Taliban reclaims Afghanistan

[NattyBohChamps04]

He shouldn't have been negotiating with the Taliban in the first place. But here we are.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This never gets old

[Typical Lax Dad]

[Typical Lax Dad]

We supported the Taliban. No if ands or buts.

[old salt]

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-harsh-les ... tauth_pos2
OPINION
Europeans’ Harsh Lesson in the Afghanistan Withdrawal Report
They thought Biden would be a steadier hand in foreign affairs. What a costly miscalculation.
by Joseph C. Sternberg, Sept. 12, 2024

Most European politicians (and, if we’re honest, many European citizens) breathed a sigh of relief when Joe Biden was elected president in 2020. They’re hoping for a Kamala Harris win in November, too. The mystery is why. It’s all the more puzzling in light of this week’s U.S. House report on Mr. Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal.

That 350-page policy postmortem from the Foreign Affairs Committee lays out in detail how a headstrong Mr. Biden, apparently with at least tacit support from Ms. Harris, forced his will on deeply skeptical advisers, diplomats and military officials. Everyone told Mr. Biden that a total U.S. withdrawal in August 2021 would be a bad idea. He ordered it anyway. Chaos, and the deaths of 13 American service members, ensued.

This has become a domestic political story in America, and rightly so. But credit committee chairman Michael McCaul for also highlighting the international dimension. This disaster leaves scars in Europe, too.

From the beginning of the war on terror, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization participated in the effort to secure Afghanistan and suppress terrorism there. At the height of the mission, in 2011, more than 130,000 troops from dozens of NATO allies and partners were stationed in Afghanistan, of whom around 100,000 were American. At the time of the withdrawal a decade later, around 7,000 troops from 35 countries were involved alongside the 2,500 remaining Americans.

These allies invested their blood in the mission, as 1,144 non-U.S. NATO troops were killed alongside 2,465 Americans. They also sacrificed considerable treasure—billions upon billions of dollars trying to build a civil society with hospitals, schools (including for girls) and democratic institutions that would be overrun by the Taliban in 2021.

Leading NATO partners believed the Biden-Harris withdrawal was a mistake from the start. In 2020 the Trump administration had attempted to negotiate a deal with the Taliban, which the Taliban never honored. “Withdrawal under these circumstances would be perceived as a strategic victory for the Taliban, which would weaken the Alliance and embolden extremists the world over,” the House report quotes Gen. Nicholas Carter, then chief of the U.K. defense staff, as warning in January 2021. At a March meeting of NATO foreign secretaries, Secretary of State Antony Blinken faced opposition to the administration’s withdrawal plan from his British, German and Italian counterparts, the House report observes.

Mr. Biden pressed ahead, and his decision was a disaster for those allies. Caught unprepared when the moment arrived, NATO partners struggled to evacuate their troops, citizens and Afghan allies as the country fell to the Taliban. They then had to explain to their electorates that two decades of military engagement and foreign-aid largess had come to nothing.

It gets worse, as Europe has borne the brunt of the withdrawal’s baleful consequences. The Biden administration’s show of weakness probably encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine less than a year later, Europe’s largest land war since 1945 and the catalyst for an energy crisis still shaking the Continent.

Then there’s the terrorism. The House report warns that individuals with alleged ties to ISIS-K, Islamic State’s Afghan offshoot, have smuggled themselves across America’s southern border. Such terrorists are in Europe, too, and already acting.

ISIS-K claimed responsibility for the attack in Moscow in March that left dozens dead at the Crocus City Hall concert venue. Officials in Berlin warned the group may be plotting attacks in Germany, and ISIS claimed responsibility for the knife attack in the city of Solingen in August. At least one of the people accused of plotting an attack on a Taylor Swift concert in Austria is alleged to have pledged allegiance to ISIS; his lawyer has described the claims as “exaggerated.” It’s likely that Afghanistan has become a breeding ground for the Central Asian terrorism now arriving in Europe.

European leaders hate Donald Trump, both because they dislike the populist aesthetics of his politics and because they recognize that he doesn’t respect them. They expected Mr. Biden, an old hand in Washington’s foreign-policy establishment, to be more eager to cultivate alliances and more willing to cater to Europeans’ many and varied opinions, dysfunctions and neuroses.

Talk about a miscalculation. One lesson for Europe is that the Continent must be better able to provide for its own defense, and ramped-up military expenditures since 2022 suggest this point finally is sinking in. This is much to the good both of Europe and the U.S.

