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.
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.
I know it seems silly, but the media meltdown about Trump working at a McDonald’s is clarifying about why trust in the press has cratered.
Before we get to that, let’s revisit some of the most deranged takes. ⤵️
The press’s response to Trump deciding to troll Harris for her unsupported claims that she worked at McDonald’s by working at the chain himself sent the media into a tizzy.
Here’s @CNN, suddenly apologetic about a corporation in the political limelight.
My favorite take came from @nytimes, who appeared outraged that…Trump didn’t wear a hairnet.
The media is already trying to memory-hole the (first) attempted assassination of former President Trump.
I suspect many of you have felt it happening, but I walked through the details for The Spectator, and wanted to share some of them here.
Follow along ⤵️
First, I just want to level-set to make sure I’m not crazy.
Someone tried to kill the former POTUS, who, according to a variety of polls, is the odds-on favorite to return to that office. Tons of details didn’t make sense.
Seems like the press story of the year, right?
Well…
So far, the press doesn’t seem to think so.
It started as soon as the shots rang out. Do you remember how bad & unhelpful the headlines were?
I’ve got screenshots. @USATODAY @NBCNews (“popping noises”) @CNN (“injured in incident”) @latimes (“loud noises want through the crowd”)
8 years after I said I would, 2 years after a brain tumor diagnosis, and 1 year after finishing chemo & radiation, I’m finally running the Army 10-miler in a couple weeks, and raising money for a good cause.
I hope you’ll check out the details in the 🧵thread🧵 below. 👇
The 10-miler is, as the name implies, a 10 mile road race in Washington, D.C. It’s October 13th, so, soon!
If you’d like to donate (100% of donations go to charity, more on that below). The link is here:
I’m running (okay, slowly jogging) it to raise money for Undue Medical Debt, a really good charity that helps people who’re saddled with debt from the medical care they need (or needed).
It’s genuinely unclear who is executing the responsibilities of the leader of the free world and the media — providers of transparency, beacons of integrity — couldn’t seem to care less.
That there could be any question more important for anyone in the media to ask than “who is in charge of the country, right now, at this moment?” defies all logic.