Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

[MDlaxfan76]

Latest presser: Nice job BIden.....just dump it all on the military, expecting them to get it all done. After first pulling them out, then sending them back in, then have to work night and day to get them out by the 31st. As they have to turn people away........talk about mentally mind effing our soldiers.

Nice job leading the presser with a 3 Trillion Dollar spending deal, then talk about his boys at the G7 and UN are all cool with everything, then make it sound this effing debacle is just another day at the office. He's running scared of the Taliban.....UFB.

Who cut the deal with the Taliban and sent all of our guys home and told the Afghans to let all the Taliban prisoners out…. You want him to start another war? That will show them…

The treaty was FEB20,18 months ago, slick, nothing like waiting until the last minute, to eff over your own people.

youth, again, the 'team' you were riding effed it up royally...the only recourse for Biden would have been a re-escalation of the war, which he definitely wasn't going to do, having seen that such was fruitless in prior attempts.

There you go again with the partisan scoreboard card...worn out and childish.

So it seems you are no different than BIden, you too, would sit on a deadline for close to 18+ months, to only wait until the last minute to perform would should have been a calculated and precision exercise with contingencies, rather than what we witnessed with this frenetic and chaotic exercise that also ignored our allies, as noted in the treaty. Further more, mentally mind effing our military men and women...putting them in to yet another position of jeopardy, facing our own weapons this time, while adding another layer of mind effing stress they bring home. I would expect more from you, especially as you have shared your story of health over the years.

childish?

Biden has been in office 6 months, not 18 months. He didn't sign the treaty. He didn't ignore that the Taliban wasn't abiding by the treaty and try to accelerate departure even faster, with even less planning.

I've been clear, I thought that the original mistake was declaring a 100% departure from Afghanistan, and even worse giving a date certain. I thought ( but don't have the full analytical, intelligence insight) that a small international force could maintain a strategic foothold in Afghanistan, with a reasonably stable, if imperfect, government...I also thought, as Adm. Mullen points out (now), that any such could only succeed if corruption was rooted out and the gov't gained sufficient credibility and legitimacy.

I don't know whether that was ever actually going to work long term, and whether the costs would have been worth it, but that's what I thought.

But by the time Biden was elected, the situation on the ground was severely worse, and the odds of my preference being successfully resumed were far, far worse, given that the US had already made clear we weren't going to stay long term and the Taliban had moved strongly in the meanwhile. That ain't his fault, and it's clear that his assessment was that the departure was necessary, indeed consistent with his decade long instincts on Afghanistan.

It appears that our intelligence community largely thought that the fall of the government would take more time, we were not anticipating as rapid a fall, though we'd indeed told everyone to get out months ago (many ignored that warning). Nevertheless, we're executing a massive withdrawal pretty darn effectively at present, dwarfing what was done, for instance in the fall of Saigon.

There will be plenty to critique about this withdrawal, but I don't think it's at all partisan, much less childish, to look at the actual facts as to who was in charge at various points and the implications for the subsequent POTUS of the decisions made by his predecessors. That goes for Obama and Bush as well...decisions were made by each that had implications for their successors.

Was there a treaty ratified by congress? or an agreement in principle which Biden could have amended or broken? Trump was able to pull out of the Paris Climate Treaty, the Iran deal what are the differences?

Well sure, the 'treaty' was not 'binding' in that sense...it was simply an agreement between the two countries, and indeed the Taliban had already thoroughly broken their side. I'm not saying that Biden couldn't have amended the agreement (heck, he added four months) but rather that the horses had already left the barn by the time his Admin took over. No way to actually get them back in the barn, absent a massive, or at least major, escalation of forces, yet again.

Indeed, it was far more damaging to America's stature and credibility for future 'deals' and 'treaties' for Trump to dump Paris and Iran deals mid-stream, as it signified that our word is worthless with each change of Admin....in the Taliban situation it would have been easy to have demonstrated that the agreement had already been broken by the other party, whereas Paris and Iran were simply a new POTUS who declared he didn't think the deals were good ones in the first place. Not that that they had been breached by the other parties. Blowing America's future credibility up in smoke.

