It’s About Time: CNN Conservative Calls Out Former Obama Official’s Sour Grapes Over Ian
As the headline indicated, it’s about time a former Obama official was called on the carpet. Thankfully, CNN political commentator and former George W. Bush special assistant Scott Jennings did that on Tuesday’s CNN Tonight, blasting former Obama National Security Council member-turned CNN national security analyst Samantha Vinograd over her bitterness surrounding President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
For the final segment (and the prior one on North Korea), Jennings faced not only Vinograd and host Don Lemon but another ex-Obama official in CNN national security analyst Shawn Turner.
Lemon stacked the deck from the onset, smugly wondering to Jennings if Trump “understands the international and security implications of his decision” to leave the deal.
Jennings fired back by arguing that Trump did just as “we all understand the international implications of what Obama did” and reminded everyone that “the only reason we had a deal in this format is because the American people didn't support this” and “[o]ver 60 percent of the U.S. Congress didn't support the idea, so Obama was not able to submit it as an actual treaty.”
He continued (click “expand” to read more):
They had to come up with this thing called the JCPOA, but all it really gave us was a JCPOS and everybody knows this was a terrible deal. Even Democrats were oppose to this thing, so I think Donald Trump made a promise, kept a promise, and now can get us a better deal. You can't trust the Iranian regime. They support terrorism and now they say, oh, we'll start enriching uranium within the next few weeks. The next few weeks? What kind of a deal allowed them to put a plan and place to have uranium enrichment on hold? This was terrible from the beginning and I think most people are glad the President took his action.
Vinograd was triggered, responding that she had “a lot of comments on what Scott said,” first claiming that there’s support for the deal and vaguely cited Republicans who opposed the departure. But among those Republicans were Senator Jeff Flake (Ariz.), who simply oppose Trump just so they’re not on the same side as him.
“And so the question is, is no deal better than the deal that we had? And from a national security perspective, the answer to me is just no. Iran is safer today because we withdrew from this deal. At this point, Iran can play the victim card....[B]y the way, Don, they are now on one side with all their allies and Russia, and we're on the other isolated as the one that, again, broke our word and is untrustworthy...It helps Iran in my book,” she added.
Turner did the same and suggested that Trump should have broken his campaign promise by staying in the deal as another case of someone evolving on a position once they went from the campaign to the presidency.
Jennings got a chance to respond and he calmly pointed to the Obama administration’s failure to follow the Constitution and submit the deal as a treaty (click “expand”);
Yeah, look, I agree with you. The President does have the full knowledge and you have full intelligence. And that's what Barack Obama had when he made this deal and so if he had all in knowledge and all this insight, why was he not able to convince the American people at the time? Why was he not able to convince the Congress at the time to do this in treaty form? There's a real constitutional answer to this. If you don't want the sands taken out to sea when the next administration comes in, you put this in a treaty and you submit it to the Congress. The reason is, it had no political support. He did not build public support for it because people knew that it was a bad deal at the time. So, you can be mad at Donald Trump, but you really need to take a deep breath and remember, Barack Obama put you all in this situation of having to defend this deal being thrown away today because he couldn't sell it as a treaty at the time.
From there, Vinograd’s tone turned testy, hilariously asking Jennings “why” he’s “finger pointing between presidents” and not asking “whether we are safer with or without the agreement.” Considering that’s what Obama officials are hired by CNN and MSNBC to do, that’s rich.
Jennings fiercely acknowledged twice that “you’re finger pointing” followed by this quip: “You’re mad that this deal went away. But you all didn’t sell it at the time. You didn’t sell it at the time.”
Flustered, Vinograd pleaded with Jennings to let her talk and played the classic Obama card of trying to make their position seem non-partisan:
I'm asking the question as to whether we are safer today than we were yesterday and from a national security perspective, I think that this was a net win for Iran when the United States withdrew. I'm not here to be an apologist for the Iran deal. I am here to say that I think that this gave a benefit to Iran because we look untrustworthy and put ourselves at more risk.
To see the relevant transcript from May 8's CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, click “expand.”
CNN Tonight with Don Lemon
May 8, 2018
11:51 p.m. Eastern
DON LEMON: President Trump following through on his pledge to walk away from the Iran nuclear deal. The U.S. now going against its allies and imposing new sanctions on the Iranian regime.
DONALD TRUMP: America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail. We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction. And we will not allow a regime that chants “death to America” to gain access to the most deadly weapons on earth.
LEMON: Samantha Vinograd, Shawn Turner, and Scott Jennings, back with me. So Scott, Trump said throughout the campaign that he would tear up the Iran deal. Watch this.
TRUMP [on 07/25/17]: The Iran deal, which may be the single worst deal I've ever seen drawn by anybody. [SCREEN WIPE] [on 04/18/15] The nuclear deal is a disaster. [SCREEN WIPE] [at AIPAC 2016, 03/21/16] My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. [SCREEN WIPE] I've studied this issue in great detail. I would say actually greater by far than anybody else.
