The Obama administration estimates that Iranian-supplied bombs killed "hundreds" of American troops in Iraq during the war, and the president himself has explicitly acknowledged that the deal's generous sanctions relief provisions will allow the regime to enhance its world-leading financing of international terrorism. An organization called Veterans Against the Deal has something to say about that:
"I was blown up by an Iranian bomb…that's who we're making a deal with. Every politician who's involved in this will be held accountable…A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian terrorism. What do you think they're going to do when they get more money?"
Rather than refute the administration's talking points or rehearsing specific objections to the deal, this spot speaks to the very nature of the Iranian regime. Moving and powerful. Josh Rogin reports about the ad buy:
Obama has said recently that there are only two camps: those who support the deal versus those who would prefer a bloody and costly war like the conflict in Iraq. The new ad campaign complicates that, asserting that the deal itself will lead to more war. And the voices putting forth that case do not prefer war; they are soldiers who have had enough of it. The group, Veterans Against the Deal, was founded last month as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, and it does not disclose its donors. Its national campaign starts today, including television ads in states whose members of Congress are undecided on the Iran deal. Lawmakers will vote on it in September...The first ad will go up in Montana, aimed at Democratic Senator Jon Tester. Subsequent ads will air in North Dakota, West Virginia and elsewhere. The group will also send veterans to speak at events in key states.
President Obama has also assailed the motives of the accord's opponents, stating that they must prefer war, and that they're making "common cause" with "death to America" fanatics. Will he smear Sgt. Bartlett and his brethren as war-hungry zealots in the pockets of "lobbyists," too? As the president trains his fire on Republicans in an effort to cast resistance as a tawdry partisan exercise, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate joined a growing list of within his party by coming out against the deal late last week -- for which he's been disgustingly vilified by the Left. Even some liberal Jewish organizations are accusing the White House of leading the charge on an ugly campaign of demonization to pressure fence-sitting Democrats. Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is warning the demagogues to back off:
If you oppose the Iranian nuclear agreement, you are increasing the chances of war. And if you are a Democrat who opposes the agreement, you are also risking your political career. That's the message the White House and some liberal leaders are sending -- and they ought to stop now, because they are only hurting their credibility. I have deep reservations about the Iranian nuclear agreement, but I -- like many Americans -- am still weighing the evidence for and against it. This is one of the most important debates of our time, one with huge implications for our future and security and the stability of the world. Yet instead of attempting to persuade Americans on the merits, supporters of the deal are resorting to intimidation and demonization, while also grossly overstating their case...Emblematic of all this -- and what has prompted me to write -- was the treatment of Senator Chuck Schumer. In his thoughtful statement opposing the deal, Schumer noted that the best course of action is not clear. Reasonable people can and do disagree. Yet rather than acknowledging a respectful difference of opinion, the president's spokesperson and others close to the White House suggested that Schumer's decision may cost him the opportunity to become the leader of the Senate's Democratic caucus. What they should have said is: President Obama signed legislation that gives Congress a voice on any deal with Iran. This debate is far bigger than partisan politics, and personal political considerations should play no role in deciding it.
The White House plays ruthless, myopic politics while accusing others of acting out of political expedience. I'll leave you with Schumer expanding on his lengthy statement elucidating the reasons behind his decision (allegedly prematurely leaked by the White House) to oppose the Iran agreement. The inspections regime has "lots of holes in it," he argues, echoing the concerns of nuclear experts: