A rather eye-popping item on MSNBC today. Apparently France and Germany have refused to send "trainers" under NATO command to Baghdad (there are about 100 NATO trainers there, mostly Americans). The article states:
This has led Bush administration officials to renew their push for the elimination of so-called “national caveats” that allow the political leadership of individual NATO members to have direct control of their forces working under a NATO banner.
If my memory serves me correctly, there was a huge brouhaha during the Presidential campaign where Bush operatives alleged that Kerry supported possibly leaving US troops under command of multinational agencies. Yet the elimination of the "national caveats" now supported by the Bush administration would leave open that very possibility, EVEN IF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL LEADERSHIP OPPOSED IT!! Somebody care to explain how this isn't either blatant hypocrisy (it would apply to the French and Germans, but not to US forces) or a complete reversal of a position now that the election is over?
The link is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6939960/ under the heading "Issue over Control".
Originally posted by no1marauderTsk. You are so naieve nr1marauder.
A rather eye-popping item on MSNBC today. Apparently France and Germany have refused to send "trainers" under NATO command to Baghdad (there are about 100 NATO trainers there, mostly Americans). The article states:
This has led Bush administration officials to renew their push for the elimination of so-called “national caveats” that allow ...[text shortened]... r?
The link is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6939960/ under the heading "Issue over Control".
This isn't hypocrisy, this isn't a change of policy.
This is adapting to the ever changing circumstances in the world.
You should know better.
