We're hearing arguments for Biden to be impeached over mishandling our departure from Afghanistan.
The topic was brought up on the trading forum:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/73811/#73847
I already voiced my thoughts. What do other people think?
Previous discussion on this:
Biden on Afghanistan: Not my problem
40 responses |
Started by metmike - Aug. 12, 2021, 7:35 p.m.
metmike: Blaming Trump for his really bad exit strategy(unless it was intentional and they are just not being honest..........again) was what bothered me the most about his statements ........but getting out was still the right thing to do.
https://news.yahoo.com/bannon-says-trump-become-speaker-014400991.html
"Steve Bannon presented a breathless timeline in which he said former President Donald Trump should become House speaker and lead an impeachment effort against President Joe Biden before resigning to run for the White House in 2024.
The former White House chief strategist discussed the unprecedented scenario during an episode of his War Room show on Wednesday while criticizing Biden's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal.
After saying "people should be court-martialed" over U.S. forces abandoning Bagram Airfield, which some have opined could have been used to help with evacuations following the Taliban's rapid takeover of the country, Bannon said this issue could be "one of the big charges eventually brought" against Biden."
metmike: We're living in a world of whacko's!
Mike Lindell......a complete nut job!
14 responses |
Started by metmike - Aug. 6, 2021, 7:41 p.m.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/879863-calls-to-impeach-biden-grow
WASHINGTON: As the Taliban are negotiating a new government in Kabul after the Afghan National Defence Forces folded up amidst a lingering but disorderly US withdrawal from Afghanistan, scheduled to be completed by Aug 31, US President Joe Biden has come in for increasing criticism from international allies and domestic politicians, several of whom are calling for impeachment proceedings against the 46th president of the US.
Speaking on ‘War Room Pandemic’ podcast with host Steve Bannon, Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, MTG, confirmed, “I have my team right now working on articles of impeachment. You know I’ve already filed one set of articles of impeachment. “But his failure as a president is unspeakable,” she added, reported foreign media.
Florida Senator Rick Scott has also raised the prospect of Biden’s removal after the collapse of Afghanistan to the Taliban. Scott, who is chair of the Senate GOP campaign arm, said on Twitter: “We must confront a serious question: Is Joe Biden capable of discharging the duties of his office or has time come to exercise the provisions of the 25th Amendment?”
The remarks about the president by prominent politicians come as the #ImpeachBiden hashtag went viral on social media and became one of the highest trends on Twitter on Monday morning. Candace Owens, one of the most prominent political spokespeople on the platform with 2.8 million followers, shared a photo comparing America’s exit by helicopter from Vietnam and from Afghanistan with the words, “Biden’s Saigon. #ImpeachBiden.”
Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump’s ex-attorney and former mayor of New York, was quick to criticize Biden, as well as Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on Twitter. “It’s such a bad #BidenDisaster, it may lead to an #IMPEACHBIDENNOW. Then #IMPEACHBIDENHARRIS will lead #PelosiDisaster,” Giuliani tweeted on Sunday evening to his 1.1 million followers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is the quickest that any president has faced a potential impeachment.
The House has impeached two of the last four presidents, one Democrat and one Republican, both on almost completely party-line votes. Also on almost completely party-line votes, both were acquitted by the Senate and allowed to remain in office.
But those other impeachments all took time. Bill Clinton was impeached during his sixth year and Donald Trump in both his third and fourth. Back in 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached during his fourth year, and President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 shortly before his almost-certain impeachment during his sixth year.
Now, a Republican member of Congress seeks to impeach a Democratic president on his first full day, for actions taken several years earlier as vice president.
Biden’s son Hunter accepted a position on the board of Ukrainan energy company Burisma while his father was vice president. Though the arrangement was legal, Hunter subsequently admitted it showed “poor judgment,” by potentially setting up a conflict of interest regarding U.S. foreign policy towards Ukraine. As vice president, Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. aid to Ukraine unless the country fired its corrupt top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. Everybody agrees on these parts.
