I find it amusing (in a God, we're screwed sort of way) that defenders of President Obama's proto-deal with Iran on their nuclear programs like to attack critics of the deal by saying what is your better deal?
How can they say this? Even the president has said no deal is better than a bad deal. So pointing out how the deal is bad should be all that is needed to stop this deal.
After all, if a brand new bridge collapses for no apparent reason and I say that the bridge was poorly designed or built, is my criticism invalid because I don't also tell you how to design and build a bridge properly?
Even a history major like myself can recognize that something is terribly wrong with the bridge.
We need a new deal that is completely stable because something is terribly wrong with the proto-deal with Iran. That should be the most important observation at this time.