[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I honestly can't figure out why anyone who is isn't either Russian or paid to stooge for them would buy into that argument. The idea of the U.S. being obligated to abide forever by a verbal promise made by one Administration - which is actually a greater obligation than that imposed by written treaties that are ratified by the Senate - just jaw dropping.

I can't think of a single other historical example of anyone even trying to make that argument before. When Dubya refused to abide by the terms of the Kyoto Protocols signed by Clinton, nobody said "you can't do that.". When Trump rejected the Paris Agreements signed by Obama, nobody said "you have to abide by it because Obama promised." But now, we have all these people coming out of the woodwork to say the nation is bound forever by a verbal promise made by the Bush Administration in 1990.

It's just weird.

[alexander_busek]

But now, we have all these people coming out of the woodwork to say [...]

You said it: "Coming out of the woodwork."

I can't think of a more-succinct explanation.

Regards,

[AndyJackson]

What’s even weirder are all the people crawling out of the woodwork thinking that there was any good god-damned reason to expand NATO at all. It wasn’t “defense” but NWO imperialist offense.