JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[PizzaSnake]

Vindication and the Fall of Kabul

By Josh Marshall
|
August 15, 2021 8:56 a.m.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/vi ... l-of-kabul

Weak sauce. Where to begin ?
What we have seen over the last couple weeks shows decisively and irrefutably that the entire politico-military project in Afghanistan was an illusion.
As long as we were there to help the ASF do what they could not yet do for themselves, it was hardly an illusion. Was it an illusion when Biden celebrated in the WH situation room as we took out OBL or when Trump dropped a MOAB early in his term ?

It’s clear that while able, operationally, to understand the limitations of the Afghan army, the US military simply bought into this facade.
... “the Pentagon believed its own narrative that we would stay forever.”
As we have in Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea & even still/again Iraq & NE Syria, helping critical allies do what they can't do alone.
It probably made most sense to leave Afghanistan in 2002 or 2003. The Taliban were roundly unpopular by the time the US military and mostly its local allies had driven them off. Right. Just leave OBL in exile, to reconstitute AQ.

I continue to believe that the American public simply doesn’t care about Afghanistan nearly as much as military and foreign policy elites think they should or want them to. They don't care because our political leaders have failed to make them care.

Lake and his cohort are right: Biden owns the decision.
Biden understood the reality of the situation better than his military advisors. He was and is more in line with US popular opinion which long ago soured on our perpetual occupation of Afghanistan. Yes, Biden is a far sighted genius. I'm sure this was part of his plan, to send 5k troops back in to get our diplomats out before the Taliban captures them. Great plan.

We couldn't leave until OBL was killed or captured (for which Biden was eager to take credit). That was the opportunity to convert our presence into part of a NATO peacekeepng, training & stabilization operation, with a non-US NATO Commander, with a US component. Before our pullout, our 2,500 troop presence made possible the presence of 7,000 NATO troops & 16,000 contractors which enabled the ASF to keep the Taliban at bay, as the Afghan economy & society slowly recovered. That would have kept NATO relevant & provided our NATO allies a mission to which they could contribute. The EUros loved Obama. He could have sold them on making it a NATO mission, under NATO Command. Instead of our longest war, we'd be a jr partner in just another NATO peacekeeping mission.

That is a completely absurd post.

The United States was never going to be a “jr partner” in a NATO mission in Afghanistan. After all, it was the United States that invoked the NATO treaty to begin the invasion.

The United States spent 20 years, more than a trillion dollars, and thousands of American lives in Afghanistan. It was time to leave.

Afghanistan’s corrupt and incompetent leaders, and it’s cowardly security forces, abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban.

DocBarrister

"Afghanistan’s corrupt and incompetent leaders, and it’s cowardly security forces, abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban."

First mistake was working with the men. Should have trained the women; pretty g-d sure they would have fought as they have some "skin" in the game.

[old salt]

That is a completely absurd post.

The United States was never going to be a “jr partner” in a NATO mission in Afghanistan. After all, it was the United States that invoked the NATO treaty to begin the invasion.

NATO offered on 9-12. They immediately launched NATO AWACS to help patrol US airspace. They quickly volunteered to serve in combat in Afghanistan. Remember Canada's Special Forces & F-18's. Dutch, Danish & Norwegian F-16's. Brit Tornados, Harriers, Apaches, & SAS/SBS. The Brits were the major force in Helmond & paid a heavy price. Germany was the second largest NATO contingent, controlling the north & taking their most casualties since WW II.

You understate Pres Obama's humility. Remember him leading from behind in Libya ? He was happy to let EU NATO members take the lead. We still serve in the NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo, & Bosnia before that, which still continues as an EU peacekeeping mission.

Non-US NATO members lost 850 souls in Afghanistan & spent considerable treasure, given the relative size of our economies.
They were willing to stay if we did.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47391821
Nato formally ended its combat mission in December 2014, but kept a 13,000-strong force there to help train Afghan forces and support counter-terrorism operations.

