Skip to content

Haters Gotta Monger

Who are the people arguing against the Iran nuclear deal? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. US Senators Lindsey Graham and Chuck Schumer.

What do all these people have in common? They all passionately supported the US invasion of Iraq. At least they are consistent, even if it is consistently wrong.

Oh, and former Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman. Lieberman just took a job with United Against Nuclear Iran. The job is to “educate and inform the American public regarding the serious shortcomings of the Iran nuclear deal.” Lieberman got the job because Gary Samore had to step down. Why? According to the group’s CEO “While concerned with many provisions of the Iran deal, Gary ultimately supports the agreement and is stepping down to avoid any conflict with UANI’s work in opposition to the agreement.”

Bonus points if anyone can come up with any US politician who is against the Iran deal, who did not vote for or was vocally against the invasion of Iraq.



  1. Hassan wrote:

    Rand Paul.

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 9:08 am | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    I give you some credit for that one, but Paul’s record on Iraq is a little mixed.

    Rand Paul was not a politician back then and didn’t say anything publicly against the invasion of Iraq at the time, so he doesn’t meet the requirement to have either voted against or vocally opposed the invasion. In fact, after he was elected, he opposed the withdrawal from Iraq.

    He did say later that he would have opposed the Iraq war, but that’s hindsight.

    As for Iran, his record is also mixed. He has said he will vote against the nuclear agreement, but in April denounced other Republicans for “beating the drums for war” in Iraq and he supported legislation from Republican senator Bob Corker that would have given Iran relief from sanctions.

    So one might suspect that his opposition to Obama’s Iran deal is more about politics than policy. After all, Paul is running for president and not opposing everything Obama would ruin that.

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 9:33 am | Permalink
  3. Hassan wrote:

    Rand Paul was and is definitely against the Iraq war, since he was not in senate that time, but he has criticized (and defended Obama) by saying that current fiasco is more because of original war. He may have said mixed things about withdrawal.

    On Iran, even in first republican debate, he emphasized that he is not against negotiations, but against the current deal.

    So he is against Iraq war, in favor of negotiations and against war with Iran, but thinks current deal is bad one.

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 9:44 am | Permalink
  4. Michael wrote:

    I can’t help but feel that anyone who “is not against negotiations, but against the current deal,” is self-serving and duplicitous. The general consensus from most unbiased and international observers is that the deal goes far beyond what they hoped for. I have yet to hear someone like Paul describe a deal that would have been better AND the Iranians would have actually accepted. On the contrary, the only alternatives I’ve heard from opponents of the deal included requirements like shutting down Fordow and Natanz, etc. By definition that’s not a deal and it’s not a negotiation, because those requirements are complete non-starters for the Iranians.

    Rand’s position on the Iran deal is nothing more than superficial political posturing.

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
  5. Ralph wrote:

    Wait, what? Politicians being political? Stop the presses!

    For any Republican in office, except perhaps for the few not running for President, rejecting anything coming out of the Obama Admin. is practically mandatory. I’m still trying to figure out Shumer, but not familiar with the treaty in detail, so I’ll have to check his reasons.

    However, one of the main and absurd arguments coming from the right is that the treaty isn’t enforceable in perpetuity. Talk about a non-starter, when has THAT ever been a prerequisite in ANY international treaty, including our nuclear arms agreements with the Soviet Union? I believe those only ran out to 7-15 years or so at most.

    Iran and ISIS are the latest bogeymen in the Middle East and their growing power and influence in the region is a direct result of the bungled Bush-Cheney Iraq war, despite what JEB would have his audience believe. Beyond that, the Iranians have good reason to mistrust the US, going all the way back to when the CIA installed our guy, The Shah, and even before.

    But, of course, history is often ignored or revised in the interest of our latest political interests.

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
  6. Iron Knee wrote:

    Schumer is pretty much considered a tool of Wall Street, and is heavily funded by people with Israeli sympathies.

    Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 11:08 pm | Permalink
  7. John wrote:

    Is the proposed Iran deal better or worse, for everyone involved, than the status quo? Is the intention of American politicians to entrench the opposition in Iran, while entrenching themselves? How is doing so a good thing for America?

    Friday, August 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm | Permalink