It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush should not bind the next president's hands

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Bush should not bind the next president's hands


www.iht.com

President George W. Bush is discussing a new agreement with Baghdad that would govern the deployment of American troops in Iraq. With so many Americans adamant about bringing U.S. forces home as soon as possible, a sentiment we strongly share, Bush must not be allowed to tie the hands of his successor and ensure America's continued involvement in an open-ended war.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iraq forces could control all provinces this year: U.S.




posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
We are being legally bound to a continued occupation of Iraq...All I can say is wow, what a bunch of crap.

There is no reason we should be obligated to do anything, especially our whole freaking military force. What happens if we are attacked at home?

'Oops, sorry America, we signed a pact with the Iraqis so we can't defend you. Our bad.'


The White House and the Iraqi government decided in December to pursue the pact as a way to define long-term relations between the two countries, including the legal status of American military forces in Iraq. The ostensible goal is a more durable political, economic and security relationship than is possible under a UN resolution, the current international legal basis for the American military presence in Iraq.




Formal negotiations won't start until February, but already the two sides are laying down markers. The Iraqi defense minister, Abdul Qadir - The New York Times' Thom Shanker that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012 or be able to defend its own borders from external threat at least until 2018.


We're essentially stuck there till 2012 or longer.

A US General recently said that Iraqi forces could be in control of the whole country by year's end.

Which story should we believe? A politician or a military general who is actually in Iraq?

We need to get our people home, now.

www.iht.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Pardon my demeanor, but screw the next President, Bush is tying all our hands!

We're gonna be paying for this clown's warrin' for generations, we should live that long.

Meanwhile he and Uncle Dick will be sippin' margaritas and snortin' blow down on the ranch in extradition-treaty-free Paraguay.

Ain't life grand when you dance to the tune the elites are playing?

[edit on 20-1-2008 by goosdawg]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
OOoooo a reason for president Hillary to stay in Iraq without breaking her ``promise`` to be ``anti-war`` when she's clearly not. So Hillary won't have to show her true side? Bush will do everything he can so Hillary will just have to say that the US gave commitment to Iraq and cannot take it back or it would harm US image or something like that.

This is just getting better everyday.


No seriously elect Ron Paul which will withdraw the troops in a matters of DAYS.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Vitchilo,

I never even thought about that scenario, but it makes complete sense.

She can seem as anti-war as she wants to; However if there's a 'law' in place saying that she has to comply with Bush's wishes...Well clearly our Constitutional Republic is no more.



new topics

top topics
 
5

log in

join