The Widdershins


Posted on: August 19, 2015

The people to whom I’ve always been most attracted are the folks who understand, “To learn is to change.”  Five words representing a lifelong personal evolution through the constant accumulation of knowledge.  That understanding engenders a comfort in one’s own skin.  It breeds an abhorrence of expediency – political and otherwise.  It is the opposite of fear.To learn is to change

Well my friends, I’m disgusted and I mean miles beyond being a little put out.  I’m talking full-blown, no holes barred, bile encrusted D.I.S.G.U.S.T.!  The genesis of this disgust is the unmitigated revulsion I feel toward the porcine anal seepage passing for our political leadership over the Iranian nuclear containment agreement.

Here’s the way my simple mind processes this issue.  There are only four possible avenues with which to approach the Iranian issue:

  1. Let Iran have a nuclear weapon with a breakout period as soon as two months from now.
  2. Implement the Iranian containment agreement negotiated by the P5 + 1 and ratified by the U.N. Security Council by an unheard of vote 15 – 0.
  3. Attempt to strategically take out the Iranian nuclear facilities for a couple of years by bombing.
  4. Invade and occupy Iran indefinitely.

Those are the four scenarios. Nothing more.  The lip service of going back to the negotiation table after reimplementation of sanctions is nonsensical political pandering.  The defensive excuse of “objections of conscience” is meaningless unless the personal motivation is one of war based upon a commitment of intervention in some fashion.  This is the overwhelming expectation of the Arab world and quite frankly, it is an expectation that is deserved based upon our blind adventurism since 9/11.

Iran deal 2015Russia and China are straining at the reins to do business with Iran.  The billions in Iranian money will be released no matter what happens with this agreement.  Without the agreement, the breakout time for a nuclear device will be measured in months, not years.

With this non-proliferation agreement, a nuclear Iran is ten to fifteen years in the future with limitless possibilities for disarmament, regime change, or military intervention.

While the Republican Party is virtually unanimous in its weak-mindedness regarding the Iran deal, Democrats do not get a pass.  There are more than a few who have tested the political winds and decided to shirk both responsibility and reality.  Most notable of these is Sen. Chuck Schumer, who also just happened to vote for the Iraq War in 2003.Boehner and Netanyahu

It is curious how the Iranian deal is playing out in public with Netanyahu prancing to the “well of the House” to spread Republican sanctioned misinformation in order to influence American foreign policy.  Here’s my theory:

The run up to the Iraq War was played out in the secretive confines of the Bush Oval Office.  It was the perfect storm of war where the interests of the Israeli lobby and the Saudi royal family converged.  There are stories after stories of the influence the Israelis and the Saudis brought to bear as we blindly rushed into a decade of war.

The adoption of Bandar Bush...

The adoption of Bandar Bush…

There is a 2004 piece by Thomas Friedman explaining the Israeli political universe surrounding the Iraq War.  There is a long recounting of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia who was known as “Bandar Bush” for his unfettered access to the Oval Office.  There is even mention of the Saudi Arabian and Israeli appetites for war in the 9/11 Report.  There is an incredible story of Prince Bandar strewing the D.C. landscape with gifts like a vintage Jaguar for Colin Powell’s wife.  These stories barely scratch the surface.

Yesterday Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey declared his opposition to the Iran agreement.  Menendez, under indictment for corruption, enjoys a legal defense funded in large measure by anti-agreement, Israeli interests.  This morning on the Joe Scarborough conservative twerking hour, Menendez talked in circles saying he could be convinced to vote for the agreement with some changes which just goes to prove “you can’t buy politicians, you can only rent them”.

The Republican opposition is to be expected since they haven’t seen fit to agree on which way from up since Obama’s election, but the Democratic cowardice is disturbing.  Most alarming is this:  National security and the interests of the U.S. are now insufficient concerns to overcome petty political considerations.

A little too much brotherly love and tongue between Dubya and Bandar...

