The argument's premise is that Trump left Biden and Kamala with no plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan. The fact is that Trump signed the withdrawal agreement with the Taliban on February 29, 2020. For graduates of Baltimore public schools and others challenged by mathematics, that is 534 days before the Kabul airlift began. If there was no plan for the withdrawal, that really isn't the direct responsibility of the guy who left office 207 days prior to the event. The responsibility for planning the operation lay with the Defense Department, specifically within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If Biden didn't have a plan, then it is the fault of service leaders who refused to do their duty and, in this telling of events, sat on their hands and refused to plan for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan. (During the big drawdown of the Army after the USSR went belly up, the Army refused to plan for a force reduction because it was felt that if word got out that we were planning, then the political people would think we were fine with the idea and make us do it. If we didn't plan, the reasoning went, we might not have to do it. I can see the same logic in effect in executing the end of our adventure in Afghanistan.) That would mean the very people blaming Trump for the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan include some of the people who were responsible for that withdrawal.

Thanks to the efforts of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, we know there was a plan, but Biden and the "last person" in the room overruled it. //

The real threat to our democracy are military officers who trade on their rank to tell lies in the name of partisan politics. //

Mike Ford
17 hours ago edited
One of AFNN’s best writers, COL Jack Tobin (rest his soul) wrote the initial plan well before Biden came on the scene….

It called for the use of Bagram as the evac base and its subsequent retention.

It also followed standard NEO doctrine whereby you evac the noncombatants and THEN extract troops.

You damned sure don’t put your evac point in a downtown version of Dien Ben Phu //

Hoover the Great
18 hours ago
This debacle really shows why we need to take a meat cleaver to the US army. And by that, I don't just mean replacing personnel, I mean reducing footprint and eliminating force and positions. Reduce the size by maybe 80-90%. As Eisenhower stated, a massive standing army like we have does not make America safer.

ECoolidge19 Hoover the Great
17 hours ago
I saw a post on RS sometime ago, it listed the number of 4 star Generals during WW 2 compared to now. It was like 1-8. I forget exactly but I remember being surprised. Sounds like a good starting point. At minimum, you don't fire but just put a freeze on hiring new //

Hoover the Great anon-x1lc
2 hours ago
There is no security benefit from maintaining a massive standing army like we have now. Or if there is one, it does not remotely approach the cost of it, both monetary cultural and spiritual. That position is essentially the one held by President and Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Dwight Eisenhower.

We built this military machine after WWII. Before that, we had a skeleton military that we would quickly put the meat and muscles onto if we needed to fight a war. We never lost a war with that model. Since we built this military machine, the military's record is more mixed. That spans several decades, so is not just the result of bad people in leadership. It's the system itself.

David K
6 hours ago edited
RFK Jr understands the basics of the Reagan 80/20 rule: i.e., "The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor." Never Trumpers have the Reagan Rule backwards and support Democratic candidates that have less than 20% agreement with their so-called "True Conservative" values and they hate Trump and MAGA supporters even thought they arguably have more than 80% policy agreement with them. Unlike these Never Trumpers, RFK Jr isn't taking his ball and going home in a hissy fit, but following the Reagan 80/20 Rule. Similarly, Trump understands that 100% political alignment with the majority of voters is an impossible dream. He also understands that he and RFK Jr don't need to be in complete agreement for each of them to get their best possible outcome in the 2024 election. Like life, politics is not a strict zero-sum, all-or-nothing game.

etba_ss David K
2 hours ago
These people endorsing Harris to "save conservatism/democracy/the republic" are lying. They don't really believe that. They just hate Trump. Just like the left didn't believe Dick Cheney was "literally Hitler". As soon as he turns a trick for them, they like him again. The left thinks like Voldomort, both being pure evil, that there is no good or evil, only power. Only evil claims that.

Let's also acknowledge people like Dick Cheney hate us. They tolerated us when we knew our place, sat down, shut up and let them run the country. Since that gig is up, they expose themselves. They don't agree with us 80% of the time. That's why they hate us. They agree with Harris closer to 80% of the time than they do with us. They just want to funnel favors to a different set of friends. They are all for power, forever war, globalism and elitism. If they just hated Trump, they wouldn't also be campaigning against Ted Cruz. They wouldn't hate Ron DeSantis too.