But, again, not the issue for Biden...very different situation, much different choices presented. He simply made the decision that, given the situation on the ground, staying was not going to be an option without a re-escalation, so might as well get it over with.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/24/politics ... index.html

Maybe the Americans don’t want to leave their spouses? Who knows…..

I'm sure there are thousands and thousands in that position

"Who knows"... seems accurate.

The embassy (State Department) do not require Americans to register upon arrival or departure so there is no official manifest of citizens in-country. This is the case in most, if not all countries around the world with possibly a few exceptions in very dangerous locations. It is likely that citizens looking to depart need to contact State Department or present themselves at the airport with passport documentation in order to be admitted and then flown out.

In a country where we're involved in war? Let's see, I'd like to travel to France or I'd like to travel to Afghanistan...what difference could there be?

If accurate, that seems like dumb policy... for obvious reasons we're now seeing.

It's not some sort of unique "policy", it's been a reality anywhere in the world, including hot zones. Specifically in Afghanistan it's been the reality for the 20 years of hot war.

Americans have their own individual rights of travel, conditioned only by the laws of the countries they visit, and often Americans don't care much about those either. It is the American government's responsibility only to advise them in their travel, which was clearly done in this instance...indeed, offering free travel out if needed was above and beyond what's actually US gov't responsibility, though obviously the right thing to do.

And note, the US, though each Admin, has relied heavily on private contractors and NGO's to do much of the actual heavy lifting on the ground in Afghanistan and other hot zones. So, lots and lots of folks, many, many thousands travel to and from these countries all the time, with no requirement to report each in and out to the US gov't.

[tech37]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/24/politics ... index.html

Maybe the Americans don’t want to leave their spouses? Who knows…..

I'm sure there are thousands and thousands in that position

"Who knows"... seems accurate.

The embassy (State Department) do not require Americans to register upon arrival or departure so there is no official manifest of citizens in-country. This is the case in most, if not all countries around the world with possibly a few exceptions in very dangerous locations. It is likely that citizens looking to depart need to contact State Department or present themselves at the airport with passport documentation in order to be admitted and then flown out.

In a country where we're involved in war? Let's see, I'd like to travel to France or I'd like to travel to Afghanistan...what difference could there be?

If accurate, that seems like dumb policy... for obvious reasons we're now seeing.

It's not some sort of unique "policy", it's been a reality anywhere in the world, including hot zones. Specifically in Afghanistan it's been the reality for the 20 years of hot war.

Americans have their own individual rights of travel, conditioned only by the laws of the countries they visit, and often Americans don't care much about those either. It is the American government's responsibility only to advise them in their travel, which was clearly done in this instance...indeed, offering free travel out if needed was above and beyond what's actually US gov't responsibility, though obviously the right thing to do.

And note, the US, though each Admin, has relied heavily on private contractors and NGO's to do much of the actual heavy lifting on the ground in Afghanistan and other hot zones. So, lots and lots of folks, many, many thousands travel to and from these countries all the time, with no requirement to report each in and out to the US gov't.

"If accurate, that seems like dumb policy... for obvious reasons we're now seeing."

[lagerhead]

Latest presser: Nice job BIden.....just dump it all on the military, expecting them to get it all done. After first pulling them out, then sending them back in, then have to work night and day to get them out by the 31st. As they have to turn people away........talk about mentally mind effing our soldiers.

Nice job leading the presser with a 3 Trillion Dollar spending deal, then talk about his boys at the G7 and UN are all cool with everything, then make it sound this effing debacle is just another day at the office. He's running scared of the Taliban.....UFB.