A little too much brotherly love and tongue between Dubya and Bandar…

Why this is so anger-making for me is that we have a choice as a country.  It is a choice between war and peace prior to sacrificing the lives of young men and women to placate the whims of aging paranoids driven by motivations of fear.  Contrary to the Iraq War, there is no pretense of lies or faulty intelligence reports.  We know the stakes.  We know the weight of the choices.

When it came to economic policy, the Republican bloc said no even though it meant increased suffering in America.  When it came to jobs, the Republican bloc said no even though it meant prolonged unemployment.  When it came to health care, the Republican bloc said no even though it meant more Americans would be sicker and more people would die.

With the specter of yet another war necessitating an occupation of Iran, a much stronger country than Iraq, the Republican bloc and more than a few Democrats are willing to acquiesce in the death and loss of treasure it entails.

Neocon Zombieland -- thousands of positions unburdened by accuracy or the pressure of being right...

Neocon Zombieland — a land where you can be proud, yet unafraid, of being absolutely, miserably wrong…

For me, here’s what is blindly ignorant:  Of the four logical options mentioned above, none of them eliminate any of the military options currently on the table and favored by the neocons.

Let’s review that again for emphasis:  Allowing the Iran deal to proceed doesn’t mean we can’t bomb, we can’t invade, or we can’t declare war in the future.  Every military option or economic sanction is still available if we give the Iranian agreement a chance to work.  The only potential albatross for the neocons is that the Iranian deal might just work and thwart the eventual need for war.

This call for rejection of the Iran deal is being made by the very same people who have not been right about any aspect of U.S. foreign policy in the last fifteen years.  It is these same people who are again war hungry – neither will they ever learn nor will they ever change.  Their inability to learn or change is the epitome of fear, expediency, and a total lack of morality.

Take this conversation in any direction you might like.



18 Responses to "Disgust!"

“Contrary to the Iraq War, there is no pretense of lies or faulty intelligence reports. We know the stakes. We know the weight of the choices.”


Thanks for the comment David, but can you be a bit more specific as to where you disagree? It seems as everyone agrees there are uranium enrichment facilities, they are in Iran, and we know their production output. Where are the lies or the faulty intelligence?

And we know the stakes, do we?

@3, the stakes would be inevitably more costly than the Iraq War and those were exceedingly tragic with perhaps 500,000 killed and Two Trillion wasted. An intervention and occupation of Iran would be more costly. Those are the stakes when there is an off-ramp to monitor and control the proliferation of the uranium enrichment.

I’m sorry, but I’m having difficulty in understanding where you take issue? Do you feel we should bomb, invade Iran, or just allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon?

@4: Who are “we” and what is their choice in the matter?

Anticipating the obvious (what I might prefer): In that I don’t see Iran as the great threat that so many others would seem to, I’d prefer the general populace not be gamed as much as they continue to be, particularly the American electorate.

There are a number of issues worthy of discussion as it relates to all things small-d democratic in the US, and any of them that would spin the purported substantial differences between this & that party are hardly relevant, unless viewed through that lens.

@5, the “we” as to the costs are the American people, the Iranian people, the Israeli people, soldiers of any involved allies on either side, the inevitable refugees who would be displaced, I could go on.

I agree with you that Iran isn’t as great a threat as it is portrayed to be and certainly not a threat under the terms of the nonproliferation agreement for ten to fifteen years — so we agree there.

As far as I’m concerned and I believe I’m in a majority when I say, the “gaming” that is going on is a product of the anti-agreement forces of saying we can renegotiate and reimpose sanctions — all of which are untrue.

As far as discussing the differences in the attitudes, I think you will find the vast majority of the populace strongly in support of the agreement or at least giving it a chance to work. That is solidly where I am.

The anti-agreement faction is a minority of about 25-30% who are committed to unrestrained adventurism and militaristic intervention. They are dangerous and ill-conceived in their attitudes.

@6: This particular gaming began with total agreement that Iran should not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, dubiousness as to their claims they had no such visions, ostentatious hand-wringing about how to prevent that from happening. I don’t buy any of it. Maybe that makes me naive. So be it.