There are also significant numbers of private security contractors in Afghanistan. This included as of the last quarter of 2020 more than 7,800 US citizens, according to US Congress research.

US media reports say most private contractors are due to pull out as part of the overall withdrawal by Washington.

How much money has been spent?
The vast majority of spending in Afghanistan has come from the US.

Between 2010 to 2012, when the US for a time had more than 100,000 soldiers in the country, the cost of the war grew to almost $100bn a year, according to US government figures.

As the US military shifted its focus away from offensive operations and concentrated more on training up Afghan forces, costs fell sharply.

By 2018 annual expenditure was around $45bn, a senior Pentagon official told the US Congress that year.

According to the US Department of Defense, the total military expenditure in Afghanistan (from October 2001 until September 2019) had reached $778bn.

In addition, the US state department - along with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other government agencies - spent $44bn on reconstruction projects.

That brings the total cost - based on official data - to $822bn between 2001 and 2019, but it doesn't include any spending in Pakistan, which the US uses as a base for Afghan-related operations.

According to a Brown University study in 2019, which has looked at war spending in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US had spent around $978bn (their estimate also includes money allocated for the 2020 fiscal year).

The study notes that it is difficult to assess the overall cost because accounting methods vary between government departments, and they also change over time, leading to different overall estimates.

The UK and Germany - who had the largest numbers of troops in Afghanistan after the US - spent an estimated $30bn and $19bn respectively over the course of the war.

Despite pulling out nearly all their troops, the US and Nato have promised a total of $4bn a year until 2024 to fund Afghanistan's own forces.

So far this year, Nato has sent $72m worth of supplies and equipment to Afghanistan.

Where has the money gone?
The bulk of the money spent in Afghanistan has been on counter-insurgency operations, and on the needs of troops such as food, clothing, medical care, special pay and benefits.

Official data shows that since 2002, the US has also spent about $143.27bn on reconstruction activities in Afghanistan.

More than half ($88.32bn) was spent on building up Afghan security forces, including the Afghan National Army and police force.

Nearly $36bn has been allocated for governance and development, while smaller amounts were also allocated for anti-drug efforts and for humanitarian aid.

Some of this money has been lost to waste, fraud and abuse over the years.

In a report to the US Congress in October 2020, the watchdog responsible for the oversight of reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan estimated that about $19bn had been lost this way between May 2009 and December 31, 2019.

What about the human cost?
Since the war against the Taliban began in 2001, there have been more than 3,500 coalition deaths, of which more than 2,300 have been US soldiers.

More than 450 UK troops have died.

A further 20,660 US soldiers have been injured in action.

But these casualty figures are dwarfed by the loss of life among Afghan security forces and civilians.

President Ghani said in 2019 that more than 45,000 members of the Afghan security forces had been killed since he became president five years earlier.

Brown University's research in 2019 estimated the loss of life amongst the national military and police in Afghanistan to be more than 64,100 since October 2001, when the war began.

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/blo ... 021-08-13/
On Sept. 12, 2001, NATO allies invoked their mutual defence clause for the first, and so far only time in the Western alliance's seven-decade history, after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States by al Qaeda militants.

* After U.S.-led forces defeated Taliban leaders harbouring al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, the architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, NATO took command of an international coalition in 2003. It aimed to restore peace to Afghanistan and build up Afghan security forces. In 2015, the mission, known as ISAF, was replaced by a training operation, Resolute Support. As of April, it numbered around 10,000 troops from 36 nations.

* NATO's troop presence peaked in 2011, with more than 130,000 foreign troops from 51 allied and partner countries in Afghanistan. Since 2003, NATO has trained hundreds of thousands of Afghan troops and police officers, including establishing an Afghan air force.

* Germany deployed the second largest military contingent in Afghanistan after the United States. In the northern Afghan province of Kunduz, a stronghold of the Taliban, Germany lost more of its troops in combat there than anywhere else in the world since the end of World War Two.

