shocked to find that Schumer opposes the treaty, and could not understand his possible reasoning, based on the arguments Kerry and Obama have made on its merits. Certainly many commenters here agree with mgm that it is purely cynical vote counting, and not a statement of conscience at all. Very surprising that a respected senator like Schumer finds it OK to trash the president and help support Bibi.
1
Schumer only does what "Big Money" tells him to do regardless of where that money comes from. Follow the money folks.
9
From https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478: Shame on those who just reflexively attribute his position to "allegiacne" to Israel and its "lobby"!!
If one thinks Iran will moderate,... one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power ..
But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
.... the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, ...Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, ....
If one thinks Iran will moderate,... one should approve the agreement. After all, a moderate Iran is less likely to exploit holes in the inspection and sanctions regime, is less likely to seek to become a threshold nuclear power ..
But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.
.... the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years?
To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, ...Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, ....
3
I wonder if he is planing to ask Israel to come clean on his nuclear arsenal and sign up with NPT?
Oh sorry, I don't think he would, that is not part of his "good conscience"!!!
What a hypocrit !!!
Oh sorry, I don't think he would, that is not part of his "good conscience"!!!
What a hypocrit !!!
1
While Shumer's opposition may not be enough to override President Obama's veto, it may be enough to support a majority vote of Congress opposing the deal with Iran. Congressional opposition will weaken the United States' ability to ensure that Iran and the countries that supported sanctions enforce the agreement.
Even if opponents (wrongly) believe that we have nothing to gain from this deal, they should realize that we have nothing to lose by going through with the deal.
Without the agreement, Iran could immediately resume work on nuclear bombs, and more likely would given the implied threat from a Congress listening more the Netanyahu than Obama. Without the agreement, Russia, China, and France will likely immediately end their sanctions and begin selling weapons to Iran, buying oil and including Iran in international banking.
With the agreement we delay Iran from developing nuclear weapons at least 10 years, delay other countries from selling missiles to Iran for several years and have them committed to snapping back sanctions should Iran cheat.
Opposing this deal just makes no sense.
Senator Schumer must have other reasons for opposing his President and his Party, and they should disqualify him from becoming Senate Minority Leader.
Even if opponents (wrongly) believe that we have nothing to gain from this deal, they should realize that we have nothing to lose by going through with the deal.
Without the agreement, Iran could immediately resume work on nuclear bombs, and more likely would given the implied threat from a Congress listening more the Netanyahu than Obama. Without the agreement, Russia, China, and France will likely immediately end their sanctions and begin selling weapons to Iran, buying oil and including Iran in international banking.
With the agreement we delay Iran from developing nuclear weapons at least 10 years, delay other countries from selling missiles to Iran for several years and have them committed to snapping back sanctions should Iran cheat.
Opposing this deal just makes no sense.
Senator Schumer must have other reasons for opposing his President and his Party, and they should disqualify him from becoming Senate Minority Leader.
8
Lotsa slurs going on in this comment section. Be awfully nice to hear from him as to why prior to making assumptions about his motivation. The dual loyalties meme just seems a little too handy for the Republicans who want his seat.
3
Ratification of the nuclear deal with Iran is the only way forward for USA. War or sanctions are counterproductive, it’s not about the best interstates of present Govt of Israel, its about the best interests of people of Israel, they need peace not war on any pretext. Containing Iranians from developing nuclear weapons is good for everyone; it’s to prevent violence and war. By not endorsing deal with Iran would not bring peace to Israel or serve the best interests of people of Untied States and the rest of the world. US Senate and Congress should serve the best interests of People of United States of America, not the best interests of foreign governments or their political think tanks.
5
I am generally a supporter of Mr. Schumer's position on most issues facing the Senate. However, I do not understand how he arrived at this position and can only surmise that he has taken his eye off the ball, and has allowed himself to be swayed by influencers that have a different agenda that does not include putting America first and world peace above all other interests. I can only hope Mr. Schumer will come to his senses and realize he has allowed those with conflicting priorities to cloud his judgement.
8
I am so disappointed that a man I have always admired has made this decision.
15
I have not studied all aspects of the treaty and thus I am not for or against it but I am dismayed to see all of the comments that CS's negative vote was the result of him listening to the government of Israel. As a former volunteer for my NY State Rep I can tell you that emails come in all of the time from constituents pro and anti a particular topic and that perhaps CS was receiving many anti treaty emails than pro and that is how he based his vote.
2
As a US senator Schumer should be voting for the best interests of the US--not on the basis of just some tally of his email on an issue.
2
Sen. Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois holds the current number two position in the Senate.
It is Durbin, not Schumer, who should succeed Sen. Reid as minority (hopefully soon, majority) leader of the Senate.
It is Durbin, not Schumer, who should succeed Sen. Reid as minority (hopefully soon, majority) leader of the Senate.
19
I Iive in Canada and I'm Jewish.
Canada used to be a peacekeeper, and Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 "for organizing the United Nations Emergency Force to resolve the Suez Canal Crisis"* Wikipedia.
We also have a strong Jewish Lobby ,and recently there has been a "________match" to see who is most supportive and loyal to the State of Israel.
I am a supporter of Israel and its' right to exist.
However, Canada, with a mere 35,749,600 people (*Stats Canada), has been on a major push to increase its' population. There are not as many Jews coming to Canada relative to peoples of other religions. There are of course Israelis and French Jews, both leaving their respective countries for safer places.
Having established the "background" above, I have to say this to all of the Canadian Members of Parliament:
I would hope that each and every one of you thinks of ALL your constituents and not just specify groups. Because, in the very near future, Canada's population and recent immigrants to Canada will far outnumber people of Jewish ancestry and religion.
There will be a time, when the "shoes are reversed" and this will happen as immigrations of ALL Religions and Backgrounds" come to Canada and increase in numbers.
As a Jew I certainly would not like to see some other lobby group pressure its' Members of Parliament to vote against Israel because of how they remembered - As the Jewish expression goes - Never Forget"!
Canada used to be a peacekeeper, and Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 "for organizing the United Nations Emergency Force to resolve the Suez Canal Crisis"* Wikipedia.
We also have a strong Jewish Lobby ,and recently there has been a "________match" to see who is most supportive and loyal to the State of Israel.
I am a supporter of Israel and its' right to exist.
However, Canada, with a mere 35,749,600 people (*Stats Canada), has been on a major push to increase its' population. There are not as many Jews coming to Canada relative to peoples of other religions. There are of course Israelis and French Jews, both leaving their respective countries for safer places.
Having established the "background" above, I have to say this to all of the Canadian Members of Parliament:
I would hope that each and every one of you thinks of ALL your constituents and not just specify groups. Because, in the very near future, Canada's population and recent immigrants to Canada will far outnumber people of Jewish ancestry and religion.
There will be a time, when the "shoes are reversed" and this will happen as immigrations of ALL Religions and Backgrounds" come to Canada and increase in numbers.
As a Jew I certainly would not like to see some other lobby group pressure its' Members of Parliament to vote against Israel because of how they remembered - As the Jewish expression goes - Never Forget"!
It is time Americans start thinking of themselves as Americans first. Which country would Schummer defend if he is called to fight?
16
Macdin: That is not a fair question. All Americans have an ethnic root in another continent. Attacking someone for their roots is the antithesis of American culture and tradition. Yeah, yeah ... I know, we permit some exceptions to this element of American Exceptionalism. Are you really advocating that that should stop?
Of course Schumer has to reject this. Of course, William Fulbright had to reject the Civil RIghts Act.
4
Schumer has been in the forefront of many progressive decisions
This is not one of them
This is not one of them
7
And neither was his vote to invade Iraq.
6
Schemer once again puts himself above the interests of his country, the United States.
15
Just who's best interest is Senator Schumer representing, New York State and the nation, or that of Israel , AIPAC and his next reelection campaign?
Either way, he just lost my vote.
Either way, he just lost my vote.
32
Who does Schumer represent, Israel or New York?
15
As a citizen of the state of New York, I want a senator who represents my interests as an American, not those of Israel. I will not vote for Chuck Schumer again. In my eyes, he is a traitor.
34
Why is it when a party member doesn't agree with the president he is a traitor? That is a very strong word for non support. I find the agreement harmful to the US never mind Israel. Does that make me a subversive? Do we follow lock step with the president when we believe he is wrong? I thought only totalitarian states believed this philosophy.
Apparently many readers of the Times would find comfort in a society that limits dissent.
Apparently many readers of the Times would find comfort in a society that limits dissent.
"But the senator was being lauded by New York constituents, his office said."
We shall find out in less than 15 months if his office is being truthful or not.
We shall find out in less than 15 months if his office is being truthful or not.
7
I know Schumer's extraordinarily strong ties (and reliance) on the Jewish lobbyists and communities are driving this decision, but at some point he has to put America ahead of everyone and everything else. That is the responsibility of his job and he if can't do that then he needs to reconsider his position and perhaps go work for the AIPAC instead of running for re-election. Clearly he can't take over from Senator Reid as he has shown a clear unwillingness to put the needs and best interests of America ahead of all else.
32
From the article:
“It is less likely than not that Congress is going to override,” said Representative Brad Sherman of California, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who came out against the nuclear accord on Friday. “That happens almost never, and even less often on foreign policy.”