These are the people who hated Reagan. Then when he got power and was so popular, they pretended they were like him. Reagan also spent a lot of money on defense, which lined their pockets. Reagan was winning the Cold War. This isn't 1980 anymore. There is no USSR. China is a real threat, but we are doing next to nothing about them. We are too busy meddling in everything else in the world to get serious about the real threat.

Over at Newsweek, Gad Saad wrote an incredible piece detailing this phenomenon:

It's this peripheral, emotive route of persuasion that the Harris campaign has embraced with the "positive vibes" campaign rooted in joy, excitement, and fun. Her managers are willfully hijacking your decision-making process by ensuring that you focus only on your affective, peripheral system.

It's deeply cynical, for the obvious reason that when selecting the leader of the free world, you should be engaging your cognitive system. A rational voter should evaluate the respective positions of the two candidates on fiscal policy, immigration policy, border security, foreign policy, criminal justice policy, commitment to the First and Second Amendments, the tension between the rights of biological women versus trans women (biological males), and their stance on meritocracy versus diversity, inclusion, and equity.

And yet, the great majority of voters are utterly oblivious about these issues, and prefer to love or hate a given candidate based on irrelevant affective processing. //

The Harris campaign doesn't want you thinking too hard about it. Don't explore the issues and really think about the solutions. Just feel the vibes, man. Just let the joy in and take it easy. Let it take you away. //

The Harris campaign is a lot more like a drug pusher in this regard, much like many a psychologist and back alley dealers are today. Feeling anxious? Take this pill. Feeling depressed. This prescription medication will give you the sensation of a normal life back. It's all just too much? Smoke this. Inject this right into your veins and you'll feel like you're flying. //

It's a dangerous thing to believe a politician who talks more about smiling than about policy. As the late great George Carlin once said:

"When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley. Smiley." //

Raoul Bilbao
an hour ago
I know of another leftist group that sold "Happiness" back in the 1930s and 40s..................

Louis Rukeyser's Ghost Raoul Bilbao
8 minutes ago
Oh yeah. Leo Reisman and His Orchestra singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" pushing FDR. Great point! //

anon-1l9q
an hour ago
Harris is selling the wrong religion. There's a better one that has joy unspeakable, and full of glory

This using the United States Supreme Court to litigate elections should never have become a thing. We can blame former Vice President Al Gore for opening that door to that. Norah O'Donnell and the Brown Jackson are assuming the 2024 election will be contested and that SCOTUS will be the deciding factor. So rich. They are setting the narrative and the playing field.

The Democrats have tried to keep left-wing third party candidates off the November ballot. //

It’s curious. The same Democratic Party that has feverishly tried to keep leftist third-party presidential candidates off November’s ballot is now fighting like hell to keep Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on.

A new report is shedding some light on why Walz has been so confined, and it's both telling and hilarious.

What about Tim? One of the issues that Harris world is currently working to address is how to deploy running mate TIM WALZ in the media. The danger in sending him out to do big solo interviews is that he might not have a full command of where Harris is on every issue. As someone pointed out to us last night, Harris talks about the “opportunity economy,” but if Walz were asked to define it, would he know how?

Think about that. Kamala Harris' policy positions are so nebulous and undefined that her own running mate doesn't have a grasp of where she stands. This is a presidential ticket that has been together for a month, and Walz still can't be trusted to do interviews without possibly contradicting her. If this were a Saturday Night Live skit, what would be different?

Here's the thing, though. Kamala Harris also doesn't have a grasp of where she stands. There's a reason her website still doesn't include a policy platform despite the Democratic National Convention having concluded. //

anon-24tf 2 hours ago

This reminds of something I learned years ago.
Strong leaders want strong subordinates to help fill in when needed. Weak leaders want weak subordinates so they won’t feel threatened. I don’t think there is better illustration of this than Trump/Vance vs. Harris/Walz.