Who cut the deal with the Taliban and sent all of our guys home and told the Afghans to let all the Taliban prisoners out…. You want him to start another war? That will show them…

The treaty was FEB20,18 months ago, slick, nothing like waiting until the last minute, to eff over your own people.

youth, again, the 'team' you were riding effed it up royally...the only recourse for Biden would have been a re-escalation of the war, which he definitely wasn't going to do, having seen that such was fruitless in prior attempts.

There you go again with the partisan scoreboard card...worn out and childish.

So it seems you are no different than BIden, you too, would sit on a deadline for close to 18+ months, to only wait until the last minute to perform would should have been a calculated and precision exercise with contingencies, rather than what we witnessed with this frenetic and chaotic exercise that also ignored our allies, as noted in the treaty. Further more, mentally mind effing our military men and women...putting them in to yet another position of jeopardy, facing our own weapons this time, while adding another layer of mind effing stress they bring home. I would expect more from you, especially as you have shared your story of health over the years.

childish?

Biden has been in office 6 months, not 18 months. He didn't sign the treaty. He didn't ignore that the Taliban wasn't abiding by the treaty and try to accelerate departure even faster, with even less planning.

I've been clear, I thought that the original mistake was declaring a 100% departure from Afghanistan, and even worse giving a date certain. I thought ( but don't have the full analytical, intelligence insight) that a small international force could maintain a strategic foothold in Afghanistan, with a reasonably stable, if imperfect, government...I also thought, as Adm. Mullen points out (now), that any such could only succeed if corruption was rooted out and the gov't gained sufficient credibility and legitimacy.

I don't know whether that was ever actually going to work long term, and whether the costs would have been worth it, but that's what I thought.

But by the time Biden was elected, the situation on the ground was severely worse, and the odds of my preference being successfully resumed were far, far worse, given that the US had already made clear we weren't going to stay long term and the Taliban had moved strongly in the meanwhile. That ain't his fault, and it's clear that his assessment was that the departure was necessary, indeed consistent with his decade long instincts on Afghanistan.

It appears that our intelligence community largely thought that the fall of the government would take more time, we were not anticipating as rapid a fall, though we'd indeed told everyone to get out months ago (many ignored that warning). Nevertheless, we're executing a massive withdrawal pretty darn effectively at present, dwarfing what was done, for instance in the fall of Saigon.

There will be plenty to critique about this withdrawal, but I don't think it's at all partisan, much less childish, to look at the actual facts as to who was in charge at various points and the implications for the subsequent POTUS of the decisions made by his predecessors. That goes for Obama and Bush as well...decisions were made by each that had implications for their successors.

Was there a treaty ratified by congress? or an agreement in principle which Biden could have amended or broken? Trump was able to pull out of the Paris Climate Treaty, the Iran deal what are the differences?

Well sure, the 'treaty' was not 'binding' in that sense...it was simply an agreement between the two countries, and indeed the Taliban had already thoroughly broken their side. I'm not saying that Biden couldn't have amended the agreement (heck, he added four months) but rather that the horses had already left the barn by the time his Admin took over. No way to actually get them back in the barn, absent a massive, or at least major, escalation of forces, yet again.

Indeed, it was far more damaging to America's stature and credibility for future 'deals' and 'treaties' for Trump to dump Paris and Iran deals mid-stream, as it signified that our word is worthless with each change of Admin....in the Taliban situation it would have been easy to have demonstrated that the agreement had already been broken by the other party, whereas Paris and Iran were simply a new POTUS who declared he didn't think the deals were good ones in the first place. Not that that they had been breached by the other parties. Blowing America's future credibility up in smoke.

But, again, not the issue for Biden...very different situation, much different choices presented. He simply made the decision that, given the situation on the ground, staying was not going to be an option without a re-escalation, so might as well get it over with.

Isn't that the reason "Treaties" need to be ratified by congress? So by definition those policies could change at the whim of the current admin.

[MDlaxfan76]

Latest presser: Nice job BIden.....just dump it all on the military, expecting them to get it all done. After first pulling them out, then sending them back in, then have to work night and day to get them out by the 31st. As they have to turn people away........talk about mentally mind effing our soldiers.