COMMENT:
This is a done deal. Schemer knows that -- everybody in Congress knows that. When you know that (and, of course, it's true), why not vote the way your backers demand? It won't matter anyway, and you'll make them happy. That's all Schumer is doing. He'd have a tougher decision to make if his decision actually mattered. But it doesn't.
“It is less likely than not that Congress is going to override,” said Representative Brad Sherman of California, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who came out against the nuclear accord on Friday. “That happens almost never, and even less often on foreign policy.”
COMMENT:
This is a done deal. Schemer knows that -- everybody in Congress knows that. When you know that (and, of course, it's true), why not vote the way your backers demand? It won't matter anyway, and you'll make them happy. That's all Schumer is doing. He'd have a tougher decision to make if his decision actually mattered. But it doesn't.
3
I called the DC offices of both Senator Schumer and Gillibrand, to tell them of my strong support for the deal with Iran that the President, Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz have recommended, and to advise them of my disapproval if they went ahead to oppose it, as it had been reported they might.
Well, plainly Senator Schumer was unimpressed with my message. A cynic might suspect he preferred his phone conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
I don't know anything about that, of course. But it strikes me that a true friend of Israel should not encourage a warlike attitude, but should look always for a diplomatic solution to security problems, and in this case in particular should trust President Obama, whose attitude toward the Iranian government is plainly not weak or gullible.
Well, plainly Senator Schumer was unimpressed with my message. A cynic might suspect he preferred his phone conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
I don't know anything about that, of course. But it strikes me that a true friend of Israel should not encourage a warlike attitude, but should look always for a diplomatic solution to security problems, and in this case in particular should trust President Obama, whose attitude toward the Iranian government is plainly not weak or gullible.
15
Between killing the bill that would raise carried interest tax and this decision to vote against American interest in favor of Israli ones, Chuck Schumer is beyond a doubt a corrupt, bought and paid for selfish man who has no place in politics.
22
As Senator Paul asked during last night's debate: Why are we borrowing $3 billion a year from the Chinese in order to give it to Israel?
I am so disappointed in Senator Schumer.
I am so disappointed in Senator Schumer.
21
If the deal was made with a government that openly calls for annihilation of black people and calls them subhuman, it would be considered treason. But for Jews (not Israel but Jews) it's apparently fine. That will be Obama's legacy - surge of open antisemitism in the Democratic party. It is quire shocking.
4
I am extremely disappointed in Senator Schumer's opposition to the Iran Nuclear deal. It is an act of cowardly act of dishonesty on his part. If he cannot support the President on this treaty, then he has forfeited any right to aspire to be in any leadership position in the Senate. Perhaps a rereading of by Senator Schumer of Profiles in Courage is in order
21
Schumer... is essentially voting with Netanyahu against his own President and party leader.
He is pandering to his donors but still.... this is a stab in the back.
He is pandering to his donors but still.... this is a stab in the back.
31
Schumer has just lost my vote in the 2016 election.
16
Oh, so he gets a pass to be a more loyal supporter of Netanyahu than his own party*s and country*s President?
Way to go, Chuck.
The irony is that Iran is a far less reprehensible threat to all our human values than the Saudis, our other bestest friends, who have, with their gazillions, destroyed Pakistan and created an unending legion of madrassa-trained young men to feed the ISIS and Al Qaeda maw.
Israel does not want another culturally-sophisticated rival in the Middle East, which is why they are so vehemently--hysterically--opposed to Iran. But with their surreptitious alliance with the Saudis, they have now unleashed a monster they will never be able to control. It*s called being too smart for your own good.
Way to go, Chuck.
The irony is that Iran is a far less reprehensible threat to all our human values than the Saudis, our other bestest friends, who have, with their gazillions, destroyed Pakistan and created an unending legion of madrassa-trained young men to feed the ISIS and Al Qaeda maw.
Israel does not want another culturally-sophisticated rival in the Middle East, which is why they are so vehemently--hysterically--opposed to Iran. But with their surreptitious alliance with the Saudis, they have now unleashed a monster they will never be able to control. It*s called being too smart for your own good.
13
This is called having your cake and eating it too. Schumer can count. He knows there are just enough votes to sustain a veto, allowing him the luxury of voting one way, while wanting a different result.
Is he being cynical? Pragmatic? Unprincipled? Principled? Clever? Political? Devious? Trading votes?
Yes !
Is he being cynical? Pragmatic? Unprincipled? Principled? Clever? Political? Devious? Trading votes?
Yes !
6
I am so disappointed with Senator Schumer. I will never think of him in the same way.
31
This saddens me to think that war is preferred over an opportunity/act of diplomacy. Baby steps initially while building a foundation that can lead to greater diplomacy and sustained peace! The risks are so high.
I am greatly disappointed with Senator Schumer. It appears in this case he is just a common pedestrian-level thinking politician and not the man of reason I had thought him to be.
Senator Schumer's lack of support surely speaks to unrest for the region.
Step out of the box please and make a difference!
I am greatly disappointed with Senator Schumer. It appears in this case he is just a common pedestrian-level thinking politician and not the man of reason I had thought him to be.
Senator Schumer's lack of support surely speaks to unrest for the region.
Step out of the box please and make a difference!
15
He is entitled to his choice. I'd just want him as the next Minority (or Majority) Leader of the Senate.
1
With this decision, Schumer has proven that he is a pure politician and nothing more. I'd be interested to hear his reasons for it and whether they rise above the usual Right-Wing blather and idle pablum about conscience, and of course his alternative to the deal, unless he thinks war is the best solution (since sanctions will disappear within a year if not sooner and they were the only other leverage we had). That genius Bush refused any negotiations and it was under his watch that Iran progressed the furthest to their current threshold position. My guess is that if and when Schumer does expatiate a little further what he says will all depend on local calculation about his supposed voters' concerns. Maybe that is OK for a Congress-person but don't Senators have the luxury of showing a little leadership?
15
I hope Senator Schumer reads these people's comments and obeys the majority opinion.
12
you are still repaying 4 trillion dollar you spent on Iraq still, Iran is no Iraq , also you have ISIL and other trouble still to battle , No country will ever come to the debate table ever again - Nevertheless all other countries in the world except Israel support the deal (why is it so ?). And unfortunately you approve or not - Other countries have already started making new deals with Iran , nobody will wait for you
13
Chuch Schumer's flagrant disrespect for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearing was a disgrace. I don't know where his allegiance lies. Is it with Netanyahu or the United States? I think he might like us to go to war and wipe out all of Israel's enemies. He was wrong on Iraq and he is wrong on Iran.
30
"...but resistance to the accord among Democrats is concentrated in two heavily Jewish regions, the New York City area and South Florida."
There is nothing "heavily Jewish about NYC or NY Metropolitan area. According to wikipedia, total population of NY Metropolitan area is 20.1 Million, of which only 1.5 Million are Jewish.
NYS 6% Jewish
NYC 1/8 Jewish
None of the Jewish members of Congress who have decided to side with Israel have a majority Jewish states or districts.
So where does "heavily Jewish" come from?
There is nothing "heavily Jewish about NYC or NY Metropolitan area. According to wikipedia, total population of NY Metropolitan area is 20.1 Million, of which only 1.5 Million are Jewish.
NYS 6% Jewish
NYC 1/8 Jewish
None of the Jewish members of Congress who have decided to side with Israel have a majority Jewish states or districts.
So where does "heavily Jewish" come from?
8
There are currently an estimated 5.5- 6.5 million Jews in America. No American city nor metropolitan area has a larger Jewish population than New York with 1.5-1.75 million.
2
Since Citizens' United, when we suddenly found out that humans are not the only people my friend, I assume they mean wealth; for example, 40% of the world's billionaires are Jewish, and all of Wall Street's CEO banksters are as well, in 2008 during the Treasury heist, and still somehow. The % of US population that is Jewish is 2.2%. Many of these old white Jewish men live in NYC, and that is the extent of Chuck's constituency for voting purposes. Hopefully in 2016, it will match his % of the Democratic vote for re-election.
I've never cared for Schumer. Some kind of sleaze factor about him. I was shocked to hear he was going to be the new leader. They certainly can do way better.
13
I was struck by the comment from his constituent that Mr Schumer did not respond to his communications. My senator always sends an email confirmation and then a follow up, so it can be done. My regard for Mr Schumer has dissipated over time, and I guess I am not surprised by this move after the Netanyahu visit to Congress. Since this seems to be somewhat of a career changer for Mr Schumer so one thinks there must be some kind of golden parachute at the end. I am going to write to my senators and request that they support Dick Durbin, who has always struck me as a much better choice.
15
Schumer should move to Israel as that's where his loyalty lies. But he won't face any consequences and will keep smiling that snake-in-the-grass smile
15
I just hope, that Mr. Schumer is acting in good faith for the country he is serving and genuinely believe this in the best interests for the United States and its citizens.
The one veto in the past he placed was against DW bid,operating and investing in the Newark, N.J. ports,was ill advised and probably sloppy researched and lost out on a billion US$ investment for the badly needed new port infrastructure.
