draws little attention from media.

So here's a little attention.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/while-you-celebrated-july-4-a-bombshell-report-dropped-that-they-hoped-you-d-miss/ar-AA1dD7NH

"President Donald Trump chose to end endless wars. He drew down US troops in Afghanistan to about 2,500. They were to remain there as part of an international coalition which would ensure a fragile, but stable peace. He wanted to ensure a US presence
provided ongoing security and stability to the nation. They weren't engaged in combat activities. They provided much-needed technical and intelligence support and were succeeding in that role.

By contrast, President Joe Biden chose to end this peace and brought death and chaos to the region by abruptly deciding to remove those final 2,500 troops for no military or strategic reason, but for a political statement.

He wanted to symbolically be out of Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and his desire for a political stunt caused the utter collapse of Afghanistan. Biden made his decision for ultimate withdrawal against the advice of his advisors, against
what was best for the American people and our brave supporters on the ground in Afghanistan.

And did so knowing it would condemn Afghan women to a life of submission and abuse under Sharia law and endanger Afghan citizens who had supported or worked with America. Joe Biden got his photo op. Everyone else had to face the catastrophic wake of
those selfish and consequential decisions."

Ouch...Think Joe feels the pain? Anyone's pain and suffering? He's f'ing clueless. The man with only 6 grand children has no integrity.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing, unlike the opinion you quoted which is
notable for pretending Trump didn't want to withdraw entirely. How does
one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size of Texas with
2,500 troops?

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit for it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:04:32 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing, unlike the opinion you quoted which is notable for pretending Trump didn't want to withdraw entirely. How does
one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size of Texas with 2,500 troops?

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit for it.

I don't think that millions of people from Afghanistan's neighbors are sneaking across the border into Afghanistan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/10/23 12:04 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:04:32 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing, unlike the opinion you quoted which is
notable for pretending Trump didn't want to withdraw entirely. How does
one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size of Texas with
2,500 troops?

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit for it.

I don't think that millions of people from Afghanistan's neighbors are sneaking
across the border into Afghanistan

Me either. Wasn't there a civil war?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:04:32 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing,

You're a toad in boiling water....

unlike the opinion you quoted which is
notable for pretending Trump didn't want to withdraw entirely.

Wanting to...and doing it in such a reckless manner are two different things.

How does
one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size of Texas with 2,500 troops?

The 2500 troops enable two things.
Safely allowing in country a whole staff of techs to service and support the Afghan air force.
They kept it flying and their support of the Afghan Army was a major difference maker.
When the techs were ordered out of country, that's when the collapse and districts falling to the Taliban
really began to steamroll.
It also allowed them to secure and maintain operations at Bagram Air Field allowing for US air support if needed.

But Joe ordered the number reduced to a number that could only maintain embassy security...and couldn't do that
after Kabul fell.

And after all this...Joe won't even admit that he was advised to maintain the 2500.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491

What a lying POS.

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit for it.

Absolute BS. You're a pathetically ignorant dumbshit moron if you truly believe that.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:04:32 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing, unlike the opinion you quoted which is notable for pretending Trump didn't want to withdraw entirely. How does
one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size of Texas with 2,500 troops?

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit for it.

You are always making excuses.
WHen Biden came in, he immediately reversed a host of Trump's decisions.
This was a problem of Biden's faulty execution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/10/23 6:05 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:04:32 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing,

You're a toad in boiling water....

But I've read the report which blames intelligence assumptions, lack of Senate-confirmed appointees (thanks, Trump), embassy turnover and lack
of coordination with the DoD.

unlike the opinion you quoted which is notable for pretending Trump
didn't want to withdraw entirely.

Wanting to...and doing it in such a reckless manner are two different
things.

Trump's withdrawal order lacked specifics.

How does one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size
of Texas with 2,500 troops?

The 2500 troops enable two things. Safely allowing in country a whole
staff of techs to service and support the Afghan air force. They kept
it flying and their support of the Afghan Army was a major difference
maker. When the techs were ordered out of country, that's when the
collapse and districts falling to the Taliban really began to
steamroll. It also allowed them to secure and maintain operations at
Bagram Air Field allowing for US air support if needed.

But Joe ordered the number reduced to a number that could only
maintain embassy security...and couldn't do that after Kabul fell.

And after all this...Joe won't even admit that he was advised to
maintain the 2500.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491

What a lying POS.

They advocated breaking Trump's agreement with the Taliban?

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit
for it.

