Despite all the good news for America this week, like the freeing of American hostages and the low unemployment rate AND the capture ISIS leaders, the ABC panel on Sunday’s This Week was huffing about President Trump ending the Iran nuclear deal. The bitter panelists were up in arms and were making predictions of just more war on the horizon. One even claimed the Trump administration was setting us up for the Iraq War 2.0.
As they were beginning to get into their Iran deal discussion, ABC’s faux Republican and pretend holy man Matthew Dowd hammered America for pulling out of the deal. “It does show. I mean, who would have guessed that the first one to violate that treaty would be us and not Iran. I mean, we were the first one in violation of this treaty,” he declared.
Dowd didn’t have a clue about what he was saying because the Iran deal was not a treaty. It was never ratified by the Senate and in terms of our government, it was a unilateral move by the Obama administration made in secret. The administration even lied to the American people about being in negotiations in the first place, and then tried to hide that fact when Fox News called them out on it.
He then seemed to suggest that National Security Adviser John Bolton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were trying to get America into another Iraq war situation. “I couldn't help but think we were a Back to The Future movie … You substitute Iran and Iraq, it’s almost the exact same language,” he opined. “We’ve been to this rodeo before. It cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. And it feels like we're going to the same place again.” “Nuclear weapons. Inspectors out,” fill-in host Martha Raddatz said in agreement.
Raddatz turned to New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser, who bemoaned how the Trump administration put the U.S. in a position to get scolded by Europe. “I do agree with one thing, though, which is the idea that Europe is now going to stand up to us and have some kind of unified response,” she claimed. She even huffed about Bolton dismissing the critique from German magazine Der Spiegel as “silly.” “It's not silly because this is what our allies now believe. And, they know that very well in the White House.”
Glasser went on to almost parrot Dowd and proclaimed there was a greater chance for another war in the Middle East:
Arguably, the focus of his foreign policy, as Matt said, is to move into a period of confrontation with Iran in the broader Middle East. And I think that’s what makes people so nervous. Rather than a new deal, it's much likelier there will be a new war in the Middle East.
When she was finished, NPR host Joshua Johnson complained about how Trump wasn’t treating Iran and North Korea the same way, as if they were totally analogues to each other:
The Iran deal included some kind of verification, but that that deal is deal and this deal moving forward. There were economic sanctions involved to bring Iran into the world’s economy, that’s the same thing we’re offering to North Korea. But we’re dealing with—they don’t feel congruent.
He then took a shot at Israel, saying that North and South Korea were talking about peace but one was getting Israel on board. “Particularly if America's foreign policy continues to be so transactional. Were you treat this party one way, and another party in another way, and make campaign promises, and personal aims or views,” he whined.
It’s ridiculous to complain about counties being treated differently when the situation with each is vastly different. And this pontificating about an upcoming war in the Middle East is from the same media that warned of an upcoming nuclear war on the Korean peninsula.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
ABC
This Week
May 13, 2018
9:46 21 AM Eastern(…)
MATTHEW DOWD: It does show. It does show. I mean, who would have guessed that the first one to violate that treaty would be us and not Iran. I mean, we were the first one in violation of this treaty. And I think, as I listened to John Bolton earlier, I couldn't help but think we were a Back to The Future movie. When the tag team of Benjamin Netanyahu and John Bolton in 2003 was pushing almost the exact same language. You substitute Iran and Iraq, it’s almost the exact same language.
MARTHA RADDATZ [as Dowd was talking]: Nuclear weapons. Inspectors out.
DOWD: We’ve been to this rodeo before. It cost us thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. And it feels like we're going to the same place again.
RADDATZ: So Susan, I want to take this to you, though. When we’ve gone through the North Korea discussions over the past year, everyone was panicked: He shouldn't do this, he shouldn’t say that. It brought them to the table. Is there a chance that this is a good thing? And they could renegotiate a better deal?
SUSAN GLASSER: I think it’s very unlikely the Iranians are going to be coming to the table anytime soon. I do agree with one thing, though, which is the idea that Europe is now going to stand up to us and have some kind of unified response. Very unlikely. It was a very interesting moment in your interview with Ambassador Bolton, when you read him this very tough editorial from a leading German publication and he said, it's silly. It's not silly because this is what our allies now believe. And, they know that very well in the White House.
In fact, I reported that Ambassador Bolton told a national security adviser to one of the three European nations weeks ago, before any of this. He said, “The President is going to get rid of this Iran nuclear deal. It's likely. I would have done it myself months ago.” On all of this hue and cry as if it was a surprising decision. I think Ambassador Bolton is absolutely correct, that people that who really looked at the situation understood that Trump was going to do this. Arguably, the focus of his foreign policy, as Matt said, is to move into a period of confrontation with Iran in the broader Middle East. And I think that’s what makes people so nervous. Rather than a new deal, it's much likelier there will be a new war in the Middle East.
RADDATZ: And the message to North Korea in all of this with the Iran deal?
JOSHUA JOHNSON: It's kind of a confusing message. You look that the way these two different nuclear matters are being handled. You know, Kim Jong-un is offering some kind of verification of their nuclear program. The Iran deal included some kind of verification, but that that deal is deal and this deal moving forward. There were economic sanctions involved to bring Iran into the world’s economy, that’s the same thing we’re offering to North Korea. But we’re dealing with—they don’t feel congruent.
Also, you have two parties, North and South Korea, who have already begun talking, and already trying to make peace. You don't anybody talk to Israel right now trying to make peace. So, I'm not sure whether there is a consistent strategy. That's might be partly the reason why this editorial in Der Spiegel was so strident, because you will have Europe speaking with one voice. You will have Europe saying, “we need to go to the table and do this together.” Particularly if America's foreign policy continues to be so transactional. Were you treat this party one way, and another party in another way, and make campaign promises, and personal aims or views. The lack of consistency, potentially, could be a problem down the road. And I think Europe sees that.
(…)
