Schumer on Iran

As Kevin Drum reminded us with regard to John Edwards, any politician worth his salt should be able to tailor his message to his audience. Certainly that's the case with Jonathan Singer's interview with DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer, at least judging by his ability to absolutely lavish praise on bloggers and the netroots. That said, you've got to go by what you have to go by, and saying good things to liberal audiences is better than saying bad things to liberal audiences. And I found Schumer's words on Iran encouraging.:

Iran was never discussed, and I could not imagine - maybe there are one or two Democrats in the Senate who believe the AUMF authorizes the President to go into Iran. Should he try to go into Iran without an AUMF will do everything we can to try to stop that. . .

I have always believed in foreign policy, particularly when your nation was attacked - not only my nation but my city was attacked - you tend to give the chief executive the benefit of the doubt to defend us. That doesn't mean a carte blanche. But you never give someone who has been so bad the second benefit of the doubt. I think anything the President asks for with Iran is going to be received with extreme dubiousness, certainly by me, by the Democratic Senate and by the American people. I mean he says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iran, people are going to think twice before believing it. If he says this is an immediate danger to the US, people are going to think twice before believing it. If he says military force is the only way to deal with this problem, people are going to thing 20 times before believing it.

I could imagine better words to offer on this subject, but that's pretty good, and it's significant because Schumer's really something of a bellweather hawk, the kind of guy who backed the Iraq War but doesn't have any deep, Lieberman-esque intellectual commitment to warmongering or a political strategy in which hawkishness plays a key role.

Comments

"it's significant because Schumer's really something of a bellweather hawk"

Around a year or two ago, you started using the word "hawk" in your current delusional manner. As far as I can tell, that was the exact moment when you lost your moorings on foreign policy.

It's like the callers to C-SPAN who describe Hillary Clinton as a "communist". I understand what they're trying to say - she's to the left of Ayn Rand - but I do lose a bit of respect for those who can't be bothered to use a notch more precision in their terminology.

Posted by Petey | February 5, 2007 9:54 AM

The bigger issue is not whether Bush is believable, what the exact evidence is about Iran's activities, who was wrong on Iraq, etc etc. The bigger issue is whether, if Iran persists in pursuing a nuclear weapon, we eventually attack them one way or the other. If your opinion is that if Iran wants nukes, we must attack it, then you are a hawk, and no end of caveats, fool-me-onces, this should be solved by diplomacy etc wont prevent the attack on Iran from being driven ever further up the political agenda. If your opinion is that we can, push comes to shove, live with a nuclear Iran, because attacking Iran will be worse than not attacking Iran, only then are you reliably outside the war party. It seems to me that Schumer is still inside it.

Posted by otto | February 5, 2007 10:13 AM

"I think anything the President asks for with Iran is going to be received with extreme dubiousness..."

That's why he's not going to ask.

Matt, I'm surprised you would let Schumer get away with putting it this way. The core of the problem is how to get Congress to preempt a military campaign that would be waged on Bush's own say-so.

Posted by nandrews3 | February 5, 2007 10:42 AM

In the face of war, every sort of opposition is worth airing. But at some point we anti-war types need to demand of our leaders a more rigorous critique of the hawkish approach, because Schumer's remarks concede way too much. For instance, he is willing, he says, "to give the chief executive the benefit of the doubt to defend us" when our nation is attacked, but he won't do so in the case of Iran, he adds, because Bush "has been so bad." Now, were Schumer an actual dove (cough, Petey, cough) he would have said instead "I won't give Bush the benefit of the doubt to defend us because IRAN HASN"T ATTACKED US."

But Schumer is a hawk and so he suggests instead that, if a more competent person were president--like McCain or Clinton or anyone else who hasn't perpetrated a military disaster in the Middle East (which is everyone else)--attacking Iran would be fine, a matter of presidential perogative. Of course, Schumer might think once (instead of 20 times) but because he believes that in the case of attack (or even non-attack apparently) the president must be given every benefit of the doubt, his slight hesitation will serve as nothing more than a gesture.

Luckily for us (and the Iranians), Bush is president and so Schumer's opposition to attacking Iran is for the moment meaningful. But unluckily we'll soon have a new president, a presumably competent one (And they always are until they fuck up), faced with the same Iran problem now facing Bush (that is, if Bush doens't exacerbate it). What will Schumer's opposition be worth than? Petey thinks Schumer's a dove, but in 2009, if what Schumer says still holds, Schumer will clearly stand forth as a hawk.

If doves wish for their anti-war arguments to have force, they need to start developing substantative critiques of war itself, for if the entire argument focuses on Bush, what will we say to president McCain? Of course, Matt's quite good in this regard, as is most of the netroots. But if in public every presumption except one is for war, as it is in this Schumer speech, than the argument is already lost and we can expect two, three many Iraqs (or, as many as it takes to completely bankrupt us).

Posted by Mark | February 5, 2007 11:33 AM

I love how Schumer's got the balls to call out the president of Venezuela for making a joke, while the strongest language he can muster on W is "extreme dubiousness". what a hero.

Posted by Murph | February 5, 2007 12:12 PM

Petey,

We get it by now. You like to kill brown people. Now why don't you just STFU and vote for McCain, or the other monster of the day.

The Dems do not have to nominate a hawk to win, and if they did, better lose than join in the killing fields.

Posted by Larry M | February 5, 2007 12:33 PM

It's "bellwether".