Absolute BS. You're a pathetically ignorant dumbshit moron if you
truly believe that.

Trump made the decision. Biden took the hit. What's not to believe?

From the State Dept report:

"Still, the departure of the last U.S. military and civilian officials effectively marks the end of a 20-year effort at nation building in Afghanistan. A study of the reasons for the failure of that effort is
well beyond the scope of this report, but the sudden departure of
President Ghani and the collapse of Afghan Security Forces served as a
stark reminder that the future of the country would ultimately be
determined by the Afghans themselves, not the United States and its
allies and partners. *Two U.S. Presidents had decided to withdraw U.S.
military forces from Afghanistan on the basis of an agreement negotiated
with the Taliban,* even as the United States worked to secure at the negotiating table an intra-Afghan peace deal that might bring peace
after decades of war. That deal never materialized, but even up to the
fall of Kabul, there were efforts underway in Doha to reach an accord
that might have created an interim government and allowed the U.S.
civilian mission in Afghanistan to remain. Many observers believe that
the Taliban used the February 2020 Agreement as a way to simply run out
the clock pending the departure of U.S. forces, while President Ghani
seemed never fully to appreciate the gravity of the situation or
believed that, somehow, the United States might reconsider the decision
to withdraw its forces."

The word 'reckless' doesn't appear in the report, nor is the tone
"scathing."

Not all bad news for Biden:

"In examining these efforts spanning two administrations, the AAR team
was struck by the differences in style and decision making, most notably
the relative lack of an interagency process in the Trump administration
and the intense interagency process that characterized the initial
period of the Biden Administration. This included a particular focus
very early in the Biden Administration on the fate of those eligible for
SIVs as well as larger numbers of other at-risk Afghans who might need assistance in the event of a Taliban victory. This led to the successful
launch of an initiative under Department leadership to reduce the
backlog of SIV applicants and begin moving those eligible from the country."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/11/23 6:17 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:04:32 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing, unlike the opinion you quoted which is
notable for pretending Trump didn't want to withdraw entirely. How does
one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size of Texas with
2,500 troops?

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit for it.

You are always making excuses.
WHen Biden came in, he immediately reversed a host of Trump's decisions.

But no treaties.

This was a problem of Biden's faulty execution.

Specifics, please.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 8:49:38 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 6:17 AM, Art Sackman wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 9:04:32 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing, unlike the opinion you quoted which is >> notable for pretending Trump didn't want to withdraw entirely. How does >> one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size of Texas with >> 2,500 troops?

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit for it.

You are always making excuses.
WHen Biden came in, he immediately reversed a host of Trump's decisions.

But no treaties.

This was a problem of Biden's faulty execution.

Specifics, please.

here is a handy tool you can use.

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/clay-eyes-man-picture-id157617761? k=6&m=157617761&s=612x612&w=0&h=jAldiu1ULS8ALwEgqf9lQW0-U1mieEVIJ0aVlQX0Mqo=

But it only works if your head isn't stuck up your ass.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:32:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/10/23 6:05 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:04:32 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing,

You're a toad in boiling water....

But I've read the report which blames intelligence assumptions, lack of Senate-confirmed appointees (thanks, Trump),

It you're talking about Trump appointments, Thank Schumer.
If you're talking Biden....Trump was gone.
You're just being ludicrous trying to absolve blame by political appointments. Biden could easily assign responsibility while awaiting those appointments
as was his job. He simply failed.

embassy turnover and lack
of coordination with the DoD.

Under the Biden admin.

unlike the opinion you quoted which is notable for pretending Trump

didn't want to withdraw entirely.

Wanting to...and doing it in such a reckless manner are two different things.

Trump's withdrawal order lacked specifics.

Yet it had specific provisions for the Taliban to meet as predicates for withdrawal.
They did not meet them and further withdrawal was not warranted.

How does one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size
of Texas with 2,500 troops?

The 2500 troops enable two things. Safely allowing in country a whole staff of techs to service and support the Afghan air force. They kept
it flying and their support of the Afghan Army was a major difference maker. When the techs were ordered out of country, that's when the collapse and districts falling to the Taliban really began to
steamroll. It also allowed them to secure and maintain operations at Bagram Air Field allowing for US air support if needed.

But Joe ordered the number reduced to a number that could only
maintain embassy security...and couldn't do that after Kabul fell.

And after all this...Joe won't even admit that he was advised to
maintain the 2500.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491

What a lying POS.

They advocated breaking Trump's agreement with the Taliban?