LEMON: So he followed through and his campaign is saying that this is a promise kept. Do you think the President understands the international and security implications of his decision?
SCOTT JENNINGS: Yeah, I do actually and I think we all understand the international implications of what Obama did. Remember, the only reason we had a deal in this format is because the American people didn't support this. Over 60 percent of the U.S. Congress didn't support the idea. So Obama was not able to submit it as an actual treaty. They had to come up with this thing called the JCPOA, but all it really gave us was a JCPOS and everybody knows this was a terrible deal. Even Democrats were oppose to this thing, so I think Donald Trump made a promise, kept a promise, and now can get us a better deal. You can't trust the Iranian regime. They support terrorism and now they say, oh, we'll start enriching uranium within the next few weeks. The next few weeks? What kind of a deal allowed them to put a plan and place to have uranium enrichment on hold? This was terrible from the beginning and I think most people are glad the President took his action.
LEMON: Isn't that in part because we're withdrawing that they’re — but here's the thing. When you said the American people didn't like it. This is what CNN's recent poll shows that 63 percent of Americans think that we should not withdraw from the deal and that the question is, is Trump only talking to his base? Do you want to respond to what Scott said?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: I have a lot of comments on what Scott said. First of all, there isn't widespread support for Trump withdrawing from this deal. We actually heard a lot of statements including from Republicans today indicating that withdrawing from this deal made us less safe. So it is a viable argument that we could have tried to negotiate to get a better deal, but now we have no deal.
LEMON: It was Jeff Flake who said that.
VINOGRAD: Yeah, we have no deal. And so the question is, is no deal better than the deal that we had? And from a national security perspective, the answer to me is just no. Iran is safer today because we withdrew from this deal. At this point, Iran can play the victim card. They can rightfully say that they kept their agreement, we broke ours, and now they're the victim and by the way, Don, they are now on one side with all their allies and Russia, and we're on the other isolated as the one that, again, broke our word and is untrustworthy. So that doesn't set us up for success. It helps Iran in my book.
LEMON: Shawn?
SHAWN TURNER: You know, Don, I just got to point out something about what Scott said. A lot of people have been out on the networks saying this. Everybody is talking about how the President makes a promise and he's keeping his promise. The President said today, when I make a promise, I keep a promise. On the surface, that sounds great, but here's the problem with that. On the campaign trail, a lot of people who are running for President make promises. The problem is that when you become President of the United States and you have the benefit of full knowledge, particularly as it relates to national security and foreign policy issue, intelligence issues, when you have the benefit of full knowledge, then that's the point when you realize that those promises that you made on the campaign trail may not be in the best interest of U.S. national security and so when people are out saying hey, the President is keeping his promises, that's great to say that. But the question is, is the President simply keeping promises because he made promises? Or is the President evaluating and assessing these decisions and making the decisions that are in the best interest of our national security? And I will tell you with this decision, the President did not make a decision that is in the best interest of national security.
LEMON: Scott, I think you should respond.
JENNINGS: Yeah, look, I agree with you. The President does have the full knowledge and you have full intelligence. And that's what Barack Obama had when he made this deal and so if he had all in knowledge and all this insight, why was he not able to convince the American people at the time? Why was he not able to convince the Congress at the time to do this in treaty form? There's a real constitutional answer to this. If you don't want the sands taken out to sea when the next administration comes in, you put this in a treaty and you submit it to the Congress. The reason is, it had no political support. He did not build public support for it because people knew that it was a bad deal at the time. So, you can be mad at Donald Trump, but you really need to take a deep breath and remember, Barack Obama put you all in this situation of having to defend this deal being thrown away today because he couldn't sell it as a treaty at the time.
VINOGRAD: Scott, why are we finger pointing between presidents here though? Isn't the question whether we are safer with or without the agreement?
JENNINGS: You're finger pointing. You're finger pointing at Donald Trump.
VINOGRAD: I’m not finger pointing. I’m —
JENNINGS: You’re mad that this deal went away.
VINOGRAD: Scott, let me finish my point, please.
JENNINGS: But you all didn’t sell it at the time. You didn’t sell it at the time.
VINOGRAD: Scott, let me talk for a second, please. I'm asking the question as to whether we are safer today than we were yesterday and from a national security perspective, I think that this was a net win for Iran when the United States withdrew. I'm not here to be an apologist for the Iran deal. I am here to say that I think that this gave a benefit to Iran because we look untrustworthy and put ourselves at more risk.
from NewsBusters News Busters
Web Market Power providing the latest marketing tips, news and tricks throughout the industry.
Sourced by the online web marketing guys. Web Marketing Experts that know how to drive business uniquely using creative marketing methods, and self-sufficient social media strategies.
No comments