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.
The new book “Original Sin” from Jake Tapper & Alex Thompson recounts the effort to cover up Biden’s cognitive decline ahead of the election. The authors point to many guilty parties.
The one glaring omission? Their colleagues in the corporate press. Follow along ⤵️
There are numerous dramatic reveals. The Biden team considered condoning him to a wheelchair? Maybe in his fog he forgot about the border?
But as I worked on a review for @commonplc, the one thought that I kept coming back to was that you can’t tell this story without the press.
Perhaps no one was more vital to the continued fiction that Biden had it together than the media.
Tapper and Thompson even highlight some of the telling moments.
Biden’s cancer diagnosis is a tragedy I know first-hand.
But our sympathy can’t silence questions about Biden’s cognitive decline, clarified just days ago by the Hur tape.
The media tried to bury the story then. They’re trying again now.
I’ve got the receipts. ⤵️
When the report first came out in 2024, outlets rushed to demean Hur, accusing him of serving as a Republican hatchet man.
Just look at this take from @USATODAY, who assembled sympathetic voices to make the case that Hur “crossed the line.” They found an expert to call it a “disgrace” and then featured the obviously unbiased Eric Holder to lead a section titled “Way too many gratuitous remarks.”
The audio makes clear that Hur, if anything, played down how alarming the claims were.
(If you haven’t listened to the Hur audio yet, you should.)
It should go without saying, but the media cultivating this type of baseless hysteria about an admin for partisan reasons is much more of a threat to the underpinnings of our democracy than anything Trump has actually done.
Quick 🧵⤵️
A couple quotes:
“If you think that there’s this thing out there called America, and it’s exceptional, that means you don’t have to do anything” to stop fascism.
What? What does that even mean??
That if you, like millions of Americans!, believe in American exceptionalism…you’re a fascist?
Really?
“The powers that be can do whatever they want to you”
Trump can’t even deport people who have deportation orders against them without a federal judge stepping in.
Many in the media are trying to claim that the press was merely duped by Biden’s White House about the former president’s cognitive decline.
That simply isn’t true. The media actively took part in the coverup.
Don’t let them forget. I’ve got screenshots. ⤵️
I’ve done a number of threads on this but putting some of the most egregious stuff in one place.
Perhaps the most damming: Two weeks before the debate made Biden’s cognitive decline inescapable, @washingtonpost gave “Four Pinocchio’s” to allegedly edited videos showing Biden clearly displaying cognitive problems, dismissing them as “pernicious” efforts “to reinforce an existing stereotype” while quoting the White House to say the videos were “cheap fakes” — all to defend Biden against criticisms about his age and well-being.
That story came four days after a previous effort from @washingtonpost to write off these videos as Republican efforts to mislead voters: proof, the Post claimed, that “the politics of misinformation and conspiracy theories do not stop at the waters edge.”
I’m not sure people realize just how egregious some of NPR’s “journalism” has been. Amid the debate about defunding the network, I wanted to walk down memory lane to revisit some of its worst coverage.
There’s a lot. ⤵️
First, perhaps the most egregious display of activist journalism: their response to the Hunter Biden laptop story of corruption involving a major party candidate on the eve of the election.
Not only did @NPR not cover it, they bragged about refusing to do so.
Insofar as @NPR did cover the Hunter Biden scandal, they actively tried to cover it up.
They applauded Facebook & Twitter strangling the story as part of a push against “misinformation and conspiracy theories.”
The story, of course, turned out to be far from invented.