Wanna know why there were hoards of Afghanis hanging onto our planes as they tried to take off because they couldn't get visas to legally enter the US?

When President Biden took office, the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program for Afghans who had worked with our soldiers and diplomats required a 14-step process based on a statutory framework enacted by Congress and involved multiple government agencies.

The Trump Administration's disregard and even hostility toward our commitment to Afghan allies led to a massive backlog of over 18,000 SIV applicants. Despite drawing down troops and committing to a full withdrawal, the departing Trump Administration had all but stopped SIV interviews. Refugee support services had been gutted and personnel dramatically reduced, lowering admissions to historic lows and forcing more than 100 refugee resettlement facilities in the United States to close.

And the Federal career workforce had been hollowed out. In November 2020, as President Biden was preparing to take office, the Department of State employed 12 percent fewer employees than it had four years earlier, leaving critical gaps.

Immediately after taking office - and even before he had made a final decision to leave Afghanistan - President Biden instructed departments and agencies to begin doing the necessary work to increase capacity, in part to facilitate a withdrawal on the timeline required. During his first two weeks in office, President Biden signed Executive Order 14013 requiring departments and agencies to surge resources and streamline the application process for SIV applicants. On February 2, the Department of State resumed SIV interviews in Kabul. State doubled the number of SIV adjudicators at Embassy Kabul and quintupled the number of staff processing SIV applications - from 10 to 50 - in Washington, D.C. As a result of this surge, the United States went from issuing 100 SIVs a week in March to more than 1000 a week in July, and, working with Congress to streamline the process, reduced the average SIV processing time by more than one year. In July, the United States issued a record number of SIVs to our Afghan allies and began running the first ever SIV relocation flights.

The Taliban had no ability to do anything other than guerilla war stuff and probably weren't going to try with an increased troop presence explicitly there to properly manage the withdrawal.

Here's how the right wing lizard brain works.

1) US troops suffer a suicide bombing while trying to pull out of Afghanistan that cost 13 American lives and injured others out of 2500 troops then in country.

2) Since the bombing happened, it's the fault of the President who gave the orders. And it's also articulated that the said President was obviously derelict in his responsibility to protect American troops during any military action, as though the troops never knew what was coming at them.

3) Continue to drive the political narrative calling the President reckless and personally responsible for the deaths by bringing grieving families into the political process for your own benefit.

4) Refuse to even consider any actual facts and chronologies of the events leading up to said bombing, showing that the President and military did all due diligence in their planning - including worst case/emergency scenarios - but it simply wasn't enough this time.

And the most revealing fact that the Administration's and military's plans were more sound than questionable is that all the other troops out of the 2500 left in country were safely returned home!

It's tragic to lose any Americans to war. But a known bomber - freshly released from prison after the Taliban overran the allied government that simply fled from the inevitable - succeeded our best efforts to stop him in a massive hoard of desperate Afghanis trying to flee the Taliban. All of this happened as the end result of an agreement entered into by the former President effectively tying his successor's hands and limiting his options, where every single one ends in the Taliban re-engaging attacks on American troops unless we leave the country.

And then that President has the audacity and lack of character to politically place full blame upon his successor in a wholly mendacious manner, insinuating the bombing should have been stopped, without offering a shred of detail as to how that could have been done under the then-existent circumstances.

From the beginning, President Biden directed that preparations for a potential U.S. withdrawal include planning for all contingencies - including a rapid deterioration of the security situation - even though intelligence at the time deemed this situation unlikely. In March, before he had made his final decision, the President directed his top national security officials -including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director for National Intelligence - to begin withdrawal planning and account for a full range of contingencies. Once the President made his final decision, national security teams accelerated the planning that was already underway. Throughout the spring and summer, the National Security Council (NSC) staff hosted dozens of high-level planning meetings, formal rehearsals of the withdrawal, and tabletop exercises to explore scenarios for an evacuation as part of responsible planning for a range of contingencies, even those that were actually worse than the worst-case predictions.

Throughout this period, a Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation (NEO) was treated as a distinct possibility and the national security team started planning for it. In March, departments and agencies were tasked with outlining plans for multiple scenarios, including a security environment that would require the departure of all U.S. personnel from Afghanistan. In April, departments and agencies were specifically tasked with updating the NEO planning documents. In May, NSC staff held a senior interagency meeting that included a discussion of several specific complex issues related to a NEO, including timing, evacuee destination sites, processing, vetting, and transport logistics.

President Biden took the advice of his military commanders on the tactical decisions regarding the operational retrograde of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, including the dates they closed facilities, and he regularly asked them if there was anything else they needed.

