“Isn’t it shocking that Obama has threatened to change American policy just because Karzai is being difficult? Should a policy that allegedly has fulfilled US vital security interests be drastically altered because of mere personal animosity? Yet we have been down this erratic policy road before. The Obama administration argued that keeping a residual postwar US military force in Iraq was vitally necessary, only to nix a settlement when the Iraqi government refused to exempt US soldiers from Iraqi law in the event they committed crimes—a rather imperial request to say the least. We can thus surmise that perhaps such residual occupation forces were never very vital to US security.”
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4664
Related posts:
Your Money Isn't Safe In Any U.S. Financial Institution
Jim Rogers on the Goldstein show 14 May 2013
Want a House? Be Rich and Pay Cash
Bill Bonner: Send Our Troops to Ukraine?
Bill Bonner: Time for a Cease-Fire In the War on Poverty
White House Takes a Wrong Turn on Salvadoran Refugees
Ron Paul: Beware The Consequences of Pre-Emptive War
U.S. Has No Moral Standing to Condemn Assad
THIS. IS. HYDRA!
About the Federal Reserve Police
What the Justice Department Pot Memo Means
Isn't It High Time We Legalize Marijuana?
Emergency Powers Spell Corrosion of Liberty and Safety
Committing War Crimes is a Duty; Reporting Them is a Felony
Gary North: Boehner Has Obama by the Boondoggles.