The other lesson is that Europe must be warier of America’s willingness and ability to work with allies under either a Democratic or a Republican administration, given the isolationist temper of the times in the U.S. This will be good for no one in an ever more dangerous world, and may come to be viewed as the greatest of the many foreign-policy failures of the Biden-Harris era.

[a fan]

These allies invested their blood in the mission, as 1,144 non-U.S. NATO troops were killed alongside 2,465 Americans. They also sacrificed considerable treasure—billions upon billions of dollars trying to build a civil society with hospitals, schools (including for girls) and democratic institutions that would be overrun by the Taliban in 2021.

We invaded to get OBL. We got him. Now these idiots are telling us that we failed to succeed in a mission invented from Whole Cloth.

Mission creep. Same as always, and you and your military wonk pals act shocked...shocked!....that the idiots in charge ALWAYS move the goalposts when we do this stuff. We were there to get OBL. Period. But because you guys think it makes perfect sense to have hundreds of military bases all over Earth beacuse you think war is the answer to every question, we stayed there for an absurd 20 freaking years....and you wanted to stay forever.

And I like that the WSJ thinks that NATO troops were metaphysically incapable of staying in Afghanistan. No one made them leave.

Yet the WSJ-----and you, of course, are claiming that Biden made NATO leave. Nope. They can do as they please. They CHOSE to bail. That's on NATO. But nope, you don't want to hear that, because Dems are bad.

The Biden administration’s show of weakness probably encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine less than a year later, Europe’s largest land war since 1945 and the catalyst for an energy crisis still shaking the Continent.

Not true. The reason Putin invaded is that we had a woman VP in America.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yep



Could you imagine these goons had Biden kept troops in and we had soldiers being killed every year? Trump got us out but Biden kept us in!!!

[cradleandshoot]

These allies invested their blood in the mission, as 1,144 non-U.S. NATO troops were killed alongside 2,465 Americans. They also sacrificed considerable treasure—billions upon billions of dollars trying to build a civil society with hospitals, schools (including for girls) and democratic institutions that would be overrun by the Taliban in 2021.

We invaded to get OBL. We got him. Now these idiots are telling us that we failed to succeed in a mission invented from Whole Cloth.

Mission creep. Same as always, and you and your military wonk pals act shocked...shocked!....that the idiots in charge ALWAYS move the goalposts when we do this stuff. We were there to get OBL. Period. But because you guys think it makes perfect sense to have hundreds of military bases all over Earth beacuse you think war is the answer to every question, we stayed there for an absurd 20 freaking years....and you wanted to stay forever.

And I like that the WSJ thinks that NATO troops were metaphysically incapable of staying in Afghanistan. No one made them leave.

Yet the WSJ-----and you, of course, are claiming that Biden made NATO leave. Nope. They can do as they please. They CHOSE to bail. That's on NATO. But nope, you don't want to hear that, because Dems are bad.

The Biden administration’s show of weakness probably encouraged Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine less than a year later, Europe’s largest land war since 1945 and the catalyst for an energy crisis still shaking the Continent.

Not true. The reason Putin invaded is that we had a woman VP in America.

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

[a fan]

Yep



Could you imagine these goons had Biden kept troops in and we had soldiers being killed every year? Trump got us out but Biden kept us in!!!

This is OS's game, over and over and over.....no matter what, Dems are doing it wrong. If they go left, he's on here telling us they should have gone right. If they go right, they should have gone left.

And he thinks it's some strange coincidence that in 12 years of foreign policy, Obama/Biden haven't done even one thing right......and Trump drew an inside straight of perfection of foreign policy, which is amazing since his own Generals told the world that they had no idea what many of his policies were from day to day. Neat-0. Xmas miracle!

He'd be laughed out of the Grad school seminar, with a FAIL for the course if he tried to pull this nonsense in any good Grad school.

[a fan]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

[NattyBohChamps04]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

You were just complaining a few minutes ago in another thread that we shouldn't tell our enemies our plans. What is it, should we broadcast our plans to the world, or keep them under wraps?

I will say this for the 100th time a strategic withdrawal is something you accomplish on your own schedule. Telling the world you will leave by such and such a date is foolish. What you tell the world is we will leave at a time and in a manner of our own choosing.