You're lying about the "agreement". The Taliban failed to meet the criteria for full withdrawal.
You act the US was the only party to this agreement.

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit
for it.

Absolute BS. You're a pathetically ignorant dumbshit moron if you
truly believe that.

Trump made the decision. Biden took the hit. What's not to believe?

Trump didn't decide to reduce troop levels below 2500.
BIDEN DID THAT.

From the State Dept report:

"Still, the departure of the last U.S. military and civilian officials effectively marks the end of a 20-year effort at nation building in Afghanistan. A study of the reasons for the failure of that effort is
well beyond the scope of this report, but the sudden departure of
President Ghani and the collapse of Afghan Security Forces served as a
stark reminder that the future of the country would ultimately be
determined by the Afghans themselves, not the United States and its
allies and partners. *Two U.S. Presidents had decided to withdraw U.S. military forces from Afghanistan on the basis of an agreement negotiated with the Taliban,* even as the United States worked to secure at the negotiating table an intra-Afghan peace deal that might bring peace
after decades of war. That deal never materialized, but even up to the
fall of Kabul, there were efforts underway in Doha to reach an accord
that might have created an interim government and allowed the U.S.
civilian mission in Afghanistan to remain. Many observers believe that
the Taliban used the February 2020 Agreement as a way to simply run out
the clock pending the departure of U.S. forces,

A clock that could have easily stopped ticking at 2500.

Nobody likes having to maintain a force in Afghanistan.
But the cost to prevent total collapse and complete Taliban takeover was not prohibitive.

(snip the backslapping on their successful Dunkirk)

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/11/23 11:05 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:32:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/10/23 6:05 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:04:32 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing,

You're a toad in boiling water....

But I've read the report which blames intelligence assumptions, lack of
Senate-confirmed appointees (thanks, Trump),

It you're talking about Trump appointments, Thank Schumer.
If you're talking Biden....Trump was gone.

"The position of Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs
offers a case in point. That position, critical to the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy in Afghanistan and South and Central Asia, was filled by
a series of talented career officers serving in an acting capacity
throughout the Trump administration and most of the first year of the
Biden administration. No matter how qualified the “acting” person is, it
is not the same as having a confirmed official in position."

You're just being ludicrous trying to absolve blame by political appointments.
Biden could easily assign responsibility while awaiting those appointments
as was his job. He simply failed.

https://www.voanews.com/a/confirmation-backlog-leaves-biden-s-state-department-badly-understaffed-/6282065.html

Hed: Confirmation Backlog Leaves Biden's State Department Badly Understaffed

Nine months after taking office, President Joe Biden has seen only 20 of
his appointments to the State Department confirmed by the Senate, with
nearly half of the 167 American ambassadorships empty and dozens of key
policy positions staffed by unconfirmed officials serving in an "acting"
role.

The number of empty desks at the State Department is partly Biden's own
fault, according to analysts...

However, many of the key positions remain unfilled because the process
of gaining the approval of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has
taken many nominees months to navigate.

Finally, sitting at the end of the gauntlet, is Texas Senator Ted Cruz,
a Republican, who has been using Senate procedures to prevent many non-controversial nominees from receiving a prompt up-or-down vote on
the Senate floor. Cruz contends that the Biden administration is in
flagrant violation of the law, because it has refused to enforce
sanctions on a Russian natural gas pipeline.

In addition to Cruz, Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley has also
blocked a number of Biden's nominees.

End quote.

embassy turnover and lack
of coordination with the DoD.

Under the Biden admin.

>> unlike the opinion you quoted which is notable for pretending Trump

didn't want to withdraw entirely.

Wanting to...and doing it in such a reckless manner are two different
things.

Trump's withdrawal order lacked specifics.

Yet it had specific provisions for the Taliban to meet as predicates for withdrawal.
They did not meet them and further withdrawal was not warranted.

Trump didn't enforce the agreement, true.

How does one provide "stability and security" to a nation the size
of Texas with 2,500 troops?

The 2500 troops enable two things. Safely allowing in country a whole
staff of techs to service and support the Afghan air force. They kept
it flying and their support of the Afghan Army was a major difference
maker. When the techs were ordered out of country, that's when the
collapse and districts falling to the Taliban really began to
steamroll. It also allowed them to secure and maintain operations at
Bagram Air Field allowing for US air support if needed.

But Joe ordered the number reduced to a number that could only
maintain embassy security...and couldn't do that after Kabul fell.

And after all this...Joe won't even admit that he was advised to
maintain the 2500.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/28/top-generals-afghanistan-withdrawal-congress-hearing-514491

What a lying POS.

