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.
In case you missed it, I’ve been working on a series called “A COVID Autopsy” for the last couple of months, revisiting what the legacy media (and their frequently quoted “experts”) got wrong during the pandemic.
As you can imagine, there’s a lot. I started writing this years ago, got sidetracked by some life events (getting married, getting cancer, beating cancer, starting a new job) but finally finished it. I’ve linked to all six parts published at my newsletter (link to it is in my bio) in the thread below.
If you’re interested in how I think the response to COVID broke America, I hope you’ll give it a read, and share (with me in the comments, with others as you see fit) what you think.
Do you remember the start of COVID? Do you remember what the legacy media said back then, about the virus being no worse than the flu, and that masks didn’t work?
Do you remember the lockdown protests? Before protesting for “social justice” got a pass, the legacy press suggested protesting should cause the forfeit of health care.
A quick side by side of things legacy media outlets will describe as Nazi-adjacent when they’re about Trump vs. how these outlets talk about Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo, which an ex-gf of his confirmed to the NYT was deliberate.
Look ⤵️
Trump’s MSG rally? Nazi-related for @nytimes.
NYT, who broke the story that Platner told an ex-gf he had a Nazi tattoo, about his Nazi tattoo? Not Nazi. Just “new reporting…about his vulnerabilities.”
(It is funny to me that so many of the photos in pieces about Platner for NYT show him holding up his arm in a way that the paper would surely tie to the Nazis if, say, @elonmusk had done it)
When I saw the news that the Southern Poverty Law Center funded the hate groups like the KKK & Unite the Right they relied on to claim that white supremacy, inspired by Trump, was on the rise, I just knew the legacy media helped make it possible.
Boy was I right ⤵️
First, what happened.
A federal grand jury charged the SPLC with fraud for using donations to pay hate groups like the KKK millions of dollars, fomenting their activity in the lead up to the Unite the Right rally and after to drive more donations to SPLC.
I know it’s been a few days, but the entire legacy media ran with the claim that Don Lemon was arrested for doing journalism, when he was actually indicted because a grand jury found he violated worshippers’ freedom of expression.
Quick live🧵thread🧵, starting with @nytimes. ⤵️
Same thing at @NBCNews.
Omitted from the headline is what the actual charges are: interfering with these churchgoers rights.
Predictably, @CNN has gone to bat for Lemon.
What’s at issue isn’t “reporting” of a “protest,” and claiming to the contrary is pretty obviously misleading.
There’s another media hoax from Minnesota. Legacy outlets churned out headlines about a 5-year-old child used as “bait” by ICE.
The reality? The kid’s father, an illegal immigrant, abandoned him when he saw the agents. As even these outlets later concede.
Look ⤵️
Here’s how these hoaxes start. @washingtonpost alleges ICE used a 5-year-old kid as “bait” to arrest his father.
Not until five paragraphs into the piece do they acknowledge what really happened: the child’s father, an illegal immigrant, abandoned him when he saw ICE.
But this allegation was everywhere. We saw the same thing from @AP.
Explosive claim in the headline: “used as ‘bait’” (from the school, no less)
Reality: six paragraphs down, father abandoned child.