Previous | Next
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Biden Speaks on Afghanistan
The War in Afghanistan ended on Monday. And on Tuesday, Joe Biden delivered remarks explaining his perspective on everything that took place over the past two weeks. Here are the main points, as we see them:
- Things Went Pretty Well: Biden spent much of the speech pointing out specific successes,
including the number of people who were extracted from Afghanistan, the relatively small number of casualties, and the
fact that the war is finally over. He noted, quite correctly, that someone who turned 20 years old on Monday spent
the first day of their lives living in a nation at peace on Tuesday.
- Things Couldn't Have Gone Better: The President also made an argument we've made several
times, namely that these things never go smoothly, and that some eggs are always broken. Put another way, one has to
base one's evaluations in the realm of the possible, rather than the realm of the ideal.
- Graciousness: Although Biden was primarily explaining and justifying his own choices, he
did take some amount of time to recognize others who played a role in the evacuation. "For now, I urge all Americans to
join me in grateful prayer for our troops and diplomats and intelligence officers who carried out this mission of mercy
in Kabul, and at tremendous risk with such unparalleled results," he declared. In the past, this sort of tip of the cap
was standard for speeches of this sort, but extending thanks to the team sort of fell by the wayside between Jan. 20,
2017 and Jan. 20, 2021. The 1970s were the "Me" decade, and that was the "Me" presidency.
- Don't Forget #45: Speaking of the "Me" president, Joe Biden did not use any names, but he
did remind folks several times that "my predecessor" made a number of commitments (and released 5,000 Taliban fighters),
which left Biden with the choice to depart or else to begin the war anew.
- A Brave New World: This was the focus of the final portion of the speech. It was the most important, we would say, and also the part getting the least attention. Biden not only questioned the wisdom of focusing primarily on Afghanistan, but the wisdom of engaging by deploying thousands of U.S. soldiers in nation-building exercises. He observed that: "We will maintain the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and other countries. We just don't need to fight a ground war to do it. We have what's called over-the-horizon capabilities, which means we can strike terrorists and targets without American boots on the ground, very few if needed." Hmmmm, that sounds an awful lot like what we wrote yesterday about "a future of barely acknowledged quasi-wars, waged as much as possible with technology like drones." Maybe that's the right approach, and maybe it's not, but it's clearly where war is headed in the 21st century. Indeed, it would seem the Biden Doctrine is being fleshed out right before our very eyes.
Many commentators, across the political spectrum, slammed the speech (see here, here, here, here, here, and here for some examples). The apparent expectation was that Biden would flay himself, and throw himself upon the mercy of the American people, asking for their forgiveness. That pretty much never happens, not even in muted form, so expecting it here was unrealistic. It's also...disappointing, instructive, typical, or maybe all of the above that the focus is on the finger pointing, with almost no attention given to the rather significant assertions the President made about his future foreign policy. That will be rather more important in the future than figuring out how badly he did, or did not, screw up.
For our part, we thought it was a very effective speech, and achieved what the President needed to achieve. You should consider reading it for yourself, which you can do at the link at the top of this item, or else watching it (though the video is nearly 30 minutes; we find it much faster to read). Ann Coulter also praised the speech, marking the first time we've been on the same page with her about...anything. You'll know the next occasion has arrived when you look out your second-floor window and see the winged pig passing by.
In any event, Afghanistan dominated the last two weeks, and the first half of this week. We'll see now how long the trend continues. (Z)
FEAR in America, Part II: Afghanistan
Yesterday, we did an item about the Robert F. Kennedy conspiracy theories, and some of the holes therein. Quite a few readers wrote in to point out that we had missed [X] inconsistency, or that our answer failed to fully answer [Y] question. Some of those messages topped out at over 1,000 words, which is about the equivalent of a standard college essay.
Those readers seem to have missed the point. To start, this medium does not allow for exhaustive engagement with every element of the conspiracy theory. That is something that requires a book-length treatment. We specifically, and clearly, limited ourselves to the main elements (and, in particular, the ones that RFK Jr. has focused upon). Further, as we pointed in the very first paragraph of that item, there are always inconsistencies in the evidence. Not sometimes, not often, not 99.9% of the time. Nope—100% of the time. Humans are fallible, memory is fallible, and extremely unusual and unexpected things happen every day. These inconsistencies are often unresolvable, particularly if the conspiracy emerges long after they might meaningfully be investigated. But they do not "prove" a conspiracy, particularly when the vast preponderance of the evidence supports the established narrative.