Nice job leading the presser with a 3 Trillion Dollar spending deal, then talk about his boys at the G7 and UN are all cool with everything, then make it sound this effing debacle is just another day at the office. He's running scared of the Taliban.....UFB.

Who cut the deal with the Taliban and sent all of our guys home and told the Afghans to let all the Taliban prisoners out…. You want him to start another war? That will show them…

The treaty was FEB20,18 months ago, slick, nothing like waiting until the last minute, to eff over your own people.

youth, again, the 'team' you were riding effed it up royally...the only recourse for Biden would have been a re-escalation of the war, which he definitely wasn't going to do, having seen that such was fruitless in prior attempts.

There you go again with the partisan scoreboard card...worn out and childish.

So it seems you are no different than BIden, you too, would sit on a deadline for close to 18+ months, to only wait until the last minute to perform would should have been a calculated and precision exercise with contingencies, rather than what we witnessed with this frenetic and chaotic exercise that also ignored our allies, as noted in the treaty. Further more, mentally mind effing our military men and women...putting them in to yet another position of jeopardy, facing our own weapons this time, while adding another layer of mind effing stress they bring home. I would expect more from you, especially as you have shared your story of health over the years.

childish?

Biden has been in office 6 months, not 18 months. He didn't sign the treaty. He didn't ignore that the Taliban wasn't abiding by the treaty and try to accelerate departure even faster, with even less planning.

I've been clear, I thought that the original mistake was declaring a 100% departure from Afghanistan, and even worse giving a date certain. I thought ( but don't have the full analytical, intelligence insight) that a small international force could maintain a strategic foothold in Afghanistan, with a reasonably stable, if imperfect, government...I also thought, as Adm. Mullen points out (now), that any such could only succeed if corruption was rooted out and the gov't gained sufficient credibility and legitimacy.

I don't know whether that was ever actually going to work long term, and whether the costs would have been worth it, but that's what I thought.

But by the time Biden was elected, the situation on the ground was severely worse, and the odds of my preference being successfully resumed were far, far worse, given that the US had already made clear we weren't going to stay long term and the Taliban had moved strongly in the meanwhile. That ain't his fault, and it's clear that his assessment was that the departure was necessary, indeed consistent with his decade long instincts on Afghanistan.

It appears that our intelligence community largely thought that the fall of the government would take more time, we were not anticipating as rapid a fall, though we'd indeed told everyone to get out months ago (many ignored that warning). Nevertheless, we're executing a massive withdrawal pretty darn effectively at present, dwarfing what was done, for instance in the fall of Saigon.

There will be plenty to critique about this withdrawal, but I don't think it's at all partisan, much less childish, to look at the actual facts as to who was in charge at various points and the implications for the subsequent POTUS of the decisions made by his predecessors. That goes for Obama and Bush as well...decisions were made by each that had implications for their successors.

You blame Trump at every turn, childish.....yes. The 18th month portion is fact, regardless of party in the office. Why did the Biden admin wait until the past minute, why no contingency plans, why scramble and eff our military men and women again. why lie to the public as called out by those on MTP this past Sunday, why screw our allies in the process. And Biden is suppose to be the smartest person in the room on Afghanistan, so he claimed...was he not sitting in the room with BHO for 8 years during all of this and learned absolutely nothing?

We all agree (for the most part) that getting the hell outta there was long overdue and the correct choice. Even BHO promised this by close of 2014.
All we can do now is pray for those involved...otherwise we have to compartmentalize the tragedy of this recent exercise.
And no, I am not blaming BHO at all for this.

What aspect of this don't you get? I cited all four Admins as being responsible.
But, yes, Trump screwed the pooch royally on this one, purposely leaving Biden with an untenable position. And yes, Biden's view on this untenable situation was clearly shaped by his tenure as VP when the surge under Obama clearly failed to really change the landscape. He wasn't going to do that again. He hadn't supported it the first time, and he'd been proven correct. No way he was going order a new surge from an even weaker position.

