“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:
Ron Paul: "People Are Waking Up"
John Hussman: Reversing the Speculative Effect of QE Overnight
'Ag-Gag' Bills, Property Rights, and Common Sense
Cliven Bundy-FBI debacle: Another example of why Feds need to be leashed
Leaping to Conclusions
Can Obama Control Syrian Outcomes?
Ron Paul: Iraq Collapse Shows Bankruptcy of Interventionism
The Dictatorial Power to Punish a Dictator
Mainstream Media Rule: Never Question the Warren Commission
From the IRS to the EPA?
Why Is No One Listening to the US Government?
The Phony Trade-off Between Privacy and Security
Jeffrey Tucker: The War Is On You
Fed Money Pumping Brings Results: The Affluent Society Returns
Ex-Black-Market Employee Believes Feds Only Woke A Monster