I am a little concerned that someone who would say they don’t think Iran is as great a threat as portrayed would let the words “deal might just work and thwart the eventual need for war” so easily slip from the fingertips.

Might work? How about might be ostensible casus belli? This shit is only ever used to push someone into a corner so it can be said that they were given every chance.

Need for war? That’s why I say “ostensible” casus belli. Whether war is seriously considered or not, it is always hanging over the heads of those under threat and those not, the latter who lap that shit up.

@7, David there’s a real significant language barrier happening here. I don’t know what you are reading, but your understanding is seriously, as in 180 degrees, off the mark.

I’m saying, and the post is saying, exactly what you seem to be advocating. There is NO NEED for military intervention. There is NO NEED for war or invasion or even considering such action. The agreement subverts that.

Personally, I believe Iran has the right to atomic power for its rather substantial national electrification project.

You seem unnecessarily agitated by something, but let me assure you it is not in this post. I’m agreeing with you. The post agrees with you.

Where are we missing one another?

@8: Perhaps I am missing the meaning of this: “The only potential albatross for the neocons is that the Iranian deal might just work and thwart the eventual need for war.”

Would that then be “…the ‘eventual need for war’.” ? If you get my drift.

@9, that sentence means, “Since the neocons are war hungry, the obstacle to their getting their way, is that the agreement might just work.” If the agreement of monitoring works, there will be NO NEED whatsoever for the course of action the neocons are pursuing.

Yes, if the agreement works, that “thwarts the eventual need for war” — which, as crazy as that seems, would be disappointing to the neocons.

Oh, crud. I’m covered with hives again. Taking some meds, and BBL.

@10: Prolix: Fair enough. You don’t believe in the eventual need for war. I’m glad and hope I haven’t wasted your time.

I would only add, however, to my original point: this is more political football than genuine difference of opinion on implementable action. War with Iran was rendered inviable by that pesky Iraqi vote and all the havoc it wreaked, which, of course, was a windfall for the war industry (lest we maintain “it didn’t work”. It did.). It’s just that you can’t maintain profits if you lose the army to make them.

Since we’re on to unnecessary war, more worrisome is all the war that’s being waged right now, and how it is so visible and invisible at the same time. Innocent people are dying and the ostensible enemy’s ability to recruit more the longer it goes on would seem to be the perpetual war machine no profiteer could have dreamed of.


@11, so sorry Chat — Benadryl cocktails?

@12, in no way has our conversation been anything but a joy. Thank you for stopping by.

I think you will find most of us around this website would agree with you on the war industry and the vulgar profiteering. It is immoral. It is wrong.

You are right, there are so many instances across the world where the victims of war are forgotten. As you say, far too many people are the victims of unneeded and unwanted wars.

Please stop by again.

Excellent post, as usual, Prolix.

I too have to wonder what’s going on with the Dems, Schumer and Mendendez. It makes no sense. The neocons I can understand because if the sun came up today it’s a good day to go start a war…someplace.

@15, I can remember a time when national security was above this petty partisanship, but not any more. Now it is just another tactic to grab power. That is harmful like nothing else this super-partisanship has bred.

@16: The new norm: If you’re for it then I’m against it, no matter what.

Comments are closed.

Keep Up

Atrocities Documented:

What the F*ck Just Happened?!

Victories Won:

Your Victories Against Drumpf!

Wanna Be A Widdershin?

Send us a sample post at:

widdershinssubmissions at gmail dot com

Our Front-Pagers

I’m ready. Are you?

Blog Archive

August 2015
« Jul   Sep »

Kellyanne Conway’s new job

So similar

Take the kids to work? NO!

That moment when *your* pussy gets grabbed

You go gurl! h/t Adam Joseph

“The” Book

Nice picture of our gal

Time till the Grifter in Chief is Gone

Hopefully soonerJanuary 21st, 2021
2.7 years to go.

Mueller Time!

Wise Words from Paul Ryan

Heroine of the Resistance


Only the *best* politicans bought by the NRA

Marching for their lives

Perfect Picture

Perfect Name For Him h/t Daily News

Scary a.f.