3.14159 anon-24tf 2 hours ago

Obama/Biden. Biden/Harris.

anon-7iuo anon-24tf 39 minutes ago

Type A people hire Type A people. Type B people hire Type C people.

You know, Bobby I think, probably, that's why he had such tremendous influence on the childrens' lives — he never tried to impose his own worldview on them. He did it by example. //

What an interesting observation from the one person who likely knew him best. RFK never tried to impose his worldview on his children, but to show them by example — things that mattered to him, such as the wellbeing of children.

Certainly, none of us can speak for a man who's been gone over 56 years now. Not even his children — though one might note that RFK Jr. was 14 when his father died, while Kerry was only 9. Not even his wife can truly say what he would have thought of his son — his namesake — bucking the party so closely associated with their family in the name of championing free speech, ending war, and fighting for children's health.

But I do think there's an argument to be made that he'd prefer they find a way to love one another, in spite of their differences. One suspects their mother — who's still living at 96, by the way — might feel the same.

For instance, being a third-party candidate on a debate stage alongside Republicans and Democrats is borderline impossible thanks to rules that were created through a group founded by both Republicans and Democrats. I wrote of the Commission on Presidential Debates in 2016 and how it effectively pushed out the League of Women Voters to seize control of the debate stage:

The organization itself was founded in 1987 by a bipartisan Republican/Democrat effort, and has run the debates ever since. //

Before the CPD, the debates were run by the League of Women Voters from 1976 to 1984. The League withdrew when Republicans and Democrats made a deal that would give them full control over the debates, and how they were run.

Nancy Neuman, then head of the League, called the deal “outrageous,” and noted that the Democrats and Republicans wanted to control the questioners, composition of the audience, press access, and more. All of this was done behind closed doors. By the time the deal was done, the League was presented with 16 pages of non-negotiable rules for the debates.

The League departed with a statement that called out exactly what the dual parties were doing and remains accurate to this day:

“The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter,” League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.

“It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions,” Neuman said. “The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

Even Walter Cronkite called it an "unconscionable fraud." //

No matter how insane you might think the person is, they deserve a fair shot at winning the people's affections. The rules should not be weighted against them, and the other parties should not be able to manipulate rules to keep them from reaching the people.

It's my honest opinion that a two-party system is incredibly dangerous and limiting. If America's economic system has taught us anything, it's that competition brings out the best in people and the best people overall. Yet, we're currently tied to a dual-party system so filled to the brim with corruption that sometimes it's hard to know where one party begins and the other ends.

“No, not at all,” Vance told a Fox News reporter in an interview that aired Sunday. “It doesn’t hurt my feelings.”

“Look, the price of admission — meaning, the price of getting to serve the people of this country — is the Democrats are going to attack us with everything that they have. I think it’s an honor,” Vance continued.

“As Harry Truman once said, ‘if you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen,’” he said.

The fact that Democrats even went with this strategy reveals a remarkable inability to read the room. If you think men can get pregnant, dress up in explicit costumes, wear African garb when you’re a white woman, and call other people “weird,” then perhaps you might consider taking a look in the mirror.

The reality is that there is weirdness in each political movement. Indeed, one has to be at least a little weird to run for office. But when parts of your political party resemble a Ringling Bros. circus, it is not a good idea to call other people “weird,” especially when social media is a thing.

As America prepares for November’s presidential election, the fight for votes will inevitably intensify.

But as conservative commentator Megan Basham explains in her new book, “Shepherds For Sale: How Evangelical Leaders Traded The Truth For A Leftist Agenda” (Broadside) — and in an interview with The Post — nowhere will the campaign be more fiercely fought than in the battle for the one of the most powerful voting blocs in the country: evangelicals.