[old salt]

And where are all the "principled" conservatives of this forum? Why aren't they praising Afghans for demonstrating their right of self determination? For years they have used this forum to defend their 2d Amendment rights to be free of enemies both domestic and foreign. As usual, they are silent when it comes to Afghans asserting the same rights they have proclaimed for themselves all this time.

...how many changes of govt in the US have been accomplished based on 2nd Amendment rights ?
If the Taliban were the Afghan peoples' choice, why did they not run for election ?
They'd have done great with the womens' vote & in the non-Pashtun areas.

[old salt]

Icing on the cake - Taliban spokesman talking to the media from the occupied Presidential Palace in Kabul claims he spent 8 years at Guantanamo.

While there, he completed an online course from the Columbia School of Broadcasting. Pretty good English. He's on CNN, assuring that our diplomats should stay & keep the embassy open. The Taliban will protect them.

[Brooklyn]

(1) ...how many changes of govt in the US have been accomplished based on 2nd Amendment rights ?

(2) If the Taliban were the Afghan peoples' choice, why did they not run for election ?

(3)They'd have done great with the womens' vote & in the non-Pashtun areas.

(1) as one of the forum's leading conservatives that's a question best answered by yourself


(2) the only political democracy in the Middle East is Iran - Talibani don't run for office and nobody else in the region does as well

(3) women's vote? as an American you need to concern yourself with your party's vote suppression in the South and gerrymandering everywhere

There are some minority groups such as the Hazaras and Tajiks who don't like the Taliban so much. But they are free to cross the border and go into Iran and Tajikistan where they will be more than welcome. Whether they choose to go or to stay is their business, not ours.

[Kismet]

Icing on the cake - Taliban spokesman talking to the media from the occupied Presidential Palace in Kabul claims he spent 8 years at Guantanamo.

While there, he completed an online course from the Columbia School of Broadcasting. Pretty good English. He's on CNN, assuring that our diplomats should stay & keep the embassy open. The Taliban will protect them.

Grow up. You do manage to remain usually unfunny.

[jhu72]

Salty, you and I appear to agree pretty strongly on this one and have for some time.
Indeed, it's been my chief warning/concern about Biden's early leadership/decisions in his Presidency.

I'm not trying to stir up a disagreement, but do you agree that had Trump done what he committed to do, withdrawing by this past May, this same outcome trajectory would have been much the same?

IMHO -- this is all on Biden. He was no more obligated to follow through on Trump's target date than Trump was obligated to follow through on Obama's decicions & policies.

Look how much Trump changed from Obama's (or his own) promises-- JCPOA w/Iran, ROE vs ISIS in Iraq/Syria, backtracking on his order to withdraw from NE Syria (after his initial pull back from the border defused the looming conflict with Turkey & Russia).

The May deadline was to get the Taliban to the table & keep them engaged. Trump was no more believable than the Taliban. He just wanted a talking point for his final election.

Trump blustered, but in the final analysis, still followed his advisors (e.g. using the NG rather than declaring martial law). I think that Gen Milley, the other Generals, NSC Obrien, acting SecDef Miller, Sec State Pompeo, DNI Ratliffe, Patel & Congressional (R)'s like Graham, Ernst, Young(s), Nunes, Waltz, Crenshaw, Green, even Kinzinger & Cheney, would have been able to convince Trump to stretch out the drawdown, until after the fighting season. That's when the Taliban leave the field & hole up in Pakistan for the winter, slowly enough to avert a sudden collapse & possibly get Trump (after the 2020 election) to leave the small residual force, which was working well. Trump only groused about "the Generals" after the election when it became obvious they would not follow a martial law order.

Our NATO allies had twice as many troops there as we did & wanted to stay, if we would stay. Our deployment to Afghanistance was a pittance compared to our NATO basing/deployment for wealthy EU allies who are more than able to defend themselves. That's a point not lost on our NATO allies. The threat of a renewed jihadi safe haven was a justification they could sell to their public.