The one veto in the past he placed was against DW bid,operating and investing in the Newark, N.J. ports,was ill advised and probably sloppy researched and lost out on a billion US$ investment for the badly needed new port infrastructure.
1
Schemer was one leader I thought was sensible and reasonable but he has proved me wrong.
He has sold his soul for some petty gain. Instead of convincing his Jewish friends he has joined them.
Well I hope the electorate make this his last term
He has sold his soul for some petty gain. Instead of convincing his Jewish friends he has joined them.
Well I hope the electorate make this his last term
15
Senator Schumer, Nita Lowey, and our other senators and congressman, which country are they voting for, Israel or the United States.
We should vote them out next election!
America first!
We should vote them out next election!
America first!
32
Schumer's "No" vote should doom his Democratic Party leadership. We should make that point loud and clear to Democratic senators.
35
It would be impressive if Schumer explained his opposition to the Iran deal in the same terms to the public as when speaking to Jewish groups. NPR this morning played a recording of Schumer telling a Jewish audience that if there is the slightest chance the deal would make it easier for Iran to gain a nuclear weapon to threaten Israel, he would oppose it in his guise as "protector" of Israel. In Hebrew "schomer" means protector.
Yet in his public statement there is no mention of his special concern for Israel. This dishonesty, while appalling, is in a way understandable. It is simply outrageous for a major figure in the American government, a Democrat no less, to preference Israeli concerns over the interests of the United States and to blatantly ignore Obama's detailed arguments as to why the deal is in America's interest. For example there is no response from Schumer to Obama's claim that the only alternative to the deal is an eventual war.
Even more ridiculous, Schumer has no plausible plan for dealing with Iran. He says: "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." This is laughable. Schumer believes that more diplomacy will do the trick!? Check.
Obama has said: "it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with [Israel]".
Ponder it, Schumer: constitutional duty.
Yet in his public statement there is no mention of his special concern for Israel. This dishonesty, while appalling, is in a way understandable. It is simply outrageous for a major figure in the American government, a Democrat no less, to preference Israeli concerns over the interests of the United States and to blatantly ignore Obama's detailed arguments as to why the deal is in America's interest. For example there is no response from Schumer to Obama's claim that the only alternative to the deal is an eventual war.
Even more ridiculous, Schumer has no plausible plan for dealing with Iran. He says: "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." This is laughable. Schumer believes that more diplomacy will do the trick!? Check.
Obama has said: "it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with [Israel]".
Ponder it, Schumer: constitutional duty.
50
Schumer is a coward. He is afraid of facing his wealthy Jewish donors. The average Jew, while deeply concerned about the deal, understands the ramifications if they follow Israel's current dead end path. Let's hope he is playing politics and will cast this show vote before doing the right thing and sustain the President's veto. If he doesn't do this then it is a "Shanda" and he ought to move to Israel to face the ultimate consequences of his action.
35
Nice that Senator Schumer has had the courage to make the right decision. Sorry if this might effect the legacy of Mr. Obama, but hopefully, Mr. Obama will be deserving of only the most minor historical footnote.
7
So, you want us, and our 5 allied nations who worked on this deal, to continue on as is for 50 years the way we did with Cuba? Take this deal and enforce it with animmediate response to anything out of line that the Iranians do. The people of Iran would like an end to to this alternately cold and hot war as much as we would. There is no peace to be had without something being done to disarm Iran and gradually get them to our side to deal with ISIS and the like.
3
The deal is unenforcible and a fair reading of the provisions will, I believe, lead those without an ideological agenda to the same conclusions. Unlike you, I really do not know and do not particularly care what the people of "would like." But I do know that under the terms of this "agreement," this totalitarian theocracy will end up with billions of dollars that they can use to cause mayhem in times and places of their choosing.
Inadvertently omitted from my previous comment:
First, Schumer should speak for more than his Jewish constituents. He is a senator for the state and should speak to and for all of his constituency. Second, as a senator, who must advise and consent on treaties, he must represent less a state interest than a national one, and, in this instance, represents neither. As a "national" representative of the national interest, he should be representing to all of us, not not pandering the votes of a few.
First, Schumer should speak for more than his Jewish constituents. He is a senator for the state and should speak to and for all of his constituency. Second, as a senator, who must advise and consent on treaties, he must represent less a state interest than a national one, and, in this instance, represents neither. As a "national" representative of the national interest, he should be representing to all of us, not not pandering the votes of a few.
20
Senator Schumer has seemingly aligned himself with those in Congress who are beholden to the hard-line Israeli lobby, much in the same way as many are beholden to the NRA.
39
I feel betrayed, yes betrayed by you Senator Schumer. The United States is your country, President Obama your leader, the democratic party your affiliation. I feel you've betrayed each and all of them. The timing of your announcement and absence of a substantive explanation only add to the creepiness of what you've done. Whatever happens regarding this agreement, the shame of what you've done sir will live with you for the rest of your life.
53
Senator Schumer is responsible to his constituents as a senator and it is up to them to judge whether and to what extent his vote is influenced by his love for Israel, by the Israeli lobby or his belief what is best for the U.S. However, if he ever succeeds in replacing Hary Reid his responsibility will be broader and not only towards his constituents. In that context some of his positions are very questionable and not just this one: he voted for Josh Bolton and he stated astonishingly that the Affordable Care Act is a mistake. Move.on is completely right he should never be allowed to become Leader of Democrats in the Senate.
41
If Netanyahu can talk directly to the US Congress, then members of the Congress can follow his directions.
2
It seems to me that Schumer is effectively calling President Obama's objectivity and integrity into question. The President made a very compelling and clear case for the Iran agreement. Most importantly, he argued that there is no credible alternative, and that rejecting the deal would in many ways have more damaging consequences, and in the short run, than whatever long-term consequences we may face. If war is inevitable, and the President says it is not, then it is worth delaying it for 10+ years. Afterall, if Iran is busy preparing for war (which is unclear), but if they are, then so, of course, will we be. Why assume the worst?
If Schumer has valid reasons, i.e., reasons not based on personal, political, short-term gain, for opposing the deal he is absolutely obliged to make his case public. If not, then he must accept the charges of venality that will surely come his way.
If Schumer has valid reasons, i.e., reasons not based on personal, political, short-term gain, for opposing the deal he is absolutely obliged to make his case public. If not, then he must accept the charges of venality that will surely come his way.
216
I do not believe that "deals" can be made with fanatics. For the first time, I think Obama is out of his depth. Certainly Kerry has proved himself to be a weak negotiator and I could never understand why he was chosen for the job. The idea that so many people support the agreement is evidence that our schools do not teach critical thinking and people have forgotten how to read carefully and use their common sense.
3
He made his case public-- I read it-- why do you readers keep saying he is somehow withholding his reasons? Just search for his statement !! It makes perfect sense.
In reply to Vlad from Baltimore: Senator Schumer has made his case against the Iran deal public: https://medium.com/@SenSchumer/my-position-on-the-iran-deal-e976b2f13478
"But the senator was being lauded by New York constituents, his office said"
I live and vote in NYC. I am an avid reader of the NY Times. I suspect the majority of Schumer voters read the NY Times. Reader comments are running 20 to 1 against Schumer's decision. Not a lot of lauding going on here.
I live and vote in NYC. I am an avid reader of the NY Times. I suspect the majority of Schumer voters read the NY Times. Reader comments are running 20 to 1 against Schumer's decision. Not a lot of lauding going on here.
52
Looks like the comments are running about 100 to 1 against Schumer, at lease from the Reader's Picks. Makes me wonder about some other stats, such as: What percent of American Jews who follow this agree with AIPAC's views on the Iranian deal? Bet you it's a minority. So it must be that AIPAC has this right and the majority of us have it wrong. No way it's because AIPAC has all the money. And no way that money doesn't influence such principled people as Schumer. Give me a break.
Schumer's decision gives credence to the traditional canard of a Jew more loyal to Israel and Jews than to America and Americans. As a Jew, I am ashamed that he and so many others of my co-religionists, both here and abroad, have lost their moral compass and their moral commitment. If his influence leads to a rejection of the Iran deal, war will come. And when disaster comes with it, Schumer's vote will be remembered as the turning point in the debate over the deal, when America made a strategic policy choice to prefer military force to negotiating discourse.
43
I am a theoretical high-energy physicist. I am also Jewish (by birth). The subject I write about is President Obama's proposed treaty to limit Iran's nuclear development program. I am so upset over Senator Schumer's declared opposition to this treaty that I am writing to express my concern. This thing is about diplomacy -- how arms control treaties are made and, if you like, nuclear physics.
(1) There never has been and never will be an arms control treaty without a time limit. Not SALT. Not ABM. Not START, etc. So that talk about the "timetable" is just nonsense from ignoramuses, or worse -- people who know better, but are using this argument b/c most people don't pay attention. Netanyahu is the worst of this group.
(2) As Obama or somebody (Ernie Moniz?) said, you can't just flush this stuff down the toilet. It's radioactive, and there are sensors that can detect a few excess neutrons or photons or whatever per second. Do you know how we knew (in 1949!) that the Russians had exploded a nuclear bomb? Airplanes were gathering dust from the air -- and NOT over the Soviet Union. It was more than normally radioactive.