But this should have ended in 2003 when the Taliban offered an unconditional surrender, and Bin Laden in Pakistan. We should have stepped back at that point, with sword clearly having been demonstrated and ready to use again if terrorist camps were allowed to again thrive.

And then at virtually every point thereafter, we got ourselves more deeply mired in the mess...plenty of fault to go around, no partisan aspect need be implied.

But yes, Trump's gross incompetence in his dealings with the Taliban set the stage for this withdrawal to be met with a well prepared and organized Taliban move to step swiftly into power, facing nearly no resistance. And Trump's refusal to allow visas to Afghans who had fought or interpreted beside us and the gutting of the State Dept set the stage for many Afghan allies to be left behind...but note, far less than in the fall of Saigon.

It's not 'partisan' to point out these prior errors by various Admins. Trump's were simply the most recent and had the most impact on the situation Biden faced.

[MDlaxfan76]

Latest presser: Nice job BIden.....just dump it all on the military, expecting them to get it all done. After first pulling them out, then sending them back in, then have to work night and day to get them out by the 31st. As they have to turn people away........talk about mentally mind effing our soldiers.

Nice job leading the presser with a 3 Trillion Dollar spending deal, then talk about his boys at the G7 and UN are all cool with everything, then make it sound this effing debacle is just another day at the office. He's running scared of the Taliban.....UFB.

Who cut the deal with the Taliban and sent all of our guys home and told the Afghans to let all the Taliban prisoners out…. You want him to start another war? That will show them…

The treaty was FEB20,18 months ago, slick, nothing like waiting until the last minute, to eff over your own people.

youth, again, the 'team' you were riding effed it up royally...the only recourse for Biden would have been a re-escalation of the war, which he definitely wasn't going to do, having seen that such was fruitless in prior attempts.

There you go again with the partisan scoreboard card...worn out and childish.

So it seems you are no different than BIden, you too, would sit on a deadline for close to 18+ months, to only wait until the last minute to perform would should have been a calculated and precision exercise with contingencies, rather than what we witnessed with this frenetic and chaotic exercise that also ignored our allies, as noted in the treaty. Further more, mentally mind effing our military men and women...putting them in to yet another position of jeopardy, facing our own weapons this time, while adding another layer of mind effing stress they bring home. I would expect more from you, especially as you have shared your story of health over the years.

childish?

Biden has been in office 6 months, not 18 months. He didn't sign the treaty. He didn't ignore that the Taliban wasn't abiding by the treaty and try to accelerate departure even faster, with even less planning.

I've been clear, I thought that the original mistake was declaring a 100% departure from Afghanistan, and even worse giving a date certain. I thought ( but don't have the full analytical, intelligence insight) that a small international force could maintain a strategic foothold in Afghanistan, with a reasonably stable, if imperfect, government...I also thought, as Adm. Mullen points out (now), that any such could only succeed if corruption was rooted out and the gov't gained sufficient credibility and legitimacy.

I don't know whether that was ever actually going to work long term, and whether the costs would have been worth it, but that's what I thought.

But by the time Biden was elected, the situation on the ground was severely worse, and the odds of my preference being successfully resumed were far, far worse, given that the US had already made clear we weren't going to stay long term and the Taliban had moved strongly in the meanwhile. That ain't his fault, and it's clear that his assessment was that the departure was necessary, indeed consistent with his decade long instincts on Afghanistan.

It appears that our intelligence community largely thought that the fall of the government would take more time, we were not anticipating as rapid a fall, though we'd indeed told everyone to get out months ago (many ignored that warning). Nevertheless, we're executing a massive withdrawal pretty darn effectively at present, dwarfing what was done, for instance in the fall of Saigon.

