Joe Lieberman

This Iranian Government, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has the blood of a lot of Americans on its hands.

I would have us reject a bad deal and run the risk of having the P5+1 coalition dissolve than to accept a bad deal which will compromise our security and that of our allies in the Middle East.

The idea that the Iranians would have a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable period of time... is very threatening to Israel.

It seems to me that Iran has developed a lot of the nuclear capability that it has today in violation of its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

The result will be exactly the opposite of what was hoped for here, which is a more peaceful Middle East. It is going to be a much more violent and potentially explosive Middle East.

This agreement has much more risk for America and much more reward for Iran than it should.

An agreement presumably to reduce the presence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, because it eventually allows a radical state like Iran to get nuclear weapons, will in fact encourage other powers within the Middle East to invest in…

I think it's definitely possible that this agreement will be rejected by Congress and a President's veto overridden.

I urge members of this committee, Members of Congress, focus in on the section of this agreement on access.

So now we are taking a risk of making this trade where we end sanctions on them in return for them essentially temporarily freezing their nuclear program.

Very briefly, this question really, in my opinion, highlights the greatest specific weakness of the agreement announced today.

I think we are going to have to push back against the Iranians in the Middle East because they are on a tear.

Iran's program will be suspended and frozen, in effect, in mothballs for 10 years.

I don't think this is a perfect deal and I have had trouble as a private citizen trying to weigh the risks on both sides and weigh the pros and cons.

If we have a chance to avoid a third major conflict in the Middle East since 9/11 and if we can stop Iran in the process I think that is a good course for the United States.

I believe we have got to contain their threat in the Middle East and we have to stop them.

On first look, the inspections provisions in the agreement announced today fall far short, dangerously short, of the anywhere, anytime access that is needed.

How can we have any confidence in an agreement made with such a government?

This is a bet not based on fact. In fact, it is a bet based on hope over experience we have had with Iran.

That is the essence of why I believe this is a bad deal for America, a bad deal for Iran's neighbors in the Middle East, and a bad deal for the world.

I cannot think of a more consequential vote that each of you will cast in Congress for the future security of the United States and, indeed, the security of the world.

Democracy is the worst form of government devised by wit of man except for all the rest.

I really decided to get involved in No Labels as the best movement to try to deal with this.

I hope you will work with Senator Nelson and Senator Thune and become co-sponsors of the resolution embracing the idea of a National Strategic Agenda.

If we can agree on 60 percent of this bill before us... let us just set aside the 40 percent and let us do the 60 percent.