It was agreed that - because of the extreme complexity and careful planning required - a dedicated group of interagency experts would regularly convene to conduct NEO planning. In a meeting of national security leadership that same month, departments and agencies were tasked with ensuring relocation plans were ready in the event of a significant deterioration in the security situation. In line with that planning, in early summer, President Biden directed military assets to be prepositioned in the region to be able to help with an evacuation on short notice. It was this decision that later enabled the United States to respond and deploy quickly enough to facilitate the successful evacuation of over 124,000 American citizens, permanent
residents, Afghan partners, and allies.

You're a moron Strawlighter. Reality is calling and you refuse to answer because you exist in fantasy land. It's sad actually.

Bye bye.

This is what constrained Biden's choices vis-a-vis troop levels after his inauguration:

As a result, when President Biden took office on January 20, 2021, the Taliban were in the strongest military position that they had been in since 2001, controlling or contesting nearly half of the country. At the same time, the United States had only 2,500 troops on the ground - the lowest number of troops in Afghanistan since 2001 - and President Biden was facing President Trump's near-term deadline to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by May 2021, or the Taliban would resume its attacks on U.S. and allied was clear, that if we did not leave in accordance with that agreement, the Taliban would recommence attacks on our forces."

Just where is a more preferable option you seem to think Biden should have chosen?

Biden/Harris we're not bound by any of Trump's agreements. Biden/Harris were advised by military leaders that in order to have an orderly withdrawal mor3 troops needed to be deployed and keeping Bagram secure was critical. They were completely ignored by Biden/Harris.

#79

Exactly. Except Trump left no plans whatsoever because he never approved any - or if he did, they didn't share them with Biden.

Trump set the conditions, troop levels, and by proxy our ability to defend and protect the 2500 left if the Taliban reneged and decided to attack us again.

I may have mistaken the timeline but he was one of the prisoners released and there is no way we should have ever trusted them or given them such a free rein at the end.

I think you're conflating the situation. The government in Kabul that we've propped up for 20 years FLED. We were no longer fighting alongside them against the Taliban out in the provinces. There was open public discussion on how long they'd last before the Taliban advanced to Kabul. So the Afghani army figured out that they were dying for an already dead government and simply quit fighting and went home. So the Taliban took Kabul weeks before the estimated dates and replaced the old government.

That's how they came to releasing the prisoners that weren't a part of the negotiated Trump deal since we thought the old government would have kept them under lock and key until after we'd left. This was all a part of the Doha agreement that Trump negotiated which did get the Taliban to stop targeting the troops we had left in country. So the Taliban was already in control of Kabul and the country's infrastructure and government during the entirety of our evacuation process.

If he and the 5000 hadn't been released (at least until we were gone) those Americans would most likely still be alive.

Oh, it's all on Trump. He pulled the pin out of the grenade and handed it to Biden.

blew up

One of which turned out to be the actual bomber that killed 13 American soldiers.

That's not exactly right as I know it, but it's close. The bomber wasn't one of the 5000, but he was released by the Taliban only 2 weeks before the bombing, when they took over the government as the 300,000 Afghani troops we trained turned tail, leading to the elected government in Kabul to run for the hills as well. The Taliban took over the government without firing a shot in anger in Kabul.

Then, the head Taliban released prisoners that the elected government were holding in their prison. One of them was an ISIS-K member who then blew himself and many others in his suicide bombing.

I hope Harris prosecutes him tonight like nobody's ever seen.

Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-10 04:58 PM

Just because I'd already made up my mind, doesn't mean I'm happy with non-answers and dodging responsibility for everything bad that happened instead of taking ownership.

Instead of answering a yes/no question directly and then spend the rest of her time explaining, Harris instead used that time to let voters know a little more about her - as the media and rightwingers have been demanding.

I don't know why intelligent people are so hopped up about stupid questions that answer themselves if one takes 30 seconds to analyze. Politicians change their positions on issues due to multiple reasons, but one chief reason for changing is to place themselves where their constituents are on the issues. Politicians (outside of Trump) shouldn't be running to only project their own pre-formed determinations on issues, they should always transition to where their constituency and voters are on an issue if that position doesn't conflict with the candidate's established values.

To me, it would take even Kamala Harris more time than she's allotted in this debate to explain the nuances involved in changing positions and how she justifies that change with detailed reasoning for said change. A time limited debate isn't the place for this to happen, and quite frankly, it's almost 100% certain that she will give answers to those questions multiple times during upcoming interviews and town halls where time is not at such a premium.

The ultra-short answer to 'why the change(?)' is simply this: I changed my positions because where I am now is where the voters in my coalition need me to be in order to best serve the nation's immediate needs. She changed on fracking because clean energy production - at present - is not enough in and of itself to completely abandon the domestic extraction of fossil fuels, and our reality is this: The OPEC oil cartel is an ongoing threat to the prosperity of the United States. And with America producing record amounts of oil - mainly due to fracking - trying to shut the industry down right now would not only give more power and leverage to Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela among other oil exporting nations, it would be antithetical to shutter thousands of good paying jobs in America and weaken our defensive postures with allied countries as well as driving inflation higher during a time we're focused on lowering it.