A culture reporter for the Daily Wire and former editor at Evangelical publication World Magazine, Basham reveals in “Shepherds For Sale” how “progressive power brokers” are targeting not just churches but Christian media, universities and even entire denominations in a bid to force their hands when it comes to dealing with culture war flash-points like abortion, LGBTQ rights and climate change. //

“Look at nearly any issue that represents a key priority for progressives, and you will find that even when all other major demographics have signed on, Christians, and evangelicals in particular, represent the most formidable roadblock,” she says. //

Basham maintains that in return for toeing a more left-wing line on key issues — as well as reinterpreting or even eschewing scripture — many church leaders have received everything from praise to prestige, career progression to significant amounts of cash, selling out Christianity in the process.

“Evangelicals don’t always win at the ballot box, but in most regions of the country, they always present a massive hurdle to leftist power grabs,” writes Basham. //

A significant aspect of the left’s ability to infiltrate the Church is the existence of what Basham calls the “Eleventh Commandment,” namely: Thou shalt not criticize church leaders.

“What the Eleventh Commandment has meant in practice is that even as prominent pastors and theologians have spent the last few years accommodating every sort of secular, progressive influence, critical or even cautioning voices have been slow to respond [to the challenge],” she says.

J.P. Cooney cultivated a politically toxic environment, disseminated baseless conspiracy theories, and engaged in unprofessional conduct, a report says. //

Cooney is mentioned (as the “Fraud and Public Corruption Section Chief”) a whopping 394 times in the 85-page report released from the Justice Department’s inspector general on July 24.

"Seeing Donald Trump get up after getting shot in the face and pump his fist in the air with the American flag is one of the most bada-- things I’ve ever seen in my life," Zuckerberg said Thursday during an interview at the company’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California, according to Bloomberg.

"On some level as an American, it’s like hard to not get kind of emotional about that spirit and that fight, and I think that that’s why a lot of people like the guy." //

Zuckerberg said Meta is making changes that he hopes will mean Facebook is not as much of a flashpoint in elections going forward. “The main thing that I hear from people is that they actually want to see less political content on our services because they come to our services to connect with people.” Meta is already recommending less political content to its users, he added. “I think you’re going to see our services play less of a role in this election than they have in the past.” //

Mary Frances
12 hours ago
Trump raises his "fight" fist to America. Biden raises his middle finger to us.

UpLateAgain Mary Frances
12 hours ago
You can't really blame Biden. That's all the weight he can heft.

One lesson we need to take out of this is we should never allow any presidency to again take on a myth of Camelot. People attracted to power are some of the most selfish, venal, and narcissistic human beings. Callahan’s book moves us further toward acknowledging that ugly reality.

With unwavering love for her husband and her country, Melania Trump set a shining example of strength, resolve, and love with these powerful words:

I am thinking of you, now, my fellow Americans.

We have always been a unique union. America, the fabric of our gentle nation is tattered, but our courage and common sense must ascend and bring us back together as one.

When I watched that violent bullet strike my husband, Donald, I realized my life, and Barron’s life were on the brink of devastating change. I am grateful to the brave secret service agents and law enforcement officials who risked their own lives to protect my husband.

To the families of the innocent victims who are now suffering from this heinous act, I humbly offer my sincerest sympathy. Your need to summon your strength for such a terrible reason saddens me.
...
We are all humans, and fundamentally, instinctively, we want to help one another. American politics are only one vehicle that can uplift our communities. Love, compassion, kindness and empathy are necessities.

And let us remember that when the time comes to look beyond the left and the right, beyond the red and the blue, we all come from families with the passion to fight for a better life together, while we are here, in this earthly realm.

Dawn is here again. Let us reunite. Now.

This morning, ascend above the hate, the vitriol, and the simple-minded ideas that ignite violence. We all want to world where respect is paramount, family is first, and love transcends. We can realize this world again. Each of us must demand to get it back. We must insist that respect fills the cornerstone of our relationships, again.

I am thinking of you, my fellow Americans.

The winds of change have arrived. For those of you who cry in support, I thank you. I commend those of you who have reached out beyond the political divide – thank you for remembering that every single politician is a man or woman with a loving family.

jester6
a few seconds ago
To me, the most disguising feature of people on the left is that they do not understand human nature, especially when it comes to violence and reciprocity.