They advocated breaking Trump's agreement with the Taliban?

You're lying about the "agreement". The Taliban failed to meet the criteria for full withdrawal.
You act the US was the only party to this agreement.

Trump and Biden both wanted out of Afghanistan. Trump's plan was even
more precipitate than Biden's.

Biden was stuck with Trump's decision and took the political hit
for it.

Absolute BS. You're a pathetically ignorant dumbshit moron if you
truly believe that.

Trump made the decision. Biden took the hit. What's not to believe?

Trump didn't decide to reduce troop levels below 2500.
BIDEN DID THAT.

Trump wanted zero troops.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/13/january-6-trump-afghanistan-somalia/

President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon to rapidly pull all U.S.
troops from Afghanistan and Somalia in the immediate aftermath of his
2020 election loss to Joe Biden, alarming senior aides who feared doing
so would have “catastrophic” consequences, according to congressional testimony aired Thursday...

The Trump administration, in February 2020, signed a deal with the
Taliban agreeing to remove all U.S. troops by spring 2021. It included a handful of concessions, including that the Taliban would hold fire
against U.S. troops as they departed. The Afghan government was cut out
of those discussions.

Trump later undermined that agreement, tweeting in October of that year
that all U.S. troops should be “home by Christmas!”

End quote.

From the State Dept report:

"Still, the departure of the last U.S. military and civilian officials
effectively marks the end of a 20-year effort at nation building in
Afghanistan. A study of the reasons for the failure of that effort is
well beyond the scope of this report, but the sudden departure of
President Ghani and the collapse of Afghan Security Forces served as a
stark reminder that the future of the country would ultimately be
determined by the Afghans themselves, not the United States and its
allies and partners. *Two U.S. Presidents had decided to withdraw U.S.
military forces from Afghanistan on the basis of an agreement negotiated
with the Taliban,* even as the United States worked to secure at the
negotiating table an intra-Afghan peace deal that might bring peace
after decades of war. That deal never materialized, but even up to the
fall of Kabul, there were efforts underway in Doha to reach an accord
that might have created an interim government and allowed the U.S.
civilian mission in Afghanistan to remain. Many observers believe that
the Taliban used the February 2020 Agreement as a way to simply run out
the clock pending the departure of U.S. forces,

A clock that could have easily stopped ticking at 2500.

Easily? I dispute that characterization. Those bases you referred to
were closed so didn't need guarding.

Nobody likes having to maintain a force in Afghanistan.
But the cost to prevent total collapse and complete Taliban takeover was not prohibitive.

Twenty years of a major military presence is certainly prohibitive.

(snip the backslapping on their successful Dunkirk)

Yes, successful.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:39:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 11:05 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:32:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/10/23 6:05 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:04:32 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing,

You're a toad in boiling water....

But I've read the report which blames intelligence assumptions, lack of >> Senate-confirmed appointees (thanks, Trump),

It you're talking about Trump appointments, Thank Schumer.
If you're talking Biden....Trump was gone.

"The position of Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs offers a case in point. That position, critical to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and South and Central Asia, was filled by
a series of talented career officers serving in an acting capacity throughout the Trump administration and most of the first year of the
Biden administration. No matter how qualified the “acting” person is, it is not the same as having a confirmed official in position."

Yeah....it's probably better.

(snip the confession that staffing problems are largely Biden's own fault)

A clock that could have easily stopped ticking at 2500.

Easily? I dispute that characterization. Those bases you referred to
were closed so didn't need guarding.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-military-leaves-bagram-airfield-hands-it-afghans-after-n1272958

You are a fucking liar.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/11/23 10:12 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:39:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 11:05 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:32:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/10/23 6:05 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:04:32 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing,

You're a toad in boiling water....

But I've read the report which blames intelligence assumptions, lack of >>>> Senate-confirmed appointees (thanks, Trump),

It you're talking about Trump appointments, Thank Schumer.
If you're talking Biden....Trump was gone.

"The position of Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs
offers a case in point. That position, critical to the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy in Afghanistan and South and Central Asia, was filled by
a series of talented career officers serving in an acting capacity
throughout the Trump administration and most of the first year of the
Biden administration. No matter how qualified the “acting” person is, it >> is not the same as having a confirmed official in position."

Yeah....it's probably better.

(snip the confession that staffing problems are largely Biden's own fault)

No, that's you stopping so you don't have to deal with contrary evidence
and reconcile a balanced report.