What I really object to about Senator Schumer is that he MUST KNOW all this. Therefore, he is just pandering to the right wing of his Jewish constituents, a cowardly act. The alternative is that he doesn't know and that is even worse. In either case, he is not qualified to be the senior Senator from New York, much less Majority/Minority Leader.
(1) There never has been and never will be an arms control treaty without a time limit. Not SALT. Not ABM. Not START, etc. So that talk about the "timetable" is just nonsense from ignoramuses, or worse -- people who know better, but are using this argument b/c most people don't pay attention. Netanyahu is the worst of this group.
(2) As Obama or somebody (Ernie Moniz?) said, you can't just flush this stuff down the toilet. It's radioactive, and there are sensors that can detect a few excess neutrons or photons or whatever per second. Do you know how we knew (in 1949!) that the Russians had exploded a nuclear bomb? Airplanes were gathering dust from the air -- and NOT over the Soviet Union. It was more than normally radioactive.
What I really object to about Senator Schumer is that he MUST KNOW all this. Therefore, he is just pandering to the right wing of his Jewish constituents, a cowardly act. The alternative is that he doesn't know and that is even worse. In either case, he is not qualified to be the senior Senator from New York, much less Majority/Minority Leader.
67
An HEP theorist commenting on "neutrons or photons or whatever"? One might expect something a bit more precise from such a poster, including the acknowledgement that baryons and photons and "whatever" aren't exactly relevant to the issue of inspections. Especially so given that the IAEA inspection protocols are both new and untested, and whose nature and methods are unknown to anyone not part of a small group within IAEA itself.
Your suggestion concerning Senator Schumer's lack of knowledge concerning air-sampling following a Russian nuclear test nearly 70 years ago is puzzling, aside from your allusion to "Jewish constituents," which is simply ugly.
Perhaps your best approach may be to pack up and move to New York, where your vote may have some actual effect on the composition of the Senate.
Your suggestion concerning Senator Schumer's lack of knowledge concerning air-sampling following a Russian nuclear test nearly 70 years ago is puzzling, aside from your allusion to "Jewish constituents," which is simply ugly.
Perhaps your best approach may be to pack up and move to New York, where your vote may have some actual effect on the composition of the Senate.
Dump Schumer. First his endless bankster buddies now this.
Enough!
Enough!
44
Sen Schumer's making decisions of war and peace based upon his religion begs the question, why should those not of that sect or ancestry sacrifice their lives or treasures?
What has vividly been demonstrated since Netanyahu's ill advised speech to Congress is USA sovereignty is not our own. I am still a long time supporter of Israel, but first I am an American, but with one homeland.
However, I will caution those who think these are just insults against President Obama's honor or pride to be very careful how far they push their interests over the whole.
The hatred right wingers have for this president is facilitating these intrusions on our soverenty and deflecting its long-term impacts, but these very same facilitators will cry foul after Obama has left office.
What has vividly been demonstrated since Netanyahu's ill advised speech to Congress is USA sovereignty is not our own. I am still a long time supporter of Israel, but first I am an American, but with one homeland.
However, I will caution those who think these are just insults against President Obama's honor or pride to be very careful how far they push their interests over the whole.
The hatred right wingers have for this president is facilitating these intrusions on our soverenty and deflecting its long-term impacts, but these very same facilitators will cry foul after Obama has left office.
10
Being a full and avid supporter of the Iraq War, being Wall Street's PR agent in the congress is not enough for Chuck Schumer. Now he's decided to take on foreign policy himself, defying his President and caving to the interests, not of Israel, but of the bite-the-hand-that-feeds-him Netanyahu. And now they're going to make him minority leader, instead of the responsible, steady Dick Durbin. You can be sure that with Schumer as minority leader, the democrats will have that distinction for the next 20 years. Mr. Opportunism will be paid back for his trouble one way or the other when the deal passes.
35
Schumer's office's claim that he has gotten overwhelming support for his decision is made nonsense by 90% of the comments you read here in The Times. Schumer will pay for this shortsighted betrayal to a President who in fact has been the most successful in the last 25 years. Here's hoping this is his last term.
5
These comments are strange (although impassioned). Chuck Schumer counted noses, saw that there were still enough votes to keep the veto from being overridden, and so decided to please (some of) his constituents. So what? Happens all the time. Grow up, people. :-)
1
So who's the next "elected" official to decide that s/he can take a powder, save their AIPAC money, and not capsize the boat? Who needs to grow up?
11
Cowardice and disloyalty are also common in politics--Schumer should use this opportunity to rise above them. But he doesn't and he won't.
1
I am wondered how people of a great country like United States of America can let their political affairs be manipulated by a prime minister of another country and his friends in the Congress, who has conducted war crimes in Caza. Israel has more than 200 atomic bombs and has not signed the NPT! There is no control on its nuclear weapons!!!
I am sure if you ask from the Republican candidates, who participated in the DEBATE: ”Please show where is IRAN or where is the Persian Gulf on the map?”most of them are not able to do that!
Iranians are educated and peaceful nation with more than 7000 years of civilization and history. Iran has not any attack to any country more than 200 years. We were the only country, which resisted against Saddam, the dictator (which was supported by republicans and then was executed by the same people!!!) more than 8 years.
Iranian people specially, young generation, hope that the deal would be finalized and then they can start to have a normal relation with other countries even USA. People of Iran have chosen the reformist president to change the present situation. The previous president Ahmadinejad was not the representative of majority of the Iranian community and his era is finished. We should look to the future instead of repeating the mistakes!.
Having normal relation with other countries and improvement of cultural, academic and commercial relations would prevent any war and is the best weapon against the ignorance!
I am sure if you ask from the Republican candidates, who participated in the DEBATE: ”Please show where is IRAN or where is the Persian Gulf on the map?”most of them are not able to do that!
Iranians are educated and peaceful nation with more than 7000 years of civilization and history. Iran has not any attack to any country more than 200 years. We were the only country, which resisted against Saddam, the dictator (which was supported by republicans and then was executed by the same people!!!) more than 8 years.
Iranian people specially, young generation, hope that the deal would be finalized and then they can start to have a normal relation with other countries even USA. People of Iran have chosen the reformist president to change the present situation. The previous president Ahmadinejad was not the representative of majority of the Iranian community and his era is finished. We should look to the future instead of repeating the mistakes!.
Having normal relation with other countries and improvement of cultural, academic and commercial relations would prevent any war and is the best weapon against the ignorance!
43
We certainly hope it won't doom the Iran deal, but if it will certainly doom his re-election in 2016 regardless of how many billions his donors move to his war coffers.
And if the Democratic Party doesn't clean out house of neocons, doesn't move against the Clinton wing of the party, and doesn't go with Durbin for party leadership, we progressives will start a 3rd Party.
And if the Democratic Party doesn't clean out house of neocons, doesn't move against the Clinton wing of the party, and doesn't go with Durbin for party leadership, we progressives will start a 3rd Party.
28
There's no way Chuck Schumer can be considered to be the successor to Harry Reid in the Senate. He is simply not the man for the job nor the times. To address the problems of America and the world, the Democrats and the country must move away from neo-liberal corporatism, defense and protection of the finance industry at the expense of the middle and lower income classes, and blind allegiance to Israel in a part of the world in which Israel is a detriment to America's security and interests more than an help. Those define Mr. Schumer, and he is the face of yesterday's failed Democrats.
It is not enough for him to be an impotent voice for gun regulations. Mr. Schumer proves his unworthiness for tomorrow's solutions with each passing day.
It is not enough for him to be an impotent voice for gun regulations. Mr. Schumer proves his unworthiness for tomorrow's solutions with each passing day.
33
Can't the democratic party somehow do better. Say good bye to Schumer. no backbone, all about political game playing.
11
You would think Democrats would want to do better, wouldn't you, Doc? It's not like Democrats' feckless timidity, playing into conservative hands at every opportunity, and allowing wingnuts to control the conversation has worked in the last 30+ years. Schumer is one of the faces that built that failure.
Do better, Democrats. Or just give up.
Do better, Democrats. Or just give up.
1
The main argument in favor of supporting the Iran proposal is that a bad deal is better than no deal. That is not at all convincing or reassuring. Senator Schumer apparently did a lot of research, proposed many questions of the Administration, evaluated, with the assistance of his professional staff, and concluded that no deal is better than this bad deal. Since I was not convinced by the argument that a no deal is better than a bad deal, relying of the professional judgment of Senator Schumer and his staff, I support his decision.
In fairness I should also reveal my bias: I have questioned the expenditure of billions if not trillions of dollars and American lives to thwart Iran's development of a nuclear bomb in light of the successful nuclear deterance strategy used successfully in the past. We should just let Iran know that fo it develops and ever a threatens to use a nuclear weapon, it will be wiped off the face of the earth. That should be our policy towards all nations.
Is that an over simplistic policy? Perhaps but the first test case will prove whether we mean what we say. If we do, the United Staes will be respected again by all nations, especially those with dangerous nuclear ambitions.
Deterrence seems to me to still be the best and most efficient policy in these matters and one that is cost effective and efficient.