Link: viewtopic.php?p=580611#p580611

[cradleandshoot]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot. I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

[a fan]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

[cradleandshoot]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cfr.org/election2024/candid ... e-and-nato

Defense and NATO

Harris has positioned herself as a strong supporter of multilateral cooperation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). She has emphasized the U.S. commitment to Ukraine and furthered U.S. space policy as chair of the White House National Space Council.

The Biden-Harris administration’s 2022 National Security Strategy [PDF] broadly maintained the Trump administration’s focus on great-power competition with China and Russia. Harris has pledged to ensure the United States “always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

At the Munich Security Conference in 2024, Harris reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO, calling it the “greatest military alliance the world has ever known.” Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Biden-Harris administration supported NATO enlargement by pushing for approval of Finland’s and Sweden’s accession bids. (The countries joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively.)

The Biden-Harris administration also formulated an updated Indo-Pacific Strategy [PDF], which pledges to support “a free and open Indo-Pacific.” To that end, the United States has inked a new defense pact with Papua New Guinea and advanced an existing defense agreement with the Philippines. The Biden-Harris administration has also deepened security cooperation with Japan and South Korea, and it held the inaugural in-person summit of the so-called Quad—an alliance comprising the United States, Australia, India, and Japan—which aims to counter China in the Indo-Pacific.

The administration announced a new trilateral pact with Australia and the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, that seeks to bolster the countries’ allied deterrence and defense capabilities against China, including by supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines.

Harris has called for greater involvement with Africa, and in 2023, led a weeklong trip to the continent. In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration published a new Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa [PDF] that emphasizes democracy protection, economic development, and the clean energy transition; that same year, a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit produced commitments to increase U.S. military aid and training for African governments.

Harris chairs the White House’s National Space Council, which advises the president on space policy and strategy. In 2022, she announced the U.S. commitment to halt anti-satellite weapons tests, which create dangerous atmospheric debris. She has also overseen a large increase in the number of signatories to the Artemis Accords, a global agreement governing space-related activity.

She said she agreed with President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. The Biden-Harris administration withdrew all remaining U.S. troops from the country in August 2021 as part of an earlier deal struck by Trump.

She also told CFR that she would consider some sanctions relief to improve life for North Koreans in exchange for Pyongyang taking “serious, verifiable steps” to denuclearize.
As a senator, Harris voted against reauthorizing parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because it did not require warrants for the government to access U.S. citizens’ information.

[MDlaxfan76]

Hopefully our present VP has a plan for how to deal with Putin. I'm sure Putin has a plan for how he will deal with her as POTUS. If Kamala has a plan in the works she is keeping it a secret. I'm not even sure if anyone in the MM has even asked her about it. For that matter she hasn't said boo yet about what direction her foreign policy might be. I wonder why the usual suspects on this forum don't seem to be concerned about it. The usual suspects hate trump so much they just don't care.

Trump is slated to win, Cradle. Do you not recognize that Trump hasn't spelled out his plan, either?

Where's your annoyance with Trump not telling us what he'll do? Or does only Kamala have to lay out a plan, and Trump gets a pass?

Why try and change the discussion? Since I highly doubt that trump will win seeing how he is looking like an idiot.

I'm not changing it, I'm asking you why Kamala has to have a plan, and Trump doesn't. Most polls have him winning, btw. So if this issue is important to you, shouldn't you be asking both candidates the same questions?

I'm going under the premise that Harris is going to win. So why don't you take a stab at what her foreign policy might look like? She sure hasn't attempted to do so yet. I'm sure that matters to some of her Democratic supporters. Do you think there are any number of bad actors in the world that are wondering as well? Being perceived as weak on the world stage is not a good thing. Do you think it is important that Harris puts forth a clear position as to what her foreign policy might look like? As of today Americans have no clue. trump really sucks is not a long term theme for running your campaign. Who knows, maybe it is all the theme that Kamala needs to present to the American people. All of those other little details she can make up as she goes along. I mean after all...details are just pesky little things.

Again: why are you not asking the same question of both Trump and Kamala.

As for "pecieved as being weak", this has been the game played by Conservatives for decades: they ALWAYS think Dems are weak. And this is based on nonsense. Every single Dem POTUS has killed thousands of people by their command. We've been at war in some form or another nonstop since WWII. I think our "tough guy" credentials are intact.

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years. Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

Cradle, this is simply flat wrong.

You just haven't been following her speeches, debate and interviews.

(see above post by TLD as well)

She has made a repeated point of saying that she believes in maintaining the most lethal fighting force in the world. Emphasis on word lethal very much on purpose and emphasized.