They think violence is just an antiseptic theoretical concept. They treat it like an idea or theory you would toss around in a classroom or dope-infused bull session in a dorm room. They seem to believe violence is something you can experiment with and then turn off with just a few words.

They also never consider the fact that humans are hardwired to be reciprocal. If someone gives us a gift, we are more likely to give a gift in return. If someone wrongs us, we are more likely to wrong them back.

If you read the history of any major conflict, you will find that almost everyone starts with one or both sides, making fundamental mistakes when assessing their opponents.

I am certain if we ever stumble into a civil war, the left's poor understanding of human nature will be a major cause.

The France24 TV: “More than 210 left-wing or Macronist candidates … have already withdrawn in order to block the far right from winning a majority.” //

Subotai Bahadur | July 5, 2024 at 7:15 pm
We have a country where:

A) The party in power ignores what the people want in the name of Leftist ideological correctness.

B) What passes for opposition party(s) care not a whit for what the people want.

C) The physical soil of the country is literally invaded occupied by a huge, hostile foreign army that is functionally above the law of the country.

D) There is an election, and the ruling party gets its collective gluteus maximus, minimus, and medialis handed to it and a party that actually might do what the people want gets most of the votes. The response of the once ruling party is to ally itself with its former opposition to thwart the will of the people.

Now, despite what seems like eerie resemblances to our own poor country; the country involved is France. Now it is a point of pride to our educational establishment that American students have no knowledge of the means and motives for the establishment of our own country. For most Americans, understanding of French history is at the level of animated cartoons or perhaps a Mel Brooks movie.

Besides being a history buff all my life, while in college I studied it, including quite a bit on the French Revolution and Napoleon.

The European approach to politics, and especially with their history the French approach to politics, is very, very different to our own. The Anglo-Saxon evolution of politics that eventually became our own deliberately tries to avoid mass bloodshed when things reach an impasse. Which is possible when say an electoral approach works. The key is what happens when the electoral approach does not work.

France has shown what happens when electoral, peaceful politics do not work. France as a Republic is younger than our relatively juvenile country. Since 1789 they have had 2 monarchies, one “Consulate”, one “Directory”, two Empires, and 5 Republics; each with their own Constitution, laws, and political systems with their own definitions of legitimacy.

“Every [French] head of state from 1814 to 1873 spent part of his life in exile. Every regime was the target of assassination attempts of a frequency that put Spanish and Russian politics in the shade. Even in peaceful times governments changed every few months. In less peaceful times, political deaths, imprisonments and deportations are literally incalculable.”

These are NOT a people you deliberately disrespect when you are in power, nor [with their even more ancient history] do you encourage their occupation by a more ancient foreign enemy. This is likely to get far more untidy than we expect over here.

And if our own Anglo-Saxon political approach ever fails . . .

Subotai Bahadur

As John Dickinson later noted, “the insanity of Parliament has operated like inspiration in America. The Colonists now know what is designed against them.”

And suddenly, the phrase “the common cause” began appearing in pamphlets up and down the East Coast. The “common cause” was a call to all colonists to stand with their oppressed brethren in Boston against tyrannical overreach by the government.

To be clear, the Southern colonies had little in common with their Northern counterparts. For example, their economies were vastly different and dependent on different goods. Georgians could have ignored the plight of their fellow colonists in Massachusetts, but they knew should the same fate befall them, they too would have to face it alone. And so, the colonists moved forward under a united front.

“The die is now cast, the [American] colonies must now either submit or triumph,” King George III infamously said in Sept. 1774.

Colonists owed no obedience to unjust laws. There would be no such submission. They would take death or liberty.

Their sacrifices, willpower, and commitment to the “common cause” is why we celebrate the Fourth of July, Independence Day.

But it is a lack of that “common cause” that has put us in the position we are in today. Government has become too big, and Americans are — just as our forefathers — treated as piggy banks for bureaucrats who spend uncontrollably to finance their partisan agenda. There can be no better tomorrow under these circumstances, but who would know? We’re all too busy endlessly scrolling on social media to realize what’s happening around us. We’re willingly distracted.