In any case, armchair debates about the RFK assassination may be interesting, but they're not particularly important. It's been more than half a century, and whatever the consequences of his death were, they aren't changing. On the other hand, Afghanistan still matters, as the story that is told about that war could influence domestic politics for the next several years, and could shape foreign policy well beyond that. And Republican politicians and pundits are busily constructing a narrative rooted in FEAR (recall: "False Evidence Appearing Real").
We could choose quite a few people to use for purposes of this demonstration but we're going to use this piece sent to us by reader C.M.R. in Pittsburgh. It's the weekly "conversation" between Gail Collins (liberal) and Bret Stephens (conservative) that The New York Times publishes. Stephens can always be counted on to squeeze many talking points into a small space, at least when the bedbugs aren't biting, and he certainly does so here. At this point, we're going to put on our Politifact costume, and fisk his main points:
- Stephens says: "[Joe Biden] abandoned the Bagram Air Base that would have provided a much
more secure way of getting people out."
- The facts: Both military and civilian officials have been consistent on this point. The
U.S. was in a position to secure Bagram or to secure Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, but not both. Military
leadership told Biden that Karzai would be more useful than Bagram, and so Karzai was the pick. Yes, the President did
order Bagram abandoned, but the assertion that Bagram was safer or more secure assumes facts that are most certainly not
in evidence, and that actually run contrary to existing evidence. This is a great example of FEAR.
- Stephens says: "[Biden] set an unnecessary deadline that the Taliban could hold him
to."
- The facts: It's hard to imagine anyone can say this with a straight face, or hear it and
take it seriously. However, the date for withdrawal was set by the Trump administration, in negotiations by Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo. Biden extended the deadline unilaterally one time. He could have extended it again, at risk of
encouraging reprisal from the Taliban. He chose not to.
- Stephens says: "He reportedly gave the Taliban a list of American names, many of them
Afghan Americans, presumably to expedite their departures but putting them at risk of being targeted or taken
hostage."
- The facts: At this point, it is worth pointing out how much of Stephens' rhetoric is
assertions about "what Biden did." Yes, the buck stops with the President, and yes, he made some key choices here. But
he did not act in a vacuum, and there are many lower-level logistical decisions he had nothing to do with. This appears
to be among those; it's still not 100% clear that this actually happened in the past two weeks (though it did happen at
various points in the past), while if it did happen, it was not on Biden's direct orders. It was people on the ground in
Afghanistan who made the call, as they tried to figure out if it was better to treat the Taliban as uncomfortable
sorta-partners, or as hostile enemies. Either choice was justifiable, and either choice carried risks.
- Stephens says: "He has left stranded countless Afghans who depended on America's
protection and are now terrifyingly vulnerable to reprisal."
- The facts: Sounds damning, but again assumes—or, at least, implies—facts not
in evidence. "Countless" generally means "some large, unknown number." At the moment, it is unclear how many Afghans had
justification for being extracted and yet were not. It is known that more than 110,000 Afghans definitely were rescued,
a number larger than the one bandied about at the beginning of the process (80,000).
- Stephens says: "I'd call it Biden's Bay of Pigs, but that would be unfair to Jack Kennedy,
who came into office with much less foreign policy experience than Biden."
- The facts: The historical reference and the casual use of "Jack Kennedy" are presumably meant to make Stephens sound learned, and fair-minded (although Kennedy was a Democrat). We've already addressed this in the Q&A, and argued that there is a similarity here in that Biden and Kennedy were both handed a messy situation by their predecessors and had it blow up in their faces. However, the comparison doesn't much hold beyond that. Kennedy had a wider range of options available to him, including canceling the invasion of Cuba. On the other hand, when Biden took office, the troops were already in Afghanistan. There was no "let's forget about this, and nobody will be the wiser" option available.
The RFK conspiracy theories have been polished over the years, and much of the detritus has been washed away, leaving only the things that cause (some people's) ears to perk up. Afghanistan is still in the early stages of the process, but make no mistake—Stephens, et al. are building a conspiracy theory. Some elements may fall away, others may become more prominent. But the implication is that the mainstream story—that Biden faced a tricky situation, and made some right moves and some wrong moves—is not the true story. The narrative that the GOP is building is that the "real" story is gross, office-disqualifying incompetence that is being buried by the White House and the mainstream media.