In fairness I should also reveal my bias: I have questioned the expenditure of billions if not trillions of dollars and American lives to thwart Iran's development of a nuclear bomb in light of the successful nuclear deterance strategy used successfully in the past. We should just let Iran know that fo it develops and ever a threatens to use a nuclear weapon, it will be wiped off the face of the earth. That should be our policy towards all nations.
Is that an over simplistic policy? Perhaps but the first test case will prove whether we mean what we say. If we do, the United Staes will be respected again by all nations, especially those with dangerous nuclear ambitions.
Deterrence seems to me to still be the best and most efficient policy in these matters and one that is cost effective and efficient.
4
Wrong decision Chuck!. Iran capitulated. Israel supports the Iran deal- if the heads of its security and defense forces represent the country. The reasons against it are so ill conceived.
9
As William Blum says, Israel is not the 51st state of the United States. I wonder how many Democrats (forget the Republicans- it’s all about power politics) who oppose President Obama’s Iran deal do so out of fear of losing large campaign contributions from wealthy American Jews sympathetic to a Jewish homeland that was enlarged illegally by annexing conquered territory. Israel is an aggressor nation that also uses torture. It invaded Lebanon six times under the flimsiest pretenses. If the Senators truly want to stop financing Middle East terrorism then we need to give Saudi Arabia an ultimatum. What is the alternative by those who oppose the deal? Extending our endless wars of aggression in the Muslim world to include Iran? How does our military aggression in the Muslim world over the last 14 years end the cycle of extremist groups attracting ever increasing new recruits bent on more violent reprisals against American Citizens which begs the question does American aggression in the Middle East have anything to do with protecting the homeland from terrorist groups; Or is it Unocal’s dreams to build an oil and gas pipeline across Afghanistan or U.S. hegemony that includes controlling who may and may not buy Middle East oil.
28
Senator Moynihan, Schumer is not. Very sad.
19
Dear Chuck,
What happens when Iran retaliates against Israel for bombing strategic sites?
What happens when Iran retaliates against Israel for bombing strategic sites?
13
Schumer is too shallow and two-dimensional to be like any character in Shakespeare's play, but The Bard knew his type well:
Brutus:
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224
Schumer has missed his chance to take the tide of historical change as represented by the Iran agreement, and he has just lost not only his "ventures" but his "good" name as well.
Brutus:
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224
Schumer has missed his chance to take the tide of historical change as represented by the Iran agreement, and he has just lost not only his "ventures" but his "good" name as well.
24
What do I do as a Democrat to make sure that Schumer does not succeed Harry Reid? This is not a rhetorical question.
Most people expressing their disappointment with Chuck are being so polite. I am furious. I want to know what recourse I have.
Most people expressing their disappointment with Chuck are being so polite. I am furious. I want to know what recourse I have.
15
Ask your other senator, Gellibrand not to vote for Schumer as lead of the US Senate.
2
Vote against him in the primary if there is one. Vote against him in the election if he's running. He's really a DINO.
2
Fascinating, is it not, how so many of these comments are suffused with polite or aggressive form of anti-Semitism, taking the form of accusations that the Senator does not have dual loyalty but a stronger loyalty to Israel. Stop for a moment: if we are to believe Obama and Kerry the Iran deal is the best protection for Israel -- they have repeated that argument ad nauseam. Perhaps they have dual loyalty, too? If the deal is not in Israel's strategic interest, i.e., it allows Iran to possess and then use a nuclear weapon atop a ballistic missile, that represents a GIGANTIC national security threat to the US? Sorry, Jew haters and self-loathing Jews. If the deal is all Obama and Kerry say it is, then the US and Israel benefit equally. In other words, there is no conflict. But, then of course, we all know this is a lousy deal in which every "red line" was crossed and concession after concession was not only wrung from Iran's opposite numbers but in many cases offered up when Iran hadn't even requested it (a five-year end to the weapons embargo, etc.) Senator Schumer exercised good judgment: a bad deal should be replaced by a better one, and it's not too late. But the sort of commentators whose bigotry suffuses this discussion can't see that far. Nor do they care. The worship of a false idol -- our naïve narcissistic and hubris-prone amateur president -- has taken precedence over all else. And it's always a good season to hunt Jews.
8
What a ridiculous load of utter nonsense. Even the heads of all the Israeli security agencies and the military want this deal and recognize that it is best possible for Israel's security. Are they self-hating Jews? Do you really know more than the head of the IDF or Mossad?
10
Stop the phony anti-Semitic propaganda you cut and paste from progressive websites - all Israelis are united against this deal including CURRENT members of the Mossad.
Is there no way to criticize any actions or policies of the blindly pro-Israeli lobby without being called anti Semitic? Or is everything they do sacred? Also, why do you ignore the large number of Jewish commenters who are criticizing Schumer? Are they also anti Semitic? Wait a sec, let me ask my husband--he's Jewish. Sid, what's the deal? Are you anti Semitic because you don't agree with Netanyahu and Schumer? --He thinks not.
2
My respect for Schumer's ability to "do the right thing" is diminished. This can only be a bow to the Israeli AIPAC lobbyists' will. Schumer is shrewd and smart but in this instance, not able to show independence. Too bad.
19
Hypocrisy, thy name is Schumer.
20
Schemer should reconsider and frame his vote to support the Iran deal as in the best interests of the United States and also of Israel in that order.
He needs to make his loyalties clear because right now he is ambiguous. It isn't too late to do the right thing, Chuck.
He needs to make his loyalties clear because right now he is ambiguous. It isn't too late to do the right thing, Chuck.
9
I am not a Republican, never have been, but still must say it plain:
In Middle East foreign policy, Obama -- probably in at least some measure due to what is clearly deep-seated and longstanding animus toward Israel -- has committed a world-class debacle.
He is on the verge of completing a foreign policy reversal that fairly annoints Iran as a major regional power on the verge of rising to the stature of world power by dint of possessing nuclear weapons, while that rising power renounces not a whit of its simultaneously aggressive, expansionist, and terroristic behavior rooted in its absolutist leaders' extremist Islamist theology.
What does any thinking person not possessed by ahistoricity think is going to play out over a generation in the Middle East if Obama's "initiative" [sic] is not upended?
In Middle East foreign policy, Obama -- probably in at least some measure due to what is clearly deep-seated and longstanding animus toward Israel -- has committed a world-class debacle.
He is on the verge of completing a foreign policy reversal that fairly annoints Iran as a major regional power on the verge of rising to the stature of world power by dint of possessing nuclear weapons, while that rising power renounces not a whit of its simultaneously aggressive, expansionist, and terroristic behavior rooted in its absolutist leaders' extremist Islamist theology.
What does any thinking person not possessed by ahistoricity think is going to play out over a generation in the Middle East if Obama's "initiative" [sic] is not upended?
7
A thinking person might see the benefit to a strong iran.
1
I'd been thinking Schumer had 2 more years of his term. Today's news corrected that misconception.
5
President Obama was elected as a unifier, and it has been shocking to see the anti-Semitism that has percolated to the surface during his administration. We all understand the slavish loyalty he engenders as a liberal and a token "first black president", but at some point even liberals have to display common sense, if not patriotism.
I rarely agree with Chuck Schumer, but I cannot believe the ferocity with which he has been attacked by the left for his crime of thinking. Schumer has stood by Obama in every scandal and every crisis, whether it is IRS criminal conduct or the ACA, yet he dares to disagree with the "little prince" on a very bad Iran agreement, and he is vilified.
Obama is a notorious anti-Semite , and apparently we can now observe the same trait surfacing in his mindless followers.
I rarely agree with Chuck Schumer, but I cannot believe the ferocity with which he has been attacked by the left for his crime of thinking. Schumer has stood by Obama in every scandal and every crisis, whether it is IRS criminal conduct or the ACA, yet he dares to disagree with the "little prince" on a very bad Iran agreement, and he is vilified.
Obama is a notorious anti-Semite , and apparently we can now observe the same trait surfacing in his mindless followers.
6
So Schummer is a loyal American and Obama is antisemite for daring to defend American interests and stop fighting wars on behalf of Israel.? Are you pro American?
5
Our president is an anti-semite? What possible evidence of this do you have?
2
Schumer disappoints with his decision on this issue.
18
At least we know now that Schumer has no presidential ambitions. He's dead to me and many of my progressive friends, and I doubt he'd get more than a hundred votes for president from people below the Mason-Dixon line. Aside from his particularly repulsive attitude to the Iran deal, his oleaginous persona fortunately confines his appeal to a subset of New York voters. I've voted repeatedly for Sander Levin, and I'm an enthusiastic supporter of Bernie Sanders. Schumer, Sanders, Levin: which one does not belong in this group?
15
Schumer is just another calculating politician who puts his interests above those of his nation and his party. He panders to what he thinks is the Jewish vote, which he confuses with AIPAC and other pro-Netanyahu donors.
In a just world, he should have forfeited any chance of a Senate leadership role.
In a just world, he should have forfeited any chance of a Senate leadership role.
39
I am a democrat. I voted for Obama. I am completely against this article.