America is in need of a “common cause” now more than ever. Too much is at stake.

Modern left-wing activism in the United States has roots in the Soviet Union's 1960s strategy to undermine Western culture. By promoting divisive ideologies and fostering internal dissent, the Soviets aimed to weaken the societal fabric from within, creating a legacy that continues to influence today’s political landscape.

Over the decades, these tactics evolved and merged with neo-communist strategies for infiltration. This resulted in a robust network of activist groups and organizations at both local and national levels. Initially designed to destabilize Western norms, these groups adapted to the changing political landscape, maintaining their relevance and influence. //

The foundation of left-wing activism in the United States can be traced back to a deliberate strategy orchestrated by the Soviet Union in the 1960s. This plan was aimed at undermining Western culture and destabilizing American society by promoting divisive ideologies and fostering internal dissent. The Soviets knew that to weaken the Western world, they needed to create discord from within, leading to a systematic effort to infiltrate various aspects of American life.

After the end of the Cold War, many leftists aligned with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union shifted their focus to the "green" movement. This shift was marked by Gorbachev's founding of the Green Cross, proving that the "green" movement was always a communist front.

The Soviet strategy aimed not only to spread communism but also to create a lasting legacy that would continue to influence and disrupt Western culture. By embedding operatives and sympathizers within influential institutions, the Soviets set the stage for long-term subversion. This approach, often referred to as the "Long March Through the Institutions," involved systematically infiltrating and gaining control of key societal structures, such as education, media, and non-profit organizations.

There's an old rural metaphor that applies to a lot of politicians today. The metaphor in question is that of the "Fencepost Turtle," and it involves someone walking down the road and seeing an old wooden fencepost, and on top of the fencepost, balanced uncomfortably on his plastron, is a turtle. Now you look at that turtle, and you immediately know three things about it: 1) It doesn't belong up there, 2) It didn't get up there by itself, and 3) It's only a matter of time before someone comes along and knocks it off the fencepost.

Kamala Harris is a fencepost turtle. We all know how her political career started. We all know why she was Joe Biden's 2020 VP pick.

But it's 2024 now, and the question arises: Which of Donald Trump's possible VP picks presents the greatest challenge to Kamala Harris? //

Granted, some people think Kamala Harris is doing a bang-up job, and if you were to take those people and line them up end-to-end, they'd all sleep a lot more comfortably. But those few people aside, there are a lot more who look at VP Harris and wonder just what the heck Joe Biden (or whoever actually made that decision) was thinking. //

Failing upward is never the right way to get to the top. Sometimes, though, it can get one pretty damn close, which explains Kamala Harris. But, barring some calamity, this fall, Kamala Harris's tenure on the fencepost will end.

End Wokeness
@EndWokeness
·
Follow
HOLY SH*T.

Macron just announced that he will hold an election in July after his CRUSHING defeat tonight.

The election was supposed to be in 2027.

Readers added context

Macron announced the dissolution of the National Assembly, not an early presidential election. He remains president until 2027. Dissolving the Assembly triggers new legislative elections, allowing for potential changes in parliament without affecting his presidential term.
shorturl.at/FWRjr
shorturl.at/3jzYS
Context is written by people who use X, and appears when rated helpful by others.
3:13 PM · Jun 9, 2024 //

The call for elections highlights the transforming politics in Europe as opinions are increasingly against the left. Macron is, not surprisingly unhappy, with that:

“The rise of nationalists and demagogues is a danger for our nation and for Europe,” Mr. Macron said. “After this day I cannot go on as though nothing has happened.”

The French leader has always been a passionate supporter of the 27-nation European Union, seeing in it the sole means for Europe to count in the world and calling on it to achieve “strategic autonomy” through ever greater integration. But the political winds have turned in favor of less Europe, not more. //

Richard Grenell @RichardGrenell
·
Europe moves Right.

The Progressive Left is being rejected.

PeterSweden @PeterSweden7
BREAKING: The right-wing Parties are set to make MASSIVE gains all over Europe in the EU elections.
3:26 PM · Jun 9, 2024