Ted Cruz, Tom Hawley.

A clock that could have easily stopped ticking at 2500.

Easily? I dispute that characterization. Those bases you referred to
were closed so didn't need guarding.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/u-s-military-leaves-bagram-airfield-hands-it-afghans-after-n1272958

The point is for that nation to be manageable by 2,500 requires the
cooperation of the Taliban who were honoring the part of the agreement
in which they promised not to shoot at US soldiers.

If Biden had abrogated the agreement we would have lost that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:26:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 10:12 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 11:39:06 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 11:05 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 5:32:36 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/10/23 6:05 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:04:32 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/9/23 7:36 PM, ScottW wrote:

draws little attention from media.

Because it wasn't that scathing,

You're a toad in boiling water....

But I've read the report which blames intelligence assumptions, lack of >>>> Senate-confirmed appointees (thanks, Trump),

It you're talking about Trump appointments, Thank Schumer.
If you're talking Biden....Trump was gone.

"The position of Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs >> offers a case in point. That position, critical to the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy in Afghanistan and South and Central Asia, was filled by >> a series of talented career officers serving in an acting capacity
throughout the Trump administration and most of the first year of the
Biden administration. No matter how qualified the “acting” person is, it
is not the same as having a confirmed official in position."

Yeah....it's probably better.

(snip the confession that staffing problems are largely Biden's own fault)

No, that's you stopping so you don't have to deal with contrary evidence
and reconcile a balanced report.

If the staffing wasn't in place for a successful withdrawal....why did Joe push forward
and continue to insist on his 9/11 deadline?

Even your shitty excuses circle back to Biden's horrid and irrefutable poor executive decisions.

ScottW

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/12/23 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:26:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 10:12 PM, ScottW wrote:

(snip the confession that staffing problems are largely Biden's own fault) >> No, that's you stopping so you don't have to deal with contrary evidence

and reconcile a balanced report.

If the staffing wasn't in place for a successful withdrawal....why did Joe push forward
and continue to insist on his 9/11 deadline?

That was an extension of Trump's previous deadlines, not a "push
forward." And, unsuccessful? We're gone, aren't we? with relatively
little loss of life.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 12:26:46 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/12/23 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:26:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 10:12 PM, ScottW wrote:

(snip the confession that staffing problems are largely Biden's own fault)

No, that's you stopping so you don't have to deal with contrary evidence >> and reconcile a balanced report.

If the staffing wasn't in place for a successful withdrawal....why did Joe push forward
and continue to insist on his 9/11 deadline?

That was an extension of Trump's previous deadlines, not a "push
forward." And, unsuccessful? We're gone, aren't we? with relatively
little loss of life.

Biden could have extended the deadline.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:26:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/12/23 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:26:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 10:12 PM, ScottW wrote:

(snip the confession that staffing problems are largely Biden's own fault)

No, that's you stopping so you don't have to deal with contrary evidence >> and reconcile a balanced report.

If the staffing wasn't in place for a successful withdrawal....why did Joe push forward
and continue to insist on his 9/11 deadline?

That was an extension of Trump's previous deadlines, not a "push
forward."

Joe set his own deadline based on a political talking point and nothing more.
It's revolting to give up so much for so little.

And, unsuccessful? We're gone, aren't we? with relatively
little loss of life.

Your contempt for the lives of Afghans is revolting.

ScottW


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Fortune cookie time!

And, unsuccessful? We're gone, aren't we? with relatively
little loss of life.

Your contempt for the lives of Afghans is revolting.

ConShittus say: "My ass be itching, must order new cactus."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/12/23 7:14 PM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 9:26:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/12/23 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:

On Wednesday, July 12, 2023 at 5:26:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

On 7/11/23 10:12 PM, ScottW wrote:

(snip the confession that staffing problems are largely Biden's own fault)

No, that's you stopping so you don't have to deal with contrary evidence >>>> and reconcile a balanced report.

If the staffing wasn't in place for a successful withdrawal....why did Joe push forward
and continue to insist on his 9/11 deadline?

That was an extension of Trump's previous deadlines, not a "push
forward."

Joe set his own deadline based on a political talking point and nothing more.
It's revolting to give up so much for so little.

There's where your argument fails: it's self-evident a decision was
made, but if it were only based on a political talking point, wouldn't
he have kept the Sept 11 date?

And, unsuccessful? We're gone, aren't we? with relatively
little loss of life.

Your contempt for the lives of Afghans is revolting.

Your concern for them is only expressed in insulting me.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)