Iran is not to be trusted. Sanctions on Iran were working and with the rise of Electric Cars and the fall in the price of gas Iran was hurting. What my grandfather and his generation always told us was that regime change would happen in Iran once the people got tired of their dictators. That will never happen now. Once sanctions are lifted the people of Iran will be happier than ever with their dictators and the dictators will continue to pursue the goal of getting a nuclear weapon. Once Iran has a nuclear weapon they will give it to all their allies. The world will all have nuclear weaons soon. Iran will never stop working towards building nuclear weapons. The only hope is regime change. Iran's dictators are embarrased that Iran doesnt already have the bomb and they will stop at nothing to get it. Only a fool believes Iran. Meanwhile Iran tells its own people that nothing with change. Come on Carol. Iran will get the bomb faster and its people will never uprise again as they would have if sanctions and electric cars continued. This agreement with IRAN is all wrong. Iran hasnt agreed to anything. They wont even allow us to truly verify. Vote No to this agreement.
Iran is not to be trusted. Sanctions on Iran were working and with the rise of Electric Cars and the fall in the price of gas Iran was hurting. What my grandfather and his generation always told us was that regime change would happen in Iran once the people got tired of their dictators. That will never happen now. Once sanctions are lifted the people of Iran will be happier than ever with their dictators and the dictators will continue to pursue the goal of getting a nuclear weapon. Once Iran has a nuclear weapon they will give it to all their allies. The world will all have nuclear weaons soon. Iran will never stop working towards building nuclear weapons. The only hope is regime change. Iran's dictators are embarrased that Iran doesnt already have the bomb and they will stop at nothing to get it. Only a fool believes Iran. Meanwhile Iran tells its own people that nothing with change. Come on Carol. Iran will get the bomb faster and its people will never uprise again as they would have if sanctions and electric cars continued. This agreement with IRAN is all wrong. Iran hasnt agreed to anything. They wont even allow us to truly verify. Vote No to this agreement.
8
Bibi Netanyahu and Sheldon Adelson have representation.
We, Senator Schumer's own constituents? Not so much.
What a profound disappointment. Though I've supported Chuck Schumer's long political career, I won't be voting for him again.
We, Senator Schumer's own constituents? Not so much.
What a profound disappointment. Though I've supported Chuck Schumer's long political career, I won't be voting for him again.
51
Bearing in mind these facts*: this may not be the best deal we can imagine, but it is the best deal that we could get agreement on, and by applying a brake to the development of nuclear weapons, better than no deal at all... I don't understand why anyone but a war-monger would oppose this deal.
*Are my facts wrong? What else, in the realm of possibility, should have been done?
*Are my facts wrong? What else, in the realm of possibility, should have been done?
12
There is a story missing here: this agreement is bad and the story that is missing is why was such a bad agreement signed. I think this is important to know in order to understand if the US should support it as the lesser evil or not.
Why is the agreement bad?
First - it is very unlikely that the Iranians will stop their military program given that there is no effective monitoring of that program. Even if they do for a while, this agreement legitimizes and funds regime that is involved in terror operations and destabilization essentially everywhere in the middle east.
Why did the US sign such a bad agreement?
I do not believe that Obama, Kerry or people in the state department do not know how to negotiate. Rather, it is more likely that the Russians, Chinese and perhaps the Europeans pushed for an agreement no matter what. We may never learn of the promises that were made in back-rooms in Teheran, Moscow and Beijing regarding oil, arm sales etc. But at least part of the Chinese and Russian motivation was for the agreement to be weak as it weakens the diminishing status of the US.
Why is the agreement bad?
First - it is very unlikely that the Iranians will stop their military program given that there is no effective monitoring of that program. Even if they do for a while, this agreement legitimizes and funds regime that is involved in terror operations and destabilization essentially everywhere in the middle east.
Why did the US sign such a bad agreement?
I do not believe that Obama, Kerry or people in the state department do not know how to negotiate. Rather, it is more likely that the Russians, Chinese and perhaps the Europeans pushed for an agreement no matter what. We may never learn of the promises that were made in back-rooms in Teheran, Moscow and Beijing regarding oil, arm sales etc. But at least part of the Chinese and Russian motivation was for the agreement to be weak as it weakens the diminishing status of the US.
4
Iran has joined the IAC and the NNPT, something that Israel has not and will not do, despite them having a couple hundred nukes. Israel has bunker-buster missiles, curtsey of Joe and Jane taxpayer. Do you see the hypocrisy here?
1
There went my respect for Senator Schumer. I've always seen him in the pocket of Wall Street but this decision is borderline treason. Let's write him off and there's no way he should succeed Harry Reid after this. Shameful.
41
Schumer says he will work to get other Democratic members to oppose the deal, but a whip count at this point shows up to 22 undecided Democrats. That means that treaty opponents will have to convince more than half the undecideds to defy the president and vote to override his veto. White House gave permission to Schumer to protect himself with his constituents because they know that a presidential veto will not be overridden.
3
I had several friends who died in 9/11. I'm still heartbroken.
However, let's be clear: Iran was not involved in 9/11. The regressive, religious regime in place is the result of many transgressions that many countries, including the U.S., contributed to. The regime is elderly and change is around the corner.
This agreement could be an inflection point for change, and it includes many verification speed bumps. We need to try it, and I'm quite disappointed that Schumer can't see the bigger picture. Leaders see the forest.
However, let's be clear: Iran was not involved in 9/11. The regressive, religious regime in place is the result of many transgressions that many countries, including the U.S., contributed to. The regime is elderly and change is around the corner.
This agreement could be an inflection point for change, and it includes many verification speed bumps. We need to try it, and I'm quite disappointed that Schumer can't see the bigger picture. Leaders see the forest.
38
The Israel Lobby pulls a string, and its puppet dances.
44
"Opposition to the deal among Republicans in Congress is practically unanimous, but resistance among Democrats is concentrated in two heavily Jewish areas, Greater New York City and South Florida"
If you are more concerned with the interests of Israel than the interests of the United States you should pack up and move to Israel.
If you are more concerned with the interests of Israel than the interests of the United States you should pack up and move to Israel.
41
I would ask anyone no matter what his or her political stripes are if they would sign a contract that they hadn't read or that had a side secret agreement that was unbeknownst to them. There are so many issues with this agreement ( deal is an offensive word to me - this isn't about a used car sale) that Mr. Schumer certainly has a right to his position. Since when does following a political leader no matter what make the opposition in league with the devil? That is not what a democracy is about.
As far as Israel is concerned, I would say that for 5000 years of Jewish history any time despots threatened annihilation, they came very close to succeeding. Diplomacy and going along to get along has not proved helpful and to dismiss critics contemptuously smacks of lack of a sense of history. This issue needs very careful scrutiny since we are obviously dealing with a dishonorable group on the other side. I commend the senator from New York.
As far as Israel is concerned, I would say that for 5000 years of Jewish history any time despots threatened annihilation, they came very close to succeeding. Diplomacy and going along to get along has not proved helpful and to dismiss critics contemptuously smacks of lack of a sense of history. This issue needs very careful scrutiny since we are obviously dealing with a dishonorable group on the other side. I commend the senator from New York.
5
This is what you get when you elect a Jewish American. So when our young men are killed in the ME you know who to thank. I'm sick of this minority dictating US policy, sick of it.
17
Now THIS is anti- Semitic.
2
I fear many forget that there are reasons-- reasons that of course merit debate-- to oppose this deal other than just to pander to Israel. A politician who opposes this deal is not an agent of Netanyahu just as a politician who supports the deal is not against the nation of Israel. Namely, we must remember than irrespective of what happens with respect to nuclear arms, lifting these sanctions will significantly strengthen the Iranian regime and their myriad other activities in the region, including supporting Assad, spreading enormous influence in Iraq, funding Hezbollah, oppressing their own people, etc.
We should remember that contrary to popular belief, not all the sanctions opposed against Iran were to stop their covert nuclear arms program. The regime has caused problems in many other ways too.
We should remember that contrary to popular belief, not all the sanctions opposed against Iran were to stop their covert nuclear arms program. The regime has caused problems in many other ways too.
4
True, but we do give Israel and Egypt all of the latest military hardware and lots of foreign aid, so let's not forget that. I'm against sending any money or aid to nations that have terrible human rights records. In fact there is a law against this, which is routinely ignored bu Congress when it comes to Egypt and Israel.
1
As a New Yorker from Westchester I am saddened by my state Senator and House Representative - Chuck Schumer and Nita Lowey. Their decision does not seem representative of the State of New York but a Jewish vote. Period. Unwittingly, they seem to support Israel blindly and not see the forest (The Deal and the multifold positive ramifications stemming from it). Usually Senator Schumer is very deliberative, cerebral and not prone to emotion. This decision is way off the mark for him. For the powerful third-ranking Democrat to break ranks and join his nemesis, it is very disconcerting not to mention ominous. One would assume his position would be like that of Senator Levin. But I guess not.
8
Although it sounds like Schumer voted his conscience rather than simply for political reasons, I can't help but be extremely disappointed in him. I certainly hope that other members of Congress will employ more sound reasoning in making their decisions.