This is the same "brain trust" -- Biden, Klain, Rice, Blinken, Austin, Sullivan, Kohl, et. al. -- that convinced Obama to disregard the advise of his Sec State, Sec Def, CIA & military advisors in our withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. Biden also strenuously objected to Obama's decision to send 150k troops into Afghanistan for a COIN/nation building surge, with a predetermined exit date.

Biden is stubborn & has a bling spot. That prompted SecDef Gates to opine that Biden was proven wrong on every national security decision in the preceding four decades. Biden's record is intact. He wanted the political talking point that he got us out of Afghanistan before the 20th anniversary of 9-11. He gave that propaganda coup to the Taliban. It will inspire militant Islamic terrorists around the globe, IMHO.

My only disagreement then is that I think Trump set up this immense blunder (hope we're both wrong about that, looking back a decade or two from now) and would have blundered further. I don't buy the argument that he would have balked at the last minute from following through on the May commitment. He was/is an idiot and had he won reelection (esp through the shenanigans at the state level he wanted) would have been convinced of his own brilliance (his gut) and not followed anyone's advice or pressure.

We were headed into an entirely autocratic situation in which he'd gotten away with everything with no negative consequences.

But I do agree that Biden could have reversed that decision and maintained a small force, demanded proof of Taliban compliance and a much more gradual power sharing arrangement. With very low cost relatively speaking.

... with very likely additional loss of American lives.

[youthathletics]

(1) ...how many changes of govt in the US have been accomplished based on 2nd Amendment rights ?

(2) If the Taliban were the Afghan peoples' choice, why did they not run for election ?

(3)They'd have done great with the womens' vote & in the non-Pashtun areas.

(1) as one of the forum's leading conservatives that's a question best answered by yourself


(2) the only political democracy in the Middle East is Iran - Talibani don't run for office and nobody else in the region does as well

(3) women's vote? as an American you need to concern yourself with your party's vote suppression in the South and gerrymandering everywhere

There are some minority groups such as the Hazaras and Tajiks who don't like the Taliban so much. But they are free to cross the border and go into Iran and Tajikistan where they will be more than welcome. Whether they choose to go or to stay is their business, not ours.

You certainly sound pro-Taliban....strange.

[tech37]

Interesting Twitter thread:

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

[MDlaxfan76]

(1) ...how many changes of govt in the US have been accomplished based on 2nd Amendment rights ?

(2) If the Taliban were the Afghan peoples' choice, why did they not run for election ?

(3)They'd have done great with the womens' vote & in the non-Pashtun areas.

(1) as one of the forum's leading conservatives that's a question best answered by yourself


(2) the only political democracy in the Middle East is Iran - Talibani don't run for office and nobody else in the region does as well

(3) women's vote? as an American you need to concern yourself with your party's vote suppression in the South and gerrymandering everywhere

There are some minority groups such as the Hazaras and Tajiks who don't like the Taliban so much. But they are free to cross the border and go into Iran and Tajikistan where they will be more than welcome. Whether they choose to go or to stay is their business, not ours.

You certainly sound pro-Taliban....strange.

My reaction too. Not that I don't understand where Brooklyn wants American priorities to be, but I think we can and should walk and chew gum at the same time.

For instance, I think it's quite possible to be passionate about human rights here in the US and care about the plight of Afghan women in a return of the Taliban to power, through force.

It does not need to be an either/or.

Brooklyn, you're right to challenge the right-leaning folks on here to care more about voter suppression in the US, but that doesn't mean that subjugation of women, any where in the world, should not be important to Americans. I happen to believe that women's rights advances, especially in education and representation, are key to establishing a more peaceful world. Not the sole answer, but important.

[Brooklyn]

You certainly sound pro-Taliban....strange.

I'm for the right of self determination. This supposedly is the foundational hallmark of conservatism. On that basis you and other forum right wingers should applaud their efforts and successes.

The problem is, as always, that you right wingers fail to be consistent in the application of your principles which invalidate all the claims you make on this and other forums.

[Brooklyn]

My reaction too. Not that I don't understand where Brooklyn wants American priorities to be, but I think we can and should walk and chew gum at the same time.

For instance, I think it's quite possible to be passionate about human rights here in the US and care about the plight of Afghan women in a return of the Taliban to power, through force.

It does not need to be an either/or.

Brooklyn, you're right to challenge the right-leaning folks on here to care more about voter suppression in the US, but that doesn't mean that subjugation of women, any where in the world, should not be important to Americans. I happen to believe that women's rights advances, especially in education and representation, are key to establishing a more peaceful world. Not the sole answer, but important.

See my reply to youthathletics. Again, if you genuinely subscribed to TRUE conservative principle you would have no choice but to affirm the right of self determination. Nothing illustrates that more than what the Taliban has done.


Women's rights? As someone who lobbied for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and Title IX, who successfully coached women's sports for well over 20 years (without making so much as one cent), and as one who lobbied for much more state funding for womens & girls athletic activities, I would suppose that I have proven over those years that I have put my money where my mouth is re womens rights.

The Taliban's record on the subject is comparatively dismal, but it is their problem, not ours. While many of those women may well be grieving over the politics there, there are thousands of black and brown women in this society who grieve because their sons have been killed by cops or are in danger of being butchered by them or because they are menaced by drugs (which kill thousands per year) or gangs. While you are concerned with any possible shortcomings the Taliban may have, as a citizen you should be concerned with goes on here and offering solutions to these avoidable problems. At the same time if the Taliban's apparent injustices, somehow, "justifies" a foreign invasion, then American injustices would equally "justify" a foreign invasion here in order to stop those problems. Is this something you would like to see? I certainly don't.

Be consistent in your "principles". If you believe in the conservative principles of self determination and self actualization apply them on a consistent, not a selective, basis. If those principles are valid as so many of you claim, then they apply to the Taliban every bit as much as to anyone else.

[Brooklyn]

GOP Removes Page Praising Donald Trump's 'Historic' Peace Deal With Taliban


https://www.newsweek.com/gop-removes-we ... an-1619605


The Republican National Committee has removed a webpage from 2020 in which it praised Donald Trump for signing a "historic peace agreement with the Taliban."

David Weigel, of The Washington Post, was the first to spot that the page had been removed with the web address redirecting to a 404 error page featuring the quip: "It looks like you're as lost as Biden is."

The Guardian's congressional reporter Hugo Lowell later confirmed the webpage's removal after successfully tracking down the now-deleted page via The Wayback Machine digital archive.

Featured as part of a section titled "President Trump Is Bringing Peace In The Middle East," the page described how the former U.S. president had "continued to take the lead in peace talks."

The page also claims that "while President Trump has championed peace, Joe Biden has taken the lead in pushing for endless wars."

It's also notable that the now-deleted webpage claimed Trump had "taken action to defeat ISIS and eliminate dangerous leaders."

Abdul Ghani Baradar, the co-founder of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the organization's current political chief, was released from a Pakistani jail at the request of the US while Trump was in office.

Trump has been a vocal critic of President Biden's withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan branding it "one of the greatest defeats in American history."

The Taliban has quickly seized control of Afghanistan in the days since the U.S. withdrawal commenced.

"It is time for Joe Biden to resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan," Trump said in the statement.

"It shouldn't be a big deal, because he wasn't elected legitimately in the first place," he added.


"What Joe Biden has done with Afghanistan is legendary." Trump continued.

"It will go down as one of the greatest defeats in American history!"

The criticisms come despite the fact it was the Trump administration which first brokered a deal to withdraw troops from the region.

In the now-deleted GOP webpage, it is stated that Trump negotiated a deal for the withdrawals by May 2021 "in exchange for a Taliban agreement to not allow Afghanistan to be used for transnational terrorism."