There are also potential elements here of a more nefarious conspiratorial story, that "the fix" was in, and that the administration was somehow in cahoots with the Taliban. Maybe that will take hold, and maybe it won't, but given the current state of the GOP, we certainly can't rule it out. Recall, for example, the Hillary Clinton uranium and pizzagate conspiracies, the Barack Obama birther and Muslim conspiracies, and it's not hard to imagine a Tucker Carlson or a Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) decreeing that in addition to being communists, the Democrats are also anti-Christians who are conspiring to allow "radical Islamism" to take over the world. (Z)
Abortion Is Now Basically Illegal in Texas
As we wrote yesterday, Texas adopted an anti-abortion bill designed to do an end run around the legal system. It makes those who obtain abortions after six weeks of gestation guilty of a criminal offense, and those who assist in any way liable to be sued for $10,000 by...anyone. The latter portion basically means there's nobody to enjoin, and no clear way to preemptively block the law.
Well, actually, there is a clear way, namely going to a federal court, and asking them to issue an injunction against the law while the legal process plays out. Several federal judges declined to get involved, and yesterday the Supreme Court chose to take no action of any sort. And so, the new Texas law will go into effect today.
Note that the final chapter of this story is most certainly not written yet. Though the Supreme Court did not block the law, they also did not decline to do so, either. So, they could still speak up. However, one is left to wonder what they are waiting for, if they are ready and willing to do that. If they don't speak up, then the ACLU and Planned Parenthood will fight the suit through normal channels, which will undoubtedly take a couple of years. In that time, women in Texas who become pregnant are going to find themselves with fairly limited options (unless they have the money to fly to another state). If those who desire an abortion stay in-state, then they and those who would help them are assuming significant risk.
At such point that the regular case (not the request for injunction) gets before the Supreme Court, which it surely will, it's anyone's guess as to how they will rule. Yes, they clearly want to gut protections for abortion as much as is possible. But, as we wrote yesterday, allowing Texas to perform this sort of legal sleight-of-hand could open Pandora's Box. We used the example yesterday of a blue state allowing citizens to sue their fellow citizens who own guns for $10,000 if the gun owners cannot prove they are part of a "well-regulated militia." We had a few readers write in and point out that the Supreme Court has already ruled on that question, and that being part of a well-regulated militia is not required. That is true, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that abortions are legal up to 24 weeks, and yet here we are. Further, it's not too hard to come up with other liberal-state policy imperatives that SCOTUS has not ruled upon. Sue your neighbor for $10,000 for being a gross polluter and contributing to global warming? For not wearing a mask/not vaccinating without a good excuse? For not paying their employees a living wage? The possibilities are endless.
Meanwhile, Texas continues to limit democracy as much as is possible, to curtail women's rights, and to mix religion and governance. In other words, it would appear that they aspire to be...Afghanistan. If so, they are certainly making progress. (Z)
GOP House Members Rattle their Sabers
As part of its work, the 1/6 Commission has just sent letters to various telecomm companies asking for the phone records of various Republican members of Congress on that day. The letters are not subpoenas, but they could be, if the telecomm companies don't play ball. Needlessly aggravating the party that currently runs the show in Washington is not usually good for business, so the odds are that the 1/6 Commission's wishes are granted.
Meanwhile, following in the footsteps of the Dear Leader, today's Republicans are getting less and less careful about saying the quiet part out loud. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA)—who, admittedly, pretty much always says the quiet part out loud—was on Tucker Carlson's show to talk about the phone record request. After describing this as part of the Democrats' scheme to impose communism on America, she warned that "These telecommunications companies, if they go along with this, they will be shut down. And that's a promise."
This could easily be dismissed as so much hot air from the Representative, who produces enough of it that AOC might need to rename her plan the Greene New Deal. However, Greene was just parroting House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who said almost exactly the same thing earlier in the day on Tuesday. Specifically, he warned that Republicans "will not forget" if the telecomm companies comply, and that "If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States." When it's the House Minority Leader saying it, that pretty much makes it a mainstream view in that leader's party.
Needless to say, neither Greene nor McCarthy could cite which law would be violated if telecomm companies did something so awful as...comply with Congress. We're guessing that if Greene was pressed, she would say HIPAA, currently the one-size-fits-all "privacy" answer for many Republicans, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with 90% of the situations in which they invoke it. In any event, the message being sent by the Republicans was clear as a bell: "We expect to retake Congress next year, and when we do, and if you cross us, we'll make you pay." In Richard Nixon's time, unethical and undemocratic "enemies lists" were something to be kept secret, for fear of a giant scandal. These days, they are something to broadcast from the highest mountain top. Or, if not from a mountain, then from The Hill.
