Chuck Schumer shows Political Courage. Who Knew?

New York Senator Chuck Schumer, in a rare move away from his party loyalty has stated he will vote to disapprove the nefarious "Iran deal."  A skeptic might be inclined to suspect that this courageous gesture on his part is not really all that courageous.  It's possible that he was given permission to placate his Jewish base by voting against the deal, which even without his vote will surely pass or at least survive an attempt to override the promised veto if it does pass.  It would be nice to think that he is truly risking his place in the hierarchy of his party - and maybe he is.

So, in today's Notable & Quotable section of the Wall Street Journal, Schumer explains his decision to vote against this ill advised "deal."

Notable & Quotable: Chuck Schumer on Iran

The risk that the regime use the nuclear agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great to vote to approve it.

If one thinks Iran will moderate, that contact with the West and a decrease in economic and political isolation will soften Iran’s hardline positions, 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 after ten years, and is more likely to use its newfound resources for domestic growth, not international adventurism.

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.

Admittedly, no one can tell with certainty which way Iran will go. It is true that Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But it is also true that this desire has been evident in Iran for thirty-five years, yet 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, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power. Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.

John Kerry's Lies to Congress Exposed by James Rosen

This is from Western Journalism Blog today:

WATCH: If Not For This Report, ‘Nuke Deal’ Kerry Might Have Gotten Away With Lying To Congress

Click on this link to watch the video.

photo via wikipedia

Robert M. Morgenthau at "Stop Iran Now Rally," Times Square, July 22, 2015

Former Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, the paradigmatic prosecutor of our time, spoke at the Stop Iran Now Rally in New York's Times Square two days ago.  His remarks were encapsulated today in the Wall Street Journal:

July 23, 2015 7:05 p.m. ET

From former Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau’s prepared remarks for the Stop Iran Now rally in New York’s Times Square, July 22:

The proposal would give Iran access to $150 billion in frozen assets. That provision is particularly galling. Over the years, survivors of Americans murdered in Iran’s terrorist acts have sued Iran, and often won large judgments. The problem is, Iran refused to pay. I fail to see the logic in returning those embargoed funds without first requiring Iran to make good on the debts it owes to those survivors.

Although the proposal was negotiated in good faith, even the administration worries that some of those billions would go toward sponsoring terrorism—what the State Department euphemistically calls “destabilizing actions.” This is not only a strategic issue, but a moral one. We simply cannot give terrorists the means to destroy innocent lives. Until Iran renounces terrorism, we cannot release those funds. And make no mistake: Neither side to this deal predicts that it will reduce Iranian terrorism. An Iranian newspaper that serves as a mouthpiece for the Iranian supreme leader put it this way: “In spite of various pretensions and fantasies, this agreement will not lead to cooperation between Iran and America on regional issues.” And even President Obama, at his recent press conference, conceded that try as we might to curb Iran’s destructive policies, he’s “not betting on it.”

With respect to Iran, an effective international sanctions regime is the only real alternative the world has to war. We must not dismantle those sanctions until we are assured that Iran’s hostile intentions have been thwarted.

As district attorney, some of my most important cases were those in which we ensured that the sanctions against Iran were obeyed. I took on those cases because I believed the sanctions were crucial to prevent Iran from spreading even wider mayhem. We should keep those sanctions in place so long as Iran threatens the survival of its neighbors, and sponsors terror around the world. Near the end of his life, President John Kennedy delivered a speech in which he told Americans of the peace he hoped to bring to the world. He called it “genuine peace . . . not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time.”

This proposal does just the opposite.

 PHOTO: Via Wikepedia