Maybe there's something I just don't understand. Maybe that's what the comments below are for. Maybe someone can inform me how in the hell this president can make an agreement with Iraq that will bind the next president's hands and force him or her to keep troops in Iraq. Because I just don't get it.
Can't the next president just order our troops out of Iraq? Who could stop him? Are the Iraqis going to build a massive border fence to keep us in? In America, it would take impeachment by a likely Democratic controlled House and Senate, right? That's not going to happen - especially with American public opinion on the issue where it is.
So what the hell is going on? Why is this an issue? Of course the next president can exit Iraq. This is the biggest nonissue ever.
Except for one thing. And this is the only thing I can think of. Is this cover for giving the next president an excuse to stay in Iraq? A piece of paper that the next president can point to and say "Fuck you, American public. I gotta follow this agreement." It seems like Clinton was playing her role nicely in the January 15th debate. Was she making a big deal about this so that in case she wins the presidency, she can do the bidding of her corporate masters while telling the American public that she tried to stop the war back when she was a candidate, but failed. So now she has to follow this bogus "agreement" and stay in Iraq? Cynical, I know, but it's the only thing I can think of.
It is the stuff like this that makes me think that some members of the Democratic Party are knowingly token opposition to the Republican (aka corporate) agenda. It makes me think that those of them that are receiving corporate cash are getting that cash to play their role of "token opposition" so the voters think they can change things at the polls, but instead, they get an opposition party that for some reason, just can't seem to win the legislative battles...