She has been super clear on support of NATO and the fight of Ukraine against Russian aggression and she's certainly not minced words about Putin, indeed quite the opposite. Indeed, her 'values' are pretty darn clear with regard to authoritarianism of various stripes as well as aggressor expansionism.

She's been strong, but nuanced, about China and its expansionism, quite in the mold of the view that economic competition, and indeed industrial competitive policy, is the best path to win that competition. BTW, we're now very much winning that competition having fallen backwards during the Trump years, but way, way better post Covid and the Biden Admin's more muscular industrial policy (Chips, infrastructure, targeted tech tariffs) so this is a solid perspective for now. She's spoken directly on that view showing pretty sound understanding of those dynamics. Not bluster, but concrete action that's targeted on winning not demonizing.

She's been considerably more critical publicly of Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing's approach to Palestinians, whether Gaza or West Bank, while also very clear about the defense of Israel in a neighborhood full of challenges. She's been clear eyed on Iran, though has spoken less on that topic beyond making clear that Israel's defense will be supported versus Iranian proxies. On the other hand, she's quite clearly in the two state solution camp, directly in opposition to the current ruling politicians in Israel.

In a more global sense, we can certainly see her being a fully engaged internationalist, seeing America's role in the world as a leader among cooperating partners to be essential to withstanding nationalist authoritarianism tendencies that exist without such bulwark.

I think we don't of course know how any President will decide issues in a crisis, however we can fully expect her to actually read her daily brief, ask tough questions, and decide carefully to protect American interests and values come crunch time. She'll be well read and prepared on all serious issues, not a seat of the pants decision maker who thinks she knows better than everyone else. We also hear that she wants differing perspectives in the room, not just those which validate her views. David Ignatius calls her style of decision making "measure twice cut once", which certainly seems prudent to me, especially on international matters.

So, while I would say that we also know quite a lot about how Trump makes decisions and what some of his stated views of world affairs and things he'd like to do, which look to me as hugely disastrous for American interests and of our allies, though in Trump's case I wouldn't say his worldview is much more than feral instincts and subject to complete reversals on a whim, it's completely wrong that we don't know a lot about where Harris would lead on international affairs. We do. But it requires actually listening to her.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna763156

[Typical Lax Dad]

[a fan]

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years.

No. We don't. Trump is intentionally vague on purpose. We have NO CLUE what he'll do, particularly with Ukraine.

Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

I personally don't care. It's not our job to patrol the Red Sea. But Biden has been hitting Yemen targets (see below).

More to your point, since you think the US is directly responsible for every terrorist act on the globe....would you like the list of things that were hit under Trump? it's a long list.

Again, this is the Republican game: insist Dem Presidents are weak. Naturally, you get a different song when it comes to Biden sticking it to Putin in Ukraine. How's that "Biden is weak" working out for Putin, cradle?

You're not keeping score properly, my friend. Don't buy the Republican BS.

Here's just Biden's missile strikes in Yemen. Are you missing that this is happening:

As of 2 May, the Houthis recorded 452 American and British airstrikes against its sites in Yemen, resulting in 40 deaths and 35 injuries.[11]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_miss ... s_in_Yemen

[Typical Lax Dad]

Kamala has thrown out several domestic policies. There has not been a peep from her campaign about foreign policy. We already have an idea about what trump will do foreign policy wise based on his first 4 years.

No. We don't. Trump is intentionally vague on purpose. We have NO CLUE what he'll do, particularly with Ukraine.

Our tough guy image has a huge black eye my good man. Why do you think the hooties are launching missiles at shipping in the Red Sea as they damn well please? Easy answer is because they can and the USA tough guy that we are can't stop them.

I personally don't care. It's not our job to patrol the Red Sea. But Biden has been hitting Yemen targets (see below).

More to your point, since you think the US is directly responsible for every terrorist act on the globe....would you like the list of things that were hit under Trump? it's a long list.

Again, this is the Republican game: insist Dem Presidents are weak. Naturally, you get a different song when it comes to Biden sticking it to Putin in Ukraine. How's that "Biden is weak" working out for Putin, cradle?

You're not keeping score properly, my friend. Don't buy the Republican BS.

Here's just Biden's missile strikes in Yemen. Are you missing that this is happening:

As of 2 May, the Houthis recorded 452 American and British airstrikes against its sites in Yemen, resulting in 40 deaths and 35 injuries.[11]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_miss ... s_in_Yemen

He doesn’t read. He told the board that.