In any event, in addition to being incredibly venal, this is extraordinarily stupid as a political maneuver. The telecomm companies may grant the 1/6 Commission's requests, or may insist on a subpoena, but they aren't going to respond to blackmail. Meanwhile, the message that is even louder and clearer than the implied threat is "We Republicans are scared witless of what those phone records will show." If there was anything that might make the 1/6 Commission more determined to get those records, this is it. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) made the same observation on Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC, though you don't need to be a lawyer and a member of Congress to figure that out. There is clearly a lot of fire behind all the smoke.
And ultimately, this story teaches the exact same lesson as our item on Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) yesterday. A sizable number of Republicans—not all of them, but a huge segment of the Trumpublican wing—are absolutely out of control. They will say anything and do anything to achieve their ends; human decency, the law of the land, the Constitution, and respect for their fellow Americans be damned. And if they are not reined in promptly, ideally by the 1/6 Commission doing its job to the full extent of its ability, then it may be too late. (Z)
Where In the World Is Kamala Sandiego?
In the video games/game show/films that we based this headline on, Carmen Sandiego bounces around the globe, leading the criminal organization V.I.L.E., and only occasionally surfacing to do battle with ACME Detective Agency, the defenders of truth, justice, and the American way. As far as we know, Vice President Kamala Harris is not an evil mastermind. However, she certainly has been bouncing around the globe a fair bit, and has been invisible much of the rest of the time. Further, some Kamala fans feel the way she's been treated by the Biden administration has been pretty vile. So there are certainly some parallels there.
In an op-ed for The Hill, Joseph Concha tries to tackle the question of the mysterious vanishing VP, inasmuch as she was originally presented as someone who would serve as Joe Biden's right-hand woman, in much the same way that Biden served Barack Obama. Noting that she's been to Vietnam, Singapore, and Mexico, as well as the faraway state of Hawaii, but that she hasn't given an interview in weeks or done a press conference at all, Concha believes that she's just not a great match for this particular historical moment. Her experience is in law/law enforcement, which might be useful if there is a repeat of last summer's urban unrest, but doesn't have much to do with Afghanistan, infrastructure, or the other issues du jour. She's been given some high-profile tasks for her portfolio, but hasn't exactly made much progress thus far, such that it would not be well to have her sit and talk with, say, Jake Tapper about the Mexican border. Concha also points out that Harris' lack of visibility means her approval numbers are very poor for a VP, and if the plan is to groom her to run for president, this isn't the way to do it.
We don't really disagree with Concha's arguments, but we would add a few observations of our own. To start, we doubt this is the result of any personal animus between Harris and Biden, or any desire by Team Biden to undermine the VP. It's true that some presidents hate their VPs (John F. Kennedy's disdain for Lyndon B. Johnson is a particularly famous example and Ike was no fan of his veep, Richard Nixon), but that almost always results from the president having little choice in their selection of running mate (Kennedy, for example, needed Johnson because that was the only way to win Texas). Biden, by contrast, did not need Harris; he could have chosen many other candidates who checked the same boxes she did. No, he chose her because he felt she would make a good yin to his yang, a good Laurel to his Hardy, a good mac to his cheese. Further, he's not known as a backbiter, and he really believes in the VP-as-partner model.
Beyond that, it did take a while for the Obama-Biden pairing to really gel. And given the likelihood, in our view, that Biden runs for reelection, there's still plenty of time for Harris to find her lane in this White House. Heck, even if he doesn't run for reelection, there's still plenty of time. When all is said and done, then, we think it probable that this will become the "Biden and Harris Administration" that campaign and transition materials promised. (Z)
Today's California Recall Drama
In terms of foreign affairs, things are jumping right now, thanks to the Taliban. In terms of domestic politics, things are a little quieter, in significant part because Congress is not in session. However, the California recall is just two weeks away, so news from that front is filling in some of the gaps.
To start, and as (V) correctly predicted, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) does not want to touch Sirhan Sirhan with a 10-foot pole. At least, not right now. He was asked on Tuesday what his plans are on that front, and he dodged the question, saying that he really needs to wait for the bureaucratic process to play out all the way, but reminding reporters of "my reverence, my respect, and my adulation" for Robert F. Kennedy. Way to take a tough stand there, Mr. Governor. Reporters can keep asking this question, and maybe they will, but there is no chance that Newsom will give up the goods before Sept. 14.
