I admit that I am not tracking this issue much beyond the headlines, in part because of the outrageousness of the Republicans' behavior. It was obnoxious and crazy, per ideological design, from the get go, but hit a rather sharp inflection point with the distribution of Cotton's letter signed by 47 other assholes masquerading as statesman. Watching such things up close induces nausea without even the brief, illusory pleasure of being drunk, and who knowingly wants to do that?
So the breaking headline I noticed this time is the HuffPo's Deal?, which is paired with another headline, sourced from WashPo: Why Obama chose the Iran talks to take one of his presidency’s biggest risks. For point of clarification both headlines do have complementary articles, but my point can be made without discussing them, so why not save ourselves the trouble? While we're at it, we can probably save ourselves the time of even reading them.
So it turns out that this is not so much a diary per se as a couple of links to articles that have prompted a comment that I've chosen to broadcast to save myself the time and tediousness of looking for an appropriate diary into which I might slip it... But since you've read this far you may as well hear it.
I know it would be inflammatory but, in the spirit of O's boldness in pursuit of a nuke deal with Iran, which he does in the face of equally bold but singularly asinine opposition, might it not be worthwhile for him or a mouthpiece to point out that the Iraq War has been a perfectly good example of the disastrous impact that choosing the war hammer to deal with every threat can have? Might not we remind the world that, by comparison, the sanctions being imposed and enforced by the international community were, in fact, being used to adequate effect against Iraq? Might we not assert that a deal with Iran, supported, endorsed and enforced by the international community is, in the face of the Iraq example, worth a good try? Might we not also point out that the result of a satisfactory, though no doubt imperfect, deal, might very well result in far less loss of life and money, not to mention the tens (hundreds?) of thousands whose lives are forever changed for having participated or having had a loved one participate in the war solution?
(Might it not also be worth pointing out that that war "solution" has simply morphed into, among other things, the ISIS outrages?)
Quite clearly one salient conclusion to be drawn from the past, present and predictable future is that Republicans don't like deals whether they can or do work or not because they simply prefer war. Period. When their blood boils, nothing short of war drums, charging missiles and the definitive death of their enemies and "the lamentations of the women and the children" will do (nod to Conan). Especially when they can get surrogates to do the fighting and foreign soil upon which to engage in it.
So, we have recent history, still unfolding, of the disaster of choosing war over deals backed by the will of the international community. And we have the recent history, still unfolding, of Republicans simply being bloodythirsty maniacs drooling for war at every turn so long as--in the spirit of the true chickenhawk that dwells within the vast majority of Republican breasts--they can avoid personal involvement and risk. To them, the slaking of that thirst is priceless, especially since it can so easily be traded with the approval of both parties for less "entitlements" the 47% don't deserve anyway.
I don't know. These points seem both pertinent and noteworthy, even if you don't drag yourself through the muddy details, as I haven't. Maybe also a good topic to put on the table in the onrushing, vomit-filled kabuki of 2016. IMO (note the lack of demurring "H"), the Democrats should make a better argument that they don't support endless war, which is no doubt a question in many people's minds, even if to significant extent just for better kabuki. The Iran deal would be as good a place as any--and better than the ISIS crisis--to draw that line of demarcation in the sand on the stage of the kabuki theater to which we seem confined, like some Hotel California nightmare. With each ISIS outrage, no doubt, there's a spike of support for swooping in and beheading every last one of them, tending as we do from the deepest recesses of our most ancient brain parts, toward impulsive, easy solutions, whether or not history has demonstrated they produce anything but the most superficial, fleeting, illusory "benefit."
Okay, I've hit my limit of really lengthy, contorted sentences for the moment. Well, not my limit as a writer, but that of pretty much any reader, including myself. Not that I haven't read nor don't appreciate the words of Wm Butler Yeats:
I said, ‘A line will take us hours maybe;
Yet if it does not seem a moment’s thought,
Our stitching and unstitching has been naught.
Adam's Curse is having its way with me today.
btw, pretty sure this is the first instance of Robert E. Howard and Wm Butler Yeats being quoted in the same extended comment.