Iran Deal
In a 2010 commencement speech at the University of Michigan, President Obama said, “[One] way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate. … You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question somebody’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like ‘socialists’ and ‘Soviet-style takeover’ and ‘fascist’ and ‘right-wing nut’ – that may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, our political opponents, to authoritarian, even murderous regimes.”
According to CNN, in a speech last week, President Obama “…declared that lawmakers risk damaging American credibility if they vote to scuttle the deal and equated them with those who pushed for war with Iraq -- and with the mullahs in Iran. ‘It's those hardliners chanting 'death to America' who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus,’ Obama said.”
In an interview with CNN last week, the President doubled-down on these insulting remarks. He said, “What I said is absolutely true factually. The truth of the matter is inside of Iran, the people most opposed to the deal are the revolutionary guard, the Quds force. Hard liners are opposed to any cooperation with the international community. … In that sense they have a lot in common with hard liners who are much more satisfied with the status quo.”
Wow.
So much for maintaining that “basic level of civility in our public debate.”
Though I recognize the time and effort that has gone into developing the President’s proposed Iran deal, I continue to have many concerns about the agreement. Among them: Why did the Administration negotiate this deal without having included the handful of American prisoners being held in Iran? We are aware of certain secret understandings that are affiliated with this agreement – are there other secret side deals? How is this not a treaty?
While the President is comfortable, I do not believe this agreement is actually verifiable based upon briefings and conversations with experts. While certain activities could be detected with 24 days’ notice, the Iranians could move their equipment and hide significant steps towards the development of a nuclear weapon.
I have spent the last several weeks studying the proposed deal, listening to people who support it and to others who oppose it, pursuing answers to my questions, etc. I am not satisfied by the answers to those questions.
As I have noted previously, it is not only Republicans such as myself expressing our reservations about this agreement.
Just last week, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) – the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate after Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) – came out as opposed to the deal, saying in part, “If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. After ten years, it can be very close to achieving that goal, and, unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear program will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States and other nations. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.” I agree with Senator Schumer on this.
Other notable Democrats publicly opposed to the deal include Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee who also serves with me on the Energy and Commerce Committee), Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee), Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY, former chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee). Other Democrats opposed according to The Hill are Representatives Brad Sherman (D-CA), Albio Sires (D-NJ), Grace Meng (D-NY), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), and Juan Vargas (D-CA). Other Democrats are listed as “Leaning No.”
You can add me to the list of Republicans opposed.
The President is not only attacking Republicans en masse for hesitating to support his agreement, but is attacking these Democrat lawmakers as well. If the President’s plan were so good intellectually, he wouldn’t have to attack by calling people offensive names like a common street bully. Perhaps he should, as he himself urged, rely on a “basic level of civility” and intellectual arguments as opposed to name-calling.
As always, if you have concerns or comments or wish to inquire about legislative issues, feel free to contact my offices. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov.
###
