“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:
Corporate Bonds Are The IEDs Of Monetary Central Planning
Glenn Greenwald: Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann: accountability for prosecutorial abuse
'King Would've Marched on Obama'
Argentina offers tax amnesty to head off devaluation
Michael Scheuer: U.S. leaders’ fingerprints are on the detonators
Silver Set to Double, According to… Apple?
Lance Armstrong and Kim Dotcom ... Guilty Until Proven Innocent?
Trump’s Ten Lies: A Response to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Speech
Justin Raimondo: Is America a Free Country?
The Paul Ryan Record – Not as Fiscally Conservative as You Think
Obama’s Drones – Coming to a Window Near You
End the Wars to Halt the Refugee Crisis
Isn't It High Time We Legalize Marijuana?
No, The Trump Travel Ban Wouldn't Have Prevented 9/11
Free Speech Limits to Fight ISIS Pose a Greater Threat Than ISIS