6
Dear Sen. Schumer, I am extremely disappointed in your decision to disapprove the Iran deal. According to the Times, your "chief concern was that Iran would still be free after a decade to make a nuclear bomb." With respect, that doesn't make sense. The only alternatives to a ten-year moratorium are a moratorium of a different length, which presumably you would object to on the same grounds; or having them give up the right in perpetuity. Aside from the impossibility of getting Iran to agree to that, common sense and a look at Japan today tell you this would just be wishful thinking.
I'm a registered Democrat in NY, and I vote in every election, including primaries. I've voted for you every time your name was on the ballot, but if you vote to disapprove, that's over for good and I will never vote for you again
I'm a registered Democrat in NY, and I vote in every election, including primaries. I've voted for you every time your name was on the ballot, but if you vote to disapprove, that's over for good and I will never vote for you again
12
"Opposition to the deal among Republicans in Congress is practically unanimous, but resistance among Democrats is concentrated in two heavily Jewish areas, Greater New York City and South Florida"
This is dual loyalty plain and simple.
This is dual loyalty plain and simple.
23
As a native New Yorker, albeit relocated to Alaska long ago, I do not accept the premise that the New York Jewish community was more adversely impacted by 9/11 than any other segment of NY society. Therefore the rationalization for Schumer's vote described in the article (that it was made in the interest of NY Jewish people) rings hollow. 9/11 had nothing to do with Judaism, and Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. Iran even spoke out against 9/11. Give us a break, Mr. Schumer.
13
And this man expects to become majority leader after Harry Reid leaves? He should kiss that notion goodbye.
12
It seems that everyone thinks Israel is more protected by the deal that has been negotiated, then if there were no deal. Except Israel. Why is that? Maybe, because it is not true. Otherwise what is the purpose of the deal?
1
I hope the voters of New York and Florida have determination to vote out any Senator or Representative who votes with Netanyahu rather than with the best interests of the US.
39
No senator or congressman should be putting Israel or any other country's interests before that of the US. Those who slavishly applauded Netanyahu at the expense of their own president should frankly be ashamed of themselves.
32
So disappointing from Schumer, Lowey, and Eliot.
15
I'm being very frank when I say that the Congress obviously operates in an isolated echo chamber insulated from the nation by staff and guards while being influenced only from within. Obviously the Netanyahu address has really resonated within that chamber. They seem to shun all outside influence from President Obama to the Supreme Court, to the very people of this nation.
26
I agree with Senator Schumer often... This time he's got his priorities, country, and constituency mixed up.
19
“…Over a recent dinner of green gazpacho filet of sea bass and Virginia Peach Melba…”
___
Weren’t up for grilled burgers and ice cream, huh?
___
Weren’t up for grilled burgers and ice cream, huh?
5
Did it really take so long a time for the Senator to hear back from his pal, Bibi? I assumed he had his number on speed-dial.
36
"New York sensitivities had everything to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" Oh please. Schumer's and the others' opposition to the deal has everything to do with AIPAC, and getting re-elected. End of story.
36
This is no surprise from the Senator from AIPAC. If Bibi wants a war, let him do it himself. The US has spent enough moral capital defending Israel's settlements in the West Bank. We ought to defend our own interests, not dance to whatever tune the Likud Party decides to play.
36
Senator Schumer, I have witnessed two unlawful wars by the United States in my life, Vietnam and Iraq. Our country is too quick to let loose the cannons and provide our young men and women as cannon fodder. You do a great disservice to our country, our State Department, Secretary of State John Kerry and the peaceful initiative that was brokered.
Do not let your religious zealots corner you into another unnecessary military conflict before its time, you should be better than that.
Do not let your religious zealots corner you into another unnecessary military conflict before its time, you should be better than that.
26
This is our future Majority leader and there are no words to describe this betrayal on critical juncture. Just condemnation is not enough, defeat of Chuck Schummer in future elections is the fitting response.
31
I am extrememly disappointed in your announcemen to vote against the Iran deal worke out by Secretary Kerryt, Senator Schumer. I have lost respect for you.
18
One factor is that Schumer has zip name recognition, following, or respect outside Washington. This may be hard for Mighty Manhattan to fathom, but out here in the rest of America, the Big Apple attracts little attention and no regard.
2
Clearly this Senator has stronger allegiance to Israel than to his party, and perhaps even to the US. Or perhaps he only has allegiance to his seat, paid for by AIPAC. And he thinks he's in line to be the next leader of the democrats in the senate? Ugh!
28
Now that Schumer fallen to the dark side of the force, I can only imagine the pressure from all sides on our wonderful, intelligent and beautiful Senator Gillibrand to submit to the power of the senior senator. A master and an apprentice, as it was told by Darth Bane. Stay strong Senator Gillibrand, may the force be with you.
17
Let's rumble for another war, two disastrous wars were not enough, solely manufactured with the suspicion, the US will be dragged into third one on the basis of "not trust-worthy". At this rate, we might be able to annex Israel as 51st State yet I strongly doubt any Israeli want it. Hooray Schumer. He wants to be Minority Leader?
8
When republicans oppose the deal, Obama says they are war mongers who are "making common cause" with Iranian hardliners.
Waiting for Obama to say the same thing about Schumer...
Waiting for Obama to say the same thing about Schumer...
5
Senator Schumer's allegiance is not to the US but to Israel - a big surprise. I ask him sincerely: Senator Schumer -why don't you move to Israel?
34
What a difference a year can make.
I don't like his views on the Palestinian situation. I don't like his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. I certainly don't want to see him in a leadership role.
This was a major error in judgement on his part. He is not moving with the popular sentiment and he knows it. Using the Republican debates as cover doesn't improve my opinion of him either.
Chuck, I think you goose is cooked.
I don't like his views on the Palestinian situation. I don't like his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. I certainly don't want to see him in a leadership role.
This was a major error in judgement on his part. He is not moving with the popular sentiment and he knows it. Using the Republican debates as cover doesn't improve my opinion of him either.
Chuck, I think you goose is cooked.
41
Schumer should remember what country he is representing.
43
While I have the utmost respect for Senator Schumer, it seems that in this case he is caving to the pro Israeli lobby. Of course the Iran deal is far from perfect, but it is a beginning to which we can hold Iran responsible if they abrogate this deal. I am sure that we have the means along with Israel to see if they deviate from it. That would give us a reason to reinstate the embargo and other measures. We might have to but at least we have something to show that they violated the deal.
6
Senator Schumer voted for the Iraq war
Senator Schumer now votes against diplomacy
He may well be beholden to Israel and the Jewish American organizations that are actively interfering in U.S. Politics, as others suggest
Most likely, he is just wrong on the big issues. Don't have to be a Republican to be wrong
Senator Schumer now votes against diplomacy
He may well be beholden to Israel and the Jewish American organizations that are actively interfering in U.S. Politics, as others suggest
Most likely, he is just wrong on the big issues. Don't have to be a Republican to be wrong
13
Chuck Schumer serves Wall Street, Israel, Himself, and whoever bought his him his last meal; in that order.
33
Passing this vote despite Schumer will happen. Maybe he counts on that. But his professional competence and integrity are forever compromised, must be punished, not by the WH, but what remains of the Democratic Party. No way this guy ever leads Senate Democrats. His announcement was a cowardly, stupid and despicable act. He has already betrayed his principles by taking Wall Street money to debilitate the Dobbs/Frank legislation. New York, where do you find these guys?
24
He's a failure to the Democrats and should be primaried.
29
Chuck Schumer, are you an Israeli or an American? Between the two, you have to put the national (and international) interest first to advance peace and prosperity for America and the world. Looking at your chance for re-election and your constituents alone seems more near-sighted and detrimental to the American interest that could serve the need for the entire MENA region in particular as well as the world in general. If you're more interested in Israelis and Jewish American interests, then he should not be in the US Senate and serve on all those important committees. Look at the Iranians who never invaded anyone, with the inflammatory rhetoric by some Iranian politicians aside. What is he really so worried about engaging Iran in the global community and international political theater? The confident US included USSR and then even China in the global peace and economic dialogues. Now, we're unleashing Cuba from the long-term, devastating sanctions against its people. Come on, Senator, you know better. We just want some mature statesman. Not a puppet of Israel or his alleged constituents. Think global. Iranians could root for you.
9
Why should anyone be influenced by Senator Schumer's declared opposition to the deal inasmuch as his decision is not objective, very personal and based on his Jewish roots? He was elected to represent the United States, not Israel.
He says he is concerned that Iran will be able to develop nuclear weapons ten years from now. Who knows whether the present religious fanatics and hardliners will still be in power ten years from now?
He says he is concerned that Iran will be able to develop nuclear weapons ten years from now. Who knows whether the present religious fanatics and hardliners will still be in power ten years from now?
12
Which "religious fanatics and hardliners will still be in power ten years from now" are you referring to?
Those in Tel Aviv, Tehran, Riyadh, Kuwait City, Amman, Ankara, Washington D.C. or Cairo?
Those in Tel Aviv, Tehran, Riyadh, Kuwait City, Amman, Ankara, Washington D.C. or Cairo?
1
So, Senator. You seem worried that Iran may have a bomb in ten years if we go ahead with the deal. They are only three months away from it now. How does your decision not move the crisis date of ten years to three months. Please resign and get your Israeli citizenship. Pure politics and AIPAC pandering.