Upon his arrival in the White House, Biden instead decided to instigate a total withdrawal from Afghanistan, setting a deadline of August 31 for completion.

That process has been all but completed two weeks ahead of the planned date.


Biden has defended his decision to withdraw, claiming he was left with little choice given the deal Trump had negotiated with the Taliban which he felt left the organization "in the strongest position militarily since 2001."

"When I became president, I faced a choice—follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies' forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country's civil conflict," he said in the statement.


As recently as April, Trump was also voicing his support for withdrawal, stating that "getting out of Afghanistan is a wonderful and positive thing to do."

"Nineteen years is long enough, in fact, far too much and way too long," he said.

Newsweek has reached out to the GOP for comment.






Who enabled the Taliban to ascend into power? You guessed it ~ the CONSERVATIVE tRump.

[MDlaxfan76]

My reaction too. Not that I don't understand where Brooklyn wants American priorities to be, but I think we can and should walk and chew gum at the same time.

For instance, I think it's quite possible to be passionate about human rights here in the US and care about the plight of Afghan women in a return of the Taliban to power, through force.

It does not need to be an either/or.

Brooklyn, you're right to challenge the right-leaning folks on here to care more about voter suppression in the US, but that doesn't mean that subjugation of women, any where in the world, should not be important to Americans. I happen to believe that women's rights advances, especially in education and representation, are key to establishing a more peaceful world. Not the sole answer, but important.

See my reply to youthathletics. Again, if you genuinely subscribed to TRUE conservative principle you would have no choice but to affirm the right of self determination. Nothing illustrates that more than what the Taliban has done.


Women's rights? As someone who lobbied for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and Title IX, who successfully coached women's sports for well over 20 years (without making so much as one cent), and as one who lobbied for much more state funding for womens & girls athletic activities, I would suppose that I have proven over those years that I have put my money where my mouth is re womens rights.

The Taliban's record on the subject is comparatively dismal, but it is their problem, not ours. While many of those women may well be grieving over the politics there, there are thousands of black and brown women in this society who grieve because their sons have been killed by cops or are in danger of being butchered by them or because they are menaced by drugs (which kill thousands per year) or gangs. While you are concerned with any possible shortcomings the Taliban may have, as a citizen you should be concerned with goes on here and offering solutions to these avoidable problems. At the same time if the Taliban's apparent injustices, somehow, "justifies" a foreign invasion, then American injustices would equally "justify" a foreign invasion here in order to stop those problems. Is this something you would like to see? I certainly don't.

Be consistent in your "principles". If you believe in the conservative principles of self determination and self actualization apply them on a consistent, not a selective, basis. If those principles are valid as so many of you claim, then they apply to the Taliban every bit as much as to anyone else.

When you use the word "you" with me, you've got the wrong guy (I'm not a caricature faux "conservative")...I'm simply saying that one can care about women's rights beyond our shores. I was never accusing you of not caring about American women (as do I), but clearly "it's their problem" says you don't really care beyond here in the US, so not really on principle.

I quite disagree that taking a country's power by force and threat of brutal reprisals is an act of "self-determination"...as an American "conservative", I'm in favor of democratic expression of self-determination, not which party of force is best organized for combat, most determined, most brutal.

We did not invade Afghanistan on behalf of the women of Afghanistan, we did so to address the threat from al Quaida, made possible by the Taliban led government. We, rightly or wrongly, believed that a more democratically based government would be less likely to harbor violent extremists than a Taliban led one. And key to such democracy would be the education and representation of women in such a society...and that takes a very long time, if not supported by many, perhaps most men, not overnight. But we're impatient as a nation.

[MDlaxfan76]

GOP Removes Page Praising Donald Trump's 'Historic' Peace Deal With Taliban


https://www.newsweek.com/gop-removes-we ... an-1619605


The Republican National Committee has removed a webpage from 2020 in which it praised Donald Trump for signing a "historic peace agreement with the Taliban."

