Senator Charles Schumer has announced his opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. His reasons, as reported by the Washington Post, are basically the same as mine: the agreement “would strengthen Iran by boosting its economy and ultimately may not prevent the country from developing a nuclear bomb.” I would say that it most certainly will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb.
How did the administration respond? With a multi-pronged assault on Schumer that included this tweet by Dan Pfeiffer, who was Obama’s “senior political adviser” until February and who is still a mouthpiece for his old boss:
The base won’t support a leader who thought Obamacare was a mistake and wants War with Iran.
Chuck Schumer wants war with Iran? Are these guys nuts? The administration tried to shore up its characterization of Schumer as a warmonger by bringing up his 2003 support for the war in Iraq:
[T]he White House moved to marginalize his position, citing his support for the Iraq war in 2003 as part of a long-standing tendency to disagree with Obama on foreign policy and the use of American power.
The White House failed to point out, of course, that John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, among many other Democrats, also supported going to war in Iraq.
Nor is the White House backing off from Obama’s notorious “common cause” accusation:
[Josh] Earnest stood by Obama’s contention that Republicans had made “common cause” with Iranian hard-liners who opposed the deal.
“It was a statement of fact,” Earnest said this week.
All right then! Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Barack Obama has made common cause with Iran’s Supreme Leader–the ultimate hard-liner, the Ayatollah Khameini–to establish Iran as the dominant regional power in the Middle East. But most of the deal’s opponents will be too polite to put it that bluntly.