Meanwhile, Democrats are worried. They have good reason to be and, besides, that's what Democrats do. What's the current target of their concern? Latino voters. That bloc showed some amount of interest in 2020 in populism (Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump), and also in machismo (Trump again). Newsom is neither populist nor macho; he's an elite, effete Northern Californian, when most of the Latino vote is in the South. The Governor thought that appointing a Latino U.S. senator would be enough to curry favor with Latino voters, but it would seem not. Consequently, he's basically breaking even with them.
On the other hand, labor is doing everything it can to help save Newsom. They know what an unfriendly-to-the-working-class politician looks like, and Larry Elder—who wants to abolish the minimum wage—is clearly in that category. So, several big unions have combined to give Newsom almost $5 million in funding in the last month. That's nice, although Newsom is so fully dominating the fundraising that it's hard to imagine it will matter all that much. Far more useful would be if those unions are able to get their members to actually get their ballot out of the mailbox, fill it out, and drop it in the mail. Strong turnout from labor would probably be enough to save him. (Z)
When The News Breaks--Today's News Media, Part I: Sometimes the Reporter Is In the Story
Most reporters try very hard to stay out of the story. As a general rule, they want their stories to be about the subjects of the stories, not about themselves. But in the current media environment, with the need to cultivate sources, and to beat one's colleagues to the punch, that doesn't always work and the reporter becomes part of the story. The poster girl for that is The New York Times's reporter Maggie Haberman.
Haberman started with The New York Post then worked her way up the journalist food chain to The New York Daily News, Politico, CNN, and in 2015, the Times—in all cases, as a political reporter. With 2016 in sight, she needed a candidate to follow. Since she was low woman on the totem pole as a newbie, and all the serious candidates were already taken, she was stuck covering Donald Trump, even though she and everyone else knew he had no shot at the nomination with over a dozen high-profile Republican senators and governors in the race. Besides, Hillary Clinton was going to be the next president, so what difference did it make who the Republican victim was?
To make it worse, she had covered Trump in 2011 when he threatened to run in 2012 and didn't. She ended her coverage that year with a story about him dropping out headlined "The Donald Ducks." But in 2015, she took her job seriously and by 2016, when it was clear that he wasn't going to duck this time, she became one of the highest profile reporters in the country.
Trump noticed immediately. After she wrote a story about how his then-fixer, Michael Cohen, might turn on him (which he did), he slammed her on Twitter as: "A third-rate reporter named Maggie Haberman ... who I don't speak to and have nothing to do with." Later in the year, he ranted: "This was Maggie Haberman. A terrible, dishonest reporter." As Trump got closer and closer to the nomination, her star rose even more. She wrote more stories about him, which was easy, since he said outrageous things every day. He attacked her more, but she didn't mind at all since her strange symbiotic relationship with him made her The Times' star reporter, with her stories about him on the front page almost every day. While he didn't like the content of the stories, he very much liked being on the front page of the Times almost every day, so he kept attacking her and she kept writing about him.
Two weeks into Trump's presidency, she wrote a story about how his aides were unable to operate a light switch while he sat around all day in his bathrobe watching Fox News. He wouldn't talk to her, but many people in his inner circle leaked like a sieve and gave her all kinds of gossip that she published without citation ("White House sources tell me ...") As a result of her many contacts with his inner circle, she kept getting insider news about Trump. He was furious and tried to plug the leaks, but was never able to locate the leakers. Most of the insiders who The Washington Post approached for the story linked to above refused to talk to the Post because they said Haberman was so plugged in, she could easily figure out who told The Post what. Jonathan Swan, Axios' White House correspondent and no slouch himself, did tell The Post: "I can't tell you how many times I thought I had a scoop only to Google her stories for the past few weeks and finding she'd deposited this interesting, original detail in paragraph 24. Ugh."
Trump isn't Haberman's only critic. She has been accused of "Trump ass kissing," and not being willing to state point blank that he lies all the time. She is constantly being attacked on Twitter the way few other reporters are. When they scream at her to ignore him, she fires back that ignoring him isn't going to make him suddenly disappear. Now she is taking time off to write a book about Trump. Count on it being a blockbuster.
Meanwhile, as you might guess from the headline, we'll have more on this subject—the challenges facing today's news media—tomorrow. (V)
Previous | Next
Back to the main page