As with most rational Democrats understanding the threat of climate change, the future has to be one where fossil fuel use is obsoleted. But today is not the time to fight that battle because doing so would do immediate harm to American families, something no president wanna-be should support.

Good grief. An MSNBC reporter just spoke about the facts of this story and mistakenly told viewers the cat-eating incident happened in Springfield instead of Canton.

I wonder how long it will take someone to correct this egregious error?

Best lines about last night's debate:

The truth behind this and most other rabbit hole dives done far too often by Republican politicians who should know better than to take wild self-serving internet stories at face value, is that as a group, Republicans seldom make any efforts at truthseeking fact finding. It's documented:

#2

She touched on it but she didn't go as deeply as she could. Both you and I know it would have come as a complete shock to 95% of last night's audience if Kamala had directly tied the suicide bomber to the Taliban releasing him from prison right before we pulled out. Because the army Trump depended upon to at least defend Kabul turned tail and ran, which allowed the Taliban to release an ISIS-K terrorist who promptly attacked our withdrawal.

And even deeper, the US military indeed had intel on this guy and our security forces were actively scanning the crowds looking for him. Trump simply didn't leave enough troops in Afghanistan before he left office to provide the level of security we needed, and Biden wasn't going to reintroduce troops back into Afghanistan for a withdrawal.

Trump rolled the dice and Biden was left to play the numbers as best he could with the resources and manpower available in country.

2 half black presidents make a whole?

In the eyes of American history, 1/64ths African blood makes its owner "black" as a matter of former anti-misogyny laws in the South.

In reality, black is based as much on appearance as it is actual ethnic lineage.

So yes, the US presidency is indeed a "black job" when occupied by anyone looking like either Barack Obama or Kamala Harris.

Just ask Trump or one of his supporters if they recognize Obama's white lineage as anything but a rhetorical device like you just did.

It's absolutely incredible that Trump and his supporters actual believe that he should be allowed to consistently and repeatedly lie with impunity, and for the handful of times he was fact checked in real time, and in doing so constitutes egregious conduct on behalf of the moderators.

ABC rightly fact checked Trump on the Springfield Ohio lie because if they didn't and one of Trump's deranged supporters started targeting immigrant Haitians with threats of violence or intimidation, they'd have been complicit in whatever happened since it's easily provable that ABC knew the factual truth that Trump indeed was lying.

Trump's and the right wing fever swamp's lies have already gotten people injured and killed, while death threats are hurled at those Trump targets as antagonists - such as judges and their own family members having nothing to do or any connection to Trump whatsoever outside of not being his fans.

In Trump's world, those that don't like him should be subject to incarceration - while he ignores the mounting convictions he's trying to fight himself in the attempt to stay out of prison after random groups of 12 impartial citizens heard evidence and testimony and returned guilty charges against him in multiple court and grand jury rooms.

If you refuse to answer the first question in the debate,

Can you inform me of a single question directed to Trump that he answered with depth and detail regarding anything but himself and his precious feelings spread across every single topic?

I will never live this down.

You're right, perhaps even Roger's bigly Silver Ban Hammer might be called into play.

But, naw, we like and respect you. So with all my Retort influence and decade's-earned clout - I commute any sentence of punishment to instead praise your insights and passion.

In the immortal words of one of our most beloved posters - Be Well, Yav.

Another viewpoint:

#10

While it is newsworthy because it's true, the comment's intentional morbidness is actually pretty funny considering how insane the topic is.

A Cincinnati Enquirer story posted online Monday said some people are conflating her August arrest with unsubstantiated rumors alleging that Haitian immigrants in the southwest Ohio city of Springfield are eating pets.

A video posted on YouTube falsely purports to show police officers confronting a Haitian woman in Springfield about eating a cat.

In reality, the video actually shows police department bodycam video of Canton officers at the scene of the Aug. 16 incident in Canton. The video posted by the "Fake News Network" carries the title "Haitian Woman Eats Neighbour's Cat in Springfield."

In response to rumors spread on social media, Springfield City Manager Bryan Heck, through his office, released a statement Monday saying there's no evidence of any cats or other pets being harmed or eaten by the Haitian immigrants. This was in response to rumors spread on social media, including by Republican vice-presidential candidate and U.S. Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio.

Despite Springfield's efforts to debunk the pet-eating rumors, some politicians continued Monday to spread the false narrative. The presidential campaign of former President Donald Trump, on the social media site X, posted "President Trump will deport migrants that eat pets."

After last night's complete meltdown by Trump - which turned him into an angry vitriolic buffoon actually saying that because he saw something on Fox News that it must be real - people all over America should be afraid if Trump becomes POTUS again with his deranged warped sense of grievance and his total mental disconnection from reality.