Despite that, President Biden plowed ahead with his withdrawal plans.
He was confident enough that, just last month, he rejected comparisons to Saigon because “the Taliban is not the North Vietnamese Army.”
That might be fair. They proved far more capable.
Again, just last month, Biden said “the likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.”
One month later, the Taliban had done just that.
If today’s speech from Biden sounded familiar, it’s because it was largely lifted from his speech in April announcing the drawdown.
One line that didn’t make it in this time? The Afghan military will “continue to fight valiantly…at great cost.”
One of the most consistently wrong people is Antony Blinken, Biden’s Secretary of State.
He said of the withdrawal: “as the United States begins withdrawing our troops, we will use our civilian and economic assistance to advance a just and durable peace for Afghanistan.”
In April, while visiting Afghanistan, Blinken told Afghan President Ashraf Gandhi - who has since fled the country - that Blinken was there to “demonstrate literally, by our presence, that we have an enduring and ongoing commitment to Afghanistan.”
I’m…not sure that one came to pass.
But perhaps Blinken’s worst prediction was from June where he said the US withdrawal wouldn’t lead to “some kind of immediate deterioration in the situation” that could happen “from a Friday to a Monday.”
It took, what, a week and a half?
There were a lot of bad predictions about the Taliban.
In April, US Envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad told lawmakers that the new Taliban would behave better because “international recognition” would prove an incentive.
Doesn’t look like it.
The generals, as ever, were also wrong. Speaking to the Senate in June, SecDef Lloyd Austin and Gen Mark Milley said there was a “medium” risk that the Taliban would have the capability to retake Afghanistan and it would take two years.
It took them two weeks.
Milley at that same testimony said that “I don’t see Saigon 1975 in Afghanistan. The Taliban just aren’t the North Vietnamese Army. It’s not that kind of situation.”
It was, in fact, precisely that type of situation, just worse and faster.
Here we’ve got nameless “U.S. officials” endorsing the theory that the Taliban - yes, that Taliban - would be concerned about being an international pariah because their leaders “have a record of seeking international credibility.”
"...experts also believe that Taliban leaders have moderated in recent years, recognizing that Afghanistan’s cities have modernized, and note that the group’s peace negotiators have traveled internationally, seeing the outside world in a way its founders rarely...did." NYT, 4/23
Speaking of generals, here’s Joseph Dunford endorsing the international respect theory that this Afghanistan would “temper its violence” because…well, who knows.
Just amazing.
As has been the case for the last twenty years, our intel has simply been wrong.
We thought we had months, even worst-case scenario.
We really only had weeks.
I’ve said this on here repeatedly but I really don’t think that Biden will face serious political consequences from this devastating situation.
But every prediction and promise he and his team have made have been disastrously wrong on Afghanistan.
Folks sometimes ask how they can support the threads. I do them as a hobbyist so the short answer is that there isn’t a way.
Biden’s pardoning of his son Hunter says an enormous amount about the president’s views of justice.
But it also says a lot about the willingness of the mainstream media—the nation’s noble fact checking corps—to repeat bogus claims that suit Democrats.
Remember? ⤵️
For starters, let’s revisit the coverage of how Biden wouldn’t do what he just did.
Biden said he wouldn’t pardon his son, no way. He would trust our legal system.
The media repeated it at every turn, without a shred of incredulity.
Here’s @washingtonpost
Seemingly every outlet did the same. @CNN had a couple of my favorites.
Look at the lede in on this first one.
The media’s job isn’t to simply repeat what politicians tell them. Whatever happened to “defenders of our democracy” and all that?
The news that MSNBC may soon have a new owner (and that it might be a certain X power user) compelled me to finally open my “MSNBC conspiracy theories” screenshot folder and, woo boy, there are a lot.
If you’d like to revisit them, buckle up, and follow along. ⤵️
There’s nowhere better to start than with Russiagate.
Do you remember the promotion from @chrislhayes, @MalcolmNance, @maddow and others at @MSNBC that perhaps Donald Trump was a Russian agent?
I, for one, will not be forgetting.
But there was plenty of other insanity from the gang at MSNBC about Russiagate.
Here are just a couple.
The first seems apropos with Trump again picking a cabinet.
Whatever happened to Harris and Biden’s “strongest economy ever” that the media spent so much time hyping up in the lead up to the election?
I revisit the claims, and explain why they were off the mark about the economy all along, in my latest @AmerCompass.
Quick🧵thread🧵⤵️
It can be easy, in the wake of an election, to forget just how dominant a media narrative was.
One that’s already fading from view was how “great” the economy was, and why it would benefit Harris on Election Day. americancompass.org/its-still-the-…
As a refresher, check out this headline from @axios about the data.
@YahooFinance upgraded Biden’s economic grade to an A. That captures the press sentiment at the time quite well.
In recent days, the mainstream media has taken nakedly ridiculous claims about the tattoos of @PeteHegseth, Trump’s SecDef nominee, to spin up a story alleging he’s an extremist.
It’s an egregious example of politically driven “journalism.” I unpack why. ⤵️
The story really started with @AP, who ran an article claiming that two tattoos that @PeteHegseth has have ties to extremism, citing an extremely thin (and downright suspect) report.
They used that to label him a potential “insider threat” in their headline.
It wasn’t until 3 paragraphs in that a reader was told what that claim rested on: a tattoo of a Latin phrase. They’d go on to mention “concerns” about a cross tattoo as well.
Would be great if Trump’s unconventional picks for his cabinet inspire the media to consider a nominee’s credentials.
They might want to look at the current HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, who brings to the table the medical experience of being in Congress for 12 terms.
Or perhaps Obama’s former HHS Secretary, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who had just finished her stint lobbying for Walmart.
Or Donna Shalala, Clinton’s former head of HHS, whose credentials were as a university administrator and feminist.