Dr. Ben Carson on his views of the Obamabomb Deal

Click Here for Full Interview

FG: You have, I think, connected one of the most important dots, and I must say I think it has been largely absent from leaders of this country, that there is in fact this phenomenon at work a global jihad movement. It’s not just the franchise doing business here, or there, under the Islamic State flag, or the Taliban, or Hamas, or Hezbollah. It’s really an enterprise that despite myriad differences within its ranks is none the less of a mind about what needs to be done to us, which is to force us to submit or to be destroyed. What you’ve just said, I think, is particularly important and that is, that where we are today versus where we were a decade ago, is that the capabilities of this jihad have enhanced greatly. It may be that they’ve always had this ambition but they’ve certainly improved their capabilities, and in that regard I was kind of struck. I don’t recall you talking about the Iran, well I call it the ObamaBomb deal. What is your view of that? Because that really does seem to me to be a such a qualitative change in the jihadist enterprise, that I’d be interested in your thoughts of what we should be doing there.

BC: Well you know I was extremely disappointed, I didn’t feel that the Congress put up the kind of fight that they should have, and one of the advantageous of putting up a fight is that you bring it to the forefront, so that everybody sees what’s going on. The President and his administration were able to do this a lot of under the covers, and without the American people recognizing what was going on, and as they found out more of course they’re outraged, but you know the process has been moved along much too far. This should have been done in my opinion as a treaty and not as an executive bill, but of course the President didn’t want to do that because that would require two-thirds approval of the Senates, and he has his own agendas and doesn’t really care.

FG: And of course Secretary of State John Kerry, said we didn’t have the votes for it to be passed as a treaty, and that was probably the ulterior motive of the first order. So where does that leave us today as you see it? Are you in the camp that seem to be the majority of the candidates that says ‘you know I’m not going to have anything to do with this agreement should I become President’, or there were some who seemed to say, as our colleague Fred Fleitz pointed out a short while ago, that you know well we’ll just have to suck it up and live with it.

BC: Well I think this is a horrible agreement, and of course the day that the President leaves office it is of not effective if the next President doesn’t agree with it. That’s the disadvantage of doing it as an executive deal, and I don’t need to say that we shouldn’t talk. I think I would advocates for new talks, but the conditions of those talks they still have our hostages. They let them go and that we have anytime anywhere inspections by the people that we want to do the inspections. If they don’t agree to that that then it tells you right off the bat that they have nefarious motives.

FG: Yeah I think it’s pretty clear that these guys have pretty nefarious motives. That death to America thing is kind of a clue as you say.