There will be plenty to critique about this withdrawal, but I don't think it's at all partisan, much less childish, to look at the actual facts as to who was in charge at various points and the implications for the subsequent POTUS of the decisions made by his predecessors. That goes for Obama and Bush as well...decisions were made by each that had implications for their successors.

Was there a treaty ratified by congress? or an agreement in principle which Biden could have amended or broken? Trump was able to pull out of the Paris Climate Treaty, the Iran deal what are the differences?

Well sure, the 'treaty' was not 'binding' in that sense...it was simply an agreement between the two countries, and indeed the Taliban had already thoroughly broken their side. I'm not saying that Biden couldn't have amended the agreement (heck, he added four months) but rather that the horses had already left the barn by the time his Admin took over. No way to actually get them back in the barn, absent a massive, or at least major, escalation of forces, yet again.

Indeed, it was far more damaging to America's stature and credibility for future 'deals' and 'treaties' for Trump to dump Paris and Iran deals mid-stream, as it signified that our word is worthless with each change of Admin....in the Taliban situation it would have been easy to have demonstrated that the agreement had already been broken by the other party, whereas Paris and Iran were simply a new POTUS who declared he didn't think the deals were good ones in the first place. Not that that they had been breached by the other parties. Blowing America's future credibility up in smoke.

But, again, not the issue for Biden...very different situation, much different choices presented. He simply made the decision that, given the situation on the ground, staying was not going to be an option without a re-escalation, so might as well get it over with.

Isn't that the reason "Treaties" need to be ratified by congress? So by definition those policies could change at the whim of the current admin.

Yes, that's why it's very, very desirable to get treaties ratified...though let's be clear, nothing ever was going to be ratified, no matter how beneficial, by the GOP Senate. That's our current state of reality in the US. It's one thing to have partisan disagreement on domestic policy, but it's a new situation to have a party so adamantly opposed to the party in power that they will not support it in foreign affairs. Usually there's crossover support...but the effects of polarization have created a new reality.

So, that's what the world sees, a situation in which a change of Admin means that all bets are off on foreign affairs, prior commitments...but that was a choice under Trump...he could have said, "I don't like these agreements, I'd like to see them amended" and lobbied internationally for such (and thus communicated that America's commitments can be relied upon), but instead he simply took a meat cleaver to our credibility, withdrawing from them despite compliance by the other parties...

That was a choice. Dumb choice. Egotistical, bully choice.

[old salt]

August 24, 2021
Heather Cox Richardson
Aug 25

News broke today that the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, William J. Burns, met secretly on Monday in Kabul with a Taliban leader, Abdul Ghani Baradar, to discuss the continuing evacuation efforts. Regardless of what they discussed, it seems to me a sign that the U.S. feels secure enough about the safety of Kabul to risk sending the country’s top spy there for a parley.

Although no Americans have yet been hurt in the evacuation, that state of affairs is precarious. Threats of an attack on the Kabul airport from ISIS-K, which would like to destabilize the Taliban before it cements its power, continue to loom.

Heather is in so far over her head...
Sending DCI Burns to share intel on ISIS-K with the Taliban is an indication of how insecure both the US & the Taliban are about the situation at HKIA & is why both seem committed to end the airlift & get the US military out by 31Aug, before ISIS-K can pull off a terrorist attack in Kabul.

[old salt]

Nevertheless, we're executing a massive withdrawal pretty darn effectively at present...

...mitigating, in a small way, the damage done by a colossal misjudgment. Dumbkirk. ...& we're not out yet.

[MDlaxfan76]

Nevertheless, we're executing a massive withdrawal pretty darn effectively at present...

...mitigating, in a small way, the damage done by a colossal misjudgment. Dumbkirk. ...& we're not out yet.

The colossal misjudgment IMO was not stepping back in 2003 when the Taliban offered an unconditional surrender and OBL had already fled to Pakistan...they knew our capabilities to strike if threatened, but instead we became the foreign invader/intruder.

A number of well meaning, but flawed attempts were made over a long period of time...misjudgments for sure.