Posted by brendan | February 5, 2007 12:36 PM

All this hand-wringing over hostilities towards Iran really is wasted energy. We're going to engage them militarily before Bush leaves office. The timimg will be for some perceived political benefit. It will handled incompetently. People will die. Contrary opinions as to this happening will be issued by those evidently asleep for the last 5 years.

Posted by steve duncan | February 5, 2007 12:36 PM

Schumer:

Iran was never discussed, and I could not imagine - maybe there are one or two Democrats in the Senate who believe the AUMF authorizes the President to go into Iran. Should he try to go into Iran without an AUMF will do everything we can to try to stop that. . .

Buchanan's column of January 16th:

Enter Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina.

The day after Bush's threat to Iran, Jones introduced a Joint Resolution, "Concerning the Use of Military Force by the United States Against Iran." Under HJR 14, "Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran."

Jones' resolution further declares, "No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran."

I haven't heard a word on the Dem blogs (or anywhere else) about Jones, or his bill. I do note that Reid was claiming that the administration was specifically pushing for the 'authorization of force' to more or less cover the entire Mideast, so I don't know why Shumer 'couldn't imagine' that Bush & Co. might try to use it that way.

Jones' bill would do absolutely nothing ... except remove any legal cover for an attack on Iran, and it would take 90 seconds to pass.

But again, haven't heard a word. That's why I am thinking claims of cluelessness for either 2002 or right now are basically bullshit, and congressional D's simply don't want to do anything but appear to be opposing the war or the surge or whatever.

Petey:

Around a year or two ago, you started using the word "hawk" in your current delusional manner. As far as I can tell, that was the exact moment when you lost your moorings on foreign policy.

Poor Petey. The inmates are escaping the asylum, and you're left all alone to paint roses in hell.

Petey:

I understand what they're trying to say - she's to the left of Ayn Rand - but I do lose a bit of respect for those who can't be bothered to use a notch more precision in their terminology.

Ah. Well then, Schumer is a Politician Pandering to Anti-War Sentiment While Being Uninterested in Changing the Defacto Status of War at Anytime, Anywhere Favored By Aggressive Individuals.

Or a PPAWSWBUCDSWAAFBAI.

m, sounds Hawaiian.

Posted by max | February 5, 2007 12:37 PM

This is an absurdly naive post. Schumer is not running for President. Look at what everyone who is is saying.

Posted by brendan | February 5, 2007 12:42 PM

Should he try to go into Iran without an AUMF will do everything we can to try to stop that. . .

If Bush tries to go into Iran, it'll already be too late to stop him. The time to make the point is now, before it becomes a fait accompli.

Posted by Tom Hilton | February 5, 2007 1:31 PM

Actually, I'm pretty disappointed in that statement, specifically this:

I have always believed in foreign policy, particularly when your nation was attacked - not only my nation but my city was attacked - you tend to give the chief executive the benefit of the doubt to defend us

This has nothing to do with 9-11, and Iran had nothing to do with 9-11. There cannot possibly be any reason for Bush to attack Iran because terrorists hijacked and crashed four airplanes over 5 years ago. There cannot.

Schumer unwittingly plays right into the dominant framing here for Bush's justification for his misdeeds over the past 4 years, and this is just unacceptable. Everyone in the world knows, or should know, that any legislation passed in the wake of 9-11 had nothing to do with Iran, or attacking Iran, or nuking Iran.

Posted by Jimm | February 5, 2007 2:49 PM

Matt,
If you get a chance, check out Pat Lang's take.

"Another serious development is the growing role of the U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom), which oversees nuclear weapons, missile defense, and protection against weapons of mass destruction. Bush has directed StratCom to draw up plans for a massive strike against Iran, at a time when CentCom has had its hands full overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Shifting to StratCom indicates that they are talking about a really punishing air-force and naval air attack [on Iran]," says Lang.

Moreover, he continues, Bush can count on the military to carry out such a mission even without congressional authorization. "If they write a plan like that and the president issues an execute order, the forces will execute it. He's got the power to do that as commander-in-chief. We set that up during the Cold War. It may, after the fact, be considered illegal, or an impeachable offense, but if he orders them to do it, they will do it."

This is from an Unger piece in Vanity Fair.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/02/unger_on_the_ne.html

This is the same reason Wes Clark is running around like Richard Clarke was prior to 9/11 - with his hair on fire. These guys aren't tri lateral conspiracists by a long shot. It's serious shit. Keep up the great work.

Posted by taters | February 5, 2007 3:23 PM

Encouraging. I think it sends a signal to any other Democrat willing to accede to Liebermania that this time the Party will not roll over for War. Be interesting to see what someone like Evan Bayh has to say about Bush's plan to attack Iran now.

Posted by Trevor | February 5, 2007 4:43 PM

"better lose than"

Kudos for being able to sum up your entire electoral philosophy in just 3 words, Larry M. It's an impressive level of conciseness.

I, being far more verbose than you, need 4 words to be able to express, "better win than lose".

I guess we're on different sides of the fence on this one...

Posted by Petey | February 5, 2007 6:14 PM

Not only is it "bellwether," but I think Matt really meant "fair-weather."

Somebody (not me, though) should start a blog devoted entirely to documenting and commenting on these Yglesiasisms. Hell, that could become a word for them, in the vein of "malapropism."

Posted by pedant | February 5, 2007 10:16 PM

Winning isn't everything. If winning means you become just as bad as your opponent and commit atrocities, what's the point?

Posted by Reality Man | February 6, 2007 4:04 AM