David Weigel, of The Washington Post, was the first to spot that the page had been removed with the web address redirecting to a 404 error page featuring the quip: "It looks like you're as lost as Biden is."

The Guardian's congressional reporter Hugo Lowell later confirmed the webpage's removal after successfully tracking down the now-deleted page via The Wayback Machine digital archive.

Featured as part of a section titled "President Trump Is Bringing Peace In The Middle East," the page described how the former U.S. president had "continued to take the lead in peace talks."

The page also claims that "while President Trump has championed peace, Joe Biden has taken the lead in pushing for endless wars."

It's also notable that the now-deleted webpage claimed Trump had "taken action to defeat ISIS and eliminate dangerous leaders."

Abdul Ghani Baradar, the co-founder of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the organization's current political chief, was released from a Pakistani jail at the request of the US while Trump was in office.

Trump has been a vocal critic of President Biden's withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan branding it "one of the greatest defeats in American history."

The Taliban has quickly seized control of Afghanistan in the days since the U.S. withdrawal commenced.

"It is time for Joe Biden to resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan," Trump said in the statement.

"It shouldn't be a big deal, because he wasn't elected legitimately in the first place," he added.


"What Joe Biden has done with Afghanistan is legendary." Trump continued.

"It will go down as one of the greatest defeats in American history!"

The criticisms come despite the fact it was the Trump administration which first brokered a deal to withdraw troops from the region.

In the now-deleted GOP webpage, it is stated that Trump negotiated a deal for the withdrawals by May 2021 "in exchange for a Taliban agreement to not allow Afghanistan to be used for transnational terrorism."

Upon his arrival in the White House, Biden instead decided to instigate a total withdrawal from Afghanistan, setting a deadline of August 31 for completion.

That process has been all but completed two weeks ahead of the planned date.


Biden has defended his decision to withdraw, claiming he was left with little choice given the deal Trump had negotiated with the Taliban which he felt left the organization "in the strongest position militarily since 2001."

"When I became president, I faced a choice—follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies' forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country's civil conflict," he said in the statement.


As recently as April, Trump was also voicing his support for withdrawal, stating that "getting out of Afghanistan is a wonderful and positive thing to do."

"Nineteen years is long enough, in fact, far too much and way too long," he said.

Newsweek has reached out to the GOP for comment.






Who enabled the Taliban to ascend into power? You guessed it ~ the CONSERVATIVE tRump.

On this we agree.

[Typical Lax Dad]

GOP Removes Page Praising Donald Trump's 'Historic' Peace Deal With Taliban


https://www.newsweek.com/gop-removes-we ... an-1619605


The Republican National Committee has removed a webpage from 2020 in which it praised Donald Trump for signing a "historic peace agreement with the Taliban."

David Weigel, of The Washington Post, was the first to spot that the page had been removed with the web address redirecting to a 404 error page featuring the quip: "It looks like you're as lost as Biden is."

The Guardian's congressional reporter Hugo Lowell later confirmed the webpage's removal after successfully tracking down the now-deleted page via The Wayback Machine digital archive.

Featured as part of a section titled "President Trump Is Bringing Peace In The Middle East," the page described how the former U.S. president had "continued to take the lead in peace talks."

The page also claims that "while President Trump has championed peace, Joe Biden has taken the lead in pushing for endless wars."

It's also notable that the now-deleted webpage claimed Trump had "taken action to defeat ISIS and eliminate dangerous leaders."

Abdul Ghani Baradar, the co-founder of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the organization's current political chief, was released from a Pakistani jail at the request of the US while Trump was in office.

Trump has been a vocal critic of President Biden's withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan branding it "one of the greatest defeats in American history."

The Taliban has quickly seized control of Afghanistan in the days since the U.S. withdrawal commenced.

"It is time for Joe Biden to resign in disgrace for what he has allowed to happen to Afghanistan," Trump said in the statement.