The most recent colossal misjudgment, IMO, was not this move, but rather the Trump Admin incompetence and egotism, and nativism. Set this trauma up in a way that may have been unavoidably messy.

But sure the Biden Admin stumbled as well....but it sure looks like this is an enormously more successful withdraw than our experience leaving Vietnam, the last such we've engaged in.

[old salt]

But sure the Biden Admin stumbled as well....but it sure looks like this is an enormously more successful withdraw than our experience leaving Vietnam, the last such we've engaged in.

...almost as successful as our withdrawal from Iraq in 2011.

The colossal misjudgment IMO was not stepping back in 2003 when the Taliban offered an unconditional surrender and OBL had already fled to Pakistan

Then, with no ground intell network, we would have tracked down OBL at Abbotabad in 2011 & launched a raid to get him from Kuwait.

[old salt]

Apparently Pakistan is allowing refugees to transit. Just saw video of a South Korean C-130 offloading refugees in Islamabad. That's a short hop from Kabul. C-130's could evac a lot of refugees to/thru Pakistan, if allowed.

Also saw video of refugees inside a commercial airliner enroute to India.

[kramerica.inc]

ISIS Branch Poses Biggest Immediate Terror Threat to Evacuation in Kabul

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/is ... entnewsntp

“Afghanistan has now become the Las Vegas of the terrorists, of the radicals and of the extremists,” said Ali Mohammad Ali, a former Afghan security official. “People all over the world, radicals and extremists, are chanting, celebrating the Taliban victory. This is paving the way for other extremists to come to Afghanistan.”

[Typical Lax Dad]

ISIS Branch Poses Biggest Immediate Terror Threat to Evacuation in Kabul

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/is ... entnewsntp

“Afghanistan has now become the Las Vegas of the terrorists, of the radicals and of the extremists,” said Ali Mohammad Ali, a former Afghan security official. “People all over the world, radicals and extremists, are chanting, celebrating the Taliban victory. This is paving the way for other extremists to come to Afghanistan.”

We should send troops in.

[tech37]

Interesting Twitter thread from G Greenwald:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

[tech37]

https://babylonbee.com/news/bidens-gues ... a-question

[youthathletics]

https://babylonbee.com/news/bidens-gues ... a-question

[MDlaxfan76]

But sure the Biden Admin stumbled as well....but it sure looks like this is an enormously more successful withdraw than our experience leaving Vietnam, the last such we've engaged in.

...almost as successful as our withdrawal from Iraq in 2011.

The colossal misjudgment IMO was not stepping back in 2003 when the Taliban offered an unconditional surrender and OBL had already fled to Pakistan

Then, with no ground intell network, we would have tracked down OBL at Abbotabad in 2011 & launched a raid to get him from Kuwait.

Are you saying that our "ground network" from Afghanistan is what found OBL nearly a decade after he'd fled? And we'd not have been able to do so had we not been in Afghanistan?

BTW, I'm not so sure a raid was really the best way to take out OBL, though it obviously succeeded and was satisfying.

[jhu72]

Interesting Twitter thread from G Greenwald:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

... don't often agree with GG, but he is right about there being tremendous hypocrisy across the entire media spectrum on this issue.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting Twitter thread from G Greenwald:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

... don't often agree with GG, but he is right about there being tremendous hypocrisy across the entire media spectrum on this issue.

I still don't like his supercilious tone, though some truth in his various accusations...as is often the case with him. But he exaggerates way too much for me to be willing to consider his commentary as reasonable.

[jhu72]

Interesting Twitter thread from G Greenwald:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1 ... gr%5Etweet

... don't often agree with GG, but he is right about there being tremendous hypocrisy across the entire media spectrum on this issue.

I still don't like his supercilious tone, though some truth in his various accusations...as is often the case with him. But he exaggerates way too much for me to be willing to consider his commentary as reasonable.

... blind squirrel effect. Supercilious is definitely the word to describe him.