13
I am very disappointed in Senator Schumer lack of support for President Obama and the hard work of Secretary of State John Kerry. I fear the Senator has put his support and connections with Israel ahead of the New Yorkers he represents.
336
John McCain sang Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys song Barbara Ann. McCain wasn't that much of a singer or a pilot for that matter, but he did succeed at trivializing the murderous act of bombing.
I spent more than two years in the bush in I Corps RVN with the USMC, and the experience made me very respectful of life. However, many Americans, perhaps a majority, are willing to ignore murderous behavior in the name of Empire. Hannah Arendt called this tendency banal lack of attention.
Leaders will lead, and people will follow them. McCain helped to further the trend of bombing as a substitute for a foreign policy, and the Neocon element, which is essentially a Jewish movement of like minded rear echelon warriors, wants very badly to take us to war with Iran, just as they did with Iraq.
The rage about the Nuclear Treaty with Iran is a result of their being frustrated that Israel's colonial expansion may have to end with just Eretz Israel, when they wanted Assad gone to facilitate gas distribution ambitions, and of course Iran reduced to a smouldering ruin.
I spent more than two years in the bush in I Corps RVN with the USMC, and the experience made me very respectful of life. However, many Americans, perhaps a majority, are willing to ignore murderous behavior in the name of Empire. Hannah Arendt called this tendency banal lack of attention.
Leaders will lead, and people will follow them. McCain helped to further the trend of bombing as a substitute for a foreign policy, and the Neocon element, which is essentially a Jewish movement of like minded rear echelon warriors, wants very badly to take us to war with Iran, just as they did with Iraq.
The rage about the Nuclear Treaty with Iran is a result of their being frustrated that Israel's colonial expansion may have to end with just Eretz Israel, when they wanted Assad gone to facilitate gas distribution ambitions, and of course Iran reduced to a smouldering ruin.
I can see my thoughts reflected in many of the comments. I believe that Schumer's decision is based, not on the best interests of the US, but his Jewish roots & his ties to Israel. I can understand that to some extent. Our views are certainly reflective of our backgrounds. BUT, he should be voting as a Senator representing the interests of NY & the US. Without this deal Iran could have a nuclear bomb in a relatively short period of time rather than 10 years from now. Does that serve anyone's best interests? Schumer has let us down.
11
I wonder where Hillary stands on this Iran agreement. Profiles in Courage.
1
Her actions should speak louder than words, people should stop making accusations based on Fox disinformation. She has and always will be the same person who has fought on behalf of veterans, children, women and the deprived worldwide. Not only that but her foundation is the most effective force in the struggle against the effects of war, global warming and the migrations that are beginning to gain momentum. To live in self imposed ignorance is not an excuse to act irresponsibly.
I regret that Senator Schumer has chosen to reject the Iran Deal with no apparent alternate plan. He must have some idea as to how to protect Isreal from a nuclear Iran. Is he supporting war? I have learned that a good deal is one in which every party feels cheated. The Western Nations made a great deal with Germany after WW1. We saw how well that went.
3
In coming to his conclusion, Senator Schumer knows well that Israel already has 75-200 nuclear bombs, that Israeli has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and does not permit inspection of its facilities. It's up to the people of New York to decide his future in the Senate. But it is my fervent hope that the Democrats in the Senate will not permit him to be their leader. Remember, this Senator voted to confirm John Bolton as UN Ambassador.
13
I lived in New York when Schumer first came onto the scene - rising up out of Brooklyn, wet behind the ears and whining and generally irritating. I have watched him mature - or so I thought - and had hopes that he would become a good statesman. But no, he is going back to his roots, afraid to offend the Jewish voter (me included) and has his eye fixed not on the good of the country but on raising money for his re-election. A typical politician. I am very disappointed in him.
13
His successful re-election depends on my vote and yours. I called his office numerous times and I don't feel my senator listened to ME who got him to the senate in the first place. He is there because of my/our vote and he cannot be there anymore because of my/our vote. Very very upset my his lack of vision. History will look upon his decision as a very bad one indeed.
2
I live in California. I have written both my Senators, my Congressman, and Congressmen from surrounding districts. I also wrote to Charles Schumer, begging him -- like all my other letters -- to support the President and the efforts to make this deal move forward.
I spent an hour of my day doing this. I would simply ask all readers to do the same. Write your members and ask them to support the accord if you really believe this to be important, as I do. Letters matter.
I will now send another to Senator Schumer expressing my disappointment, and beg him to reconsider. American citizens need to speak up about this, loud and long.
I spent an hour of my day doing this. I would simply ask all readers to do the same. Write your members and ask them to support the accord if you really believe this to be important, as I do. Letters matter.
I will now send another to Senator Schumer expressing my disappointment, and beg him to reconsider. American citizens need to speak up about this, loud and long.
10
I just call their offices.
1
Senator Schumer voted for the Iraq War? Of course he did. He is part of the political past & the country urgently needs to go forward. By putting his personal needs to be reelected by his strong Jewish constituency and putting Israel's dubious agenda ahead of his own country's national and international security plan, Schumer has only demonstrated how he needs to be defeated in his next election. As a NYer, I will be voting against him. Too long at the fair. Bye, Chuck, there is a golf course (Trump!) waiting for you.
7
I believe it is actually disloyal to the Israeli PEOPLE to not support this opportunity with Iran. Schumer is beholden to AIPAC, the "so-called Jewish organizations" and Netanyahu. They also do not have the best interests of the Israeli people or the planet in mind. They prefer and provoke turmoil. I am Jewish and he does not speak for me nor do the "organizations, AIPAC nor Netanyahu. They do not have my best interests in their hearts and minds.
The fact that Schumer will not support the president of his own party who happens to be right on this, is very disturbing. Schumer was wrong on Iraq, he is wrong on this. What type of additional leadership can we expect from him?
I do not live in New York but I am speaking out because Schumer represents himself as a national leader. He is neither--national nor a leader.
The fact that Schumer will not support the president of his own party who happens to be right on this, is very disturbing. Schumer was wrong on Iraq, he is wrong on this. What type of additional leadership can we expect from him?
I do not live in New York but I am speaking out because Schumer represents himself as a national leader. He is neither--national nor a leader.
11
As a New Yorker will never vote for this warmonger again. Shame on you Mr. Schumer - voting for wars again and again. I hope you will be voted out of office soon.
22
As if we needed it, we just received further proof that our congress is controlled by AIPAC. Thanks, Schumer. Won't be voting for you, again.
21
After failing to align with Democrats at this critical juncture, he no longer has the right to lead the Democrats as majority leader. The Democrats should not forget this betrayal. As a native of New York, at least I will not forget this in future elections.
10
Senator Schumer do you represent New York or Israel?
9
AIPAC rules! (Remember Chuck Percy?)
6
I can both think the decision announced is the wrong one and respect the right of the senator to make it. However, there should be consequences.
In the most significant foreign affairs vote during the Obama administration-- which would badly undermine the Obama presidency if the President's veto is overridden--Senator Schumer is opposing a Democratic president and, yes, siding with a foreign leader, whose political views are driven in part by his own domestic politics and who has not hesitated to become involved in American politics.
I do not see how Senator Schumer can replace Reid as Senate Minority Leader. Democrats in the Senate who previously supported Schumer or who were reluctant themselves to run need to strongly reconsider their positions.
In the most significant foreign affairs vote during the Obama administration-- which would badly undermine the Obama presidency if the President's veto is overridden--Senator Schumer is opposing a Democratic president and, yes, siding with a foreign leader, whose political views are driven in part by his own domestic politics and who has not hesitated to become involved in American politics.
I do not see how Senator Schumer can replace Reid as Senate Minority Leader. Democrats in the Senate who previously supported Schumer or who were reluctant themselves to run need to strongly reconsider their positions.
9
While this deal may not be perfect, one thing for sure is that it weakens Iran for next 10-15 years. How can you argue against weakening the enemy for the fear of the unknown?
4
This deal does not weaken Iran. All it does is enable Iran to do what they want, receive billions of dollars and eliminate sanctions, and gives Obama a talking point.
1
This deal comes with tremendous security risks. But what is the better alternative Senator Schumer? Sanctions didn't bring North Korea, Cuba, or Russia to its knees. Without a deal the current sanctions will erode not get ratcheted up to greater effect. Iran will resume its development of nuclear weapons. There will be little international support for a pre-emptive military strike, but what other option will we be left with?
6
Schumer is so well entrenched in NY that no pressure from AIPAC could kick him out of his seat. So he didn't falter before any pressure groups.
It's just a bad deal and that's it. Obama uses peer pressure and that shows.
I'm not a democrat but i have to respect the guy for voting his conscience and frankly that's all that counts.
It's just a bad deal and that's it. Obama uses peer pressure and that shows.
I'm not a democrat but i have to respect the guy for voting his conscience and frankly that's all that counts.
hands of senior Republican and Democratic leadership , our First priority should be America and Healty and Safe Human future on this lonely Earth, People of Iran are Educated as well as people as well as Israel, We Americans need to move forward based on mutual understanding form Past and Present experiences to bring peace in between ideologies to advance knowledge.