"It shouldn't be a big deal, because he wasn't elected legitimately in the first place," he added.


"What Joe Biden has done with Afghanistan is legendary." Trump continued.

"It will go down as one of the greatest defeats in American history!"

The criticisms come despite the fact it was the Trump administration which first brokered a deal to withdraw troops from the region.

In the now-deleted GOP webpage, it is stated that Trump negotiated a deal for the withdrawals by May 2021 "in exchange for a Taliban agreement to not allow Afghanistan to be used for transnational terrorism."

Upon his arrival in the White House, Biden instead decided to instigate a total withdrawal from Afghanistan, setting a deadline of August 31 for completion.

That process has been all but completed two weeks ahead of the planned date.


Biden has defended his decision to withdraw, claiming he was left with little choice given the deal Trump had negotiated with the Taliban which he felt left the organization "in the strongest position militarily since 2001."

"When I became president, I faced a choice—follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies' forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country's civil conflict," he said in the statement.


As recently as April, Trump was also voicing his support for withdrawal, stating that "getting out of Afghanistan is a wonderful and positive thing to do."

"Nineteen years is long enough, in fact, far too much and way too long," he said.

Newsweek has reached out to the GOP for comment.






Who enabled the Taliban to ascend into power? You guessed it ~ the CONSERVATIVE tRump.

[kramerica.inc]

Icing on the cake - Taliban spokesman talking to the media from the occupied Presidential Palace in Kabul claims he spent 8 years at Guantanamo.

While there, he completed an online course from the Columbia School of Broadcasting. Pretty good English. He's on CNN, assuring that our diplomats should stay & keep the embassy open. The Taliban will protect them.

Before and After.

We welcome our Taliban overloards!

https://t.me/intelslava/10455

[kramerica.inc]

You certainly sound pro-Taliban....strange.

I'm for the right of self determination. This supposedly is the foundational hallmark of conservatism. On that basis you and other forum right wingers should applaud their efforts and successes.

The problem is, as always, that you right wingers fail to be consistent in the application of your principles which invalidate all the claims you make on this and other forums.

We can "self-determine" to behead anyone we want!

[Brooklyn]

When you use the word "you" with me, you've got the wrong guy (I'm not a caricature faux "conservative")...I'm simply saying that one can care about women's rights beyond our shores. I was never accusing you of not caring about American women (as do I), but clearly "it's their problem" says you don't really care beyond here in the US, so not really on principle.

I quite disagree that taking a country's power by force and threat of brutal reprisals is an act of "self-determination"...as an American "conservative", I'm in favor of democratic expression of self-determination, not which party of force is best organized for combat, most determined, most brutal.

We did not invade Afghanistan on behalf of the women of Afghanistan, we did so to address the threat from al Quaida, made possible by the Taliban led government. We, rightly or wrongly, believed that a more democratically based government would be less likely to harbor violent extremists than a Taliban led one. And key to such democracy would be the education and representation of women in such a society...and that takes a very long time, if not supported by many, perhaps most men, not overnight. But we're impatient as a nation.

"democratic expression"

As I wrote before, there is only one democracy in the Middle East and that is Iran. Nobody else in the region believes in democracy. It is not any of our business to impose our standards on them. You sure as hell wouldn't want the UN to invade us in order to impose its standards so why endorse invading others?

[Brooklyn]

We can "self-determine" to behead anyone we want!

Derek Chauvin would certainly agree.

I am reminded of how the FBI and other law enforcement groups helped the government of Israel and Germany to track down suspected Nazis in the USA and brought them to justice for their role in the Holocaust. But none of those agencies lifted a finger to trace KKK members and other racists who engaged in the lynching holocaust in the South. Some of those criminals are still alive today and have never been brought to justice. Forum conservatives should demand that they face a jury and the scaffold for their crimes. This instead of demanding further incursions overseas. Let them solve their own problems.