The resolution alleges Shokin was investigating Burisma at the time and that Biden’s threat was intended to benefit the company that his son worked for.
There is little basis in fact for this allegation. Fact-checking source PolitiFact noted that the broader U.S. government — not just Biden specifically — had called for Shokin to be fired for corruption, as did the leaders of other European nations and international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund. Further, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine determined that Shokin had actually *stopped *investigating Burisma by the time Biden called for his ouster.
The resolution also would make other unsubstantiated charges and includes salacious allegations about Biden’s son.
These proposed articles of impeachment attempt to impeach Joe Biden, setting up a potential (though unlikely) Senate trial to remove him from office.
This stands out not only for its timing, but also for attempting to remove Biden from the presidency for his actions prior to assuming the office. Every other presidential impeachment in American history was for actions undertaken while they were actually president.
Clinton was impeached for two counts of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. Trump was impeached first for a supposed quid pro quo deal with Ukraine and again for supposedly inciting a riot. Johnson was impeached for firing a Cabinet secretary without congressional approval, in defiance of a since-repealed law in force at the time. Nixon was about to be impeached for his role in the Watergate scandal during his presidency.
Biden’s impeachment articles were introduced in the House on January 21 as resolution H.Res. 57, by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA14).
the US has used up its allowance of impeachments on the fake ones....now that there is a real set of circumstances the people want no part of another one, even if it legitimate this time. I am not sure if I support any of the impeachments since Nixon, including the Nixon impeachment.
metmike: Man, this is really looking more and more like blatant incompetence and lack of leadership.
It's crazy. I was willing to see what sort of leadership that Biden showed before judging. The southern border fiasco and lies about COVID/masking made me almost never Biden and liking Desanto's alot.
Then Desanto's totally blew it by enforcing some really dumb ANTI masking laws on schools vs letting the corporations decide with some other bad decisions and very bad leadership.
Then Biden does this. Harris took herself out of the running early with the MIShandling of the southern border.
Where are all the good choices?
It's like we are basing our choices on who does the least damage and messes up the least )-:
In other words, whoever we DON'T want for president...............and the other person wins by default.
The U.S. military has placed armed F-18 jets on standby amid the evacuation chaos at the Kabul airport, a U.S. general said on Aug. 19.
The jets are on standby if the need for air support arises and to ensure the safety of U.S. troops and operations, Maj. Gen. Hank Taylor said in a comment to reporters.
Several thousand American military troops were deployed to the airport, as numerous Americans, Afghans, and others try to evacuate the country after the Taliban took over Kabul over the past weekend. The deployment of F-18s is the latest development in an increasingly tense and chaotic situation, as the Taliban extremist group appears to be tightening its grip after video footage and reports show the group stopping people from getting to the airport.
“The ability to provide close air support is something that needs to be immediate if a condition on the ground ever required that,” Taylor said.
When asked about whether the planes would carry out airstrikes, neither he nor Pentagon spokesman John Kirby, who was standing nearby, provided an answer.
“We are going to have at our disposal the resources to carry out our mission safely. … It’s the prudent and responsible thing to do,” Kirby said.
Overnight, about a dozen C-17 cargo planes removed about 2,000 people, according to the officials, who said that about 7,000 people have been removed from Afghanistan so far. Kirby and other officials said that the deadline for evacuation is Aug. 31, although President Joe Biden told ABC News that the U.S. mission in Kabul will continue past that deadline.
Officials previously said they would lift between 5,000 and 9,000 people out of the country each day. It isn’t clear how many Americans remain in Afghanistan, according to Kirby and Taylor, although Biden confirmed to ABC News that between 10,000 and 15,000 remain.
“The U.S. military footprint in Kabul is we have 5,200 troops on the ground. Kabul Airport remains secure and open,” Taylor said. “There are multiple gates that are now open and have entry, which will help expedite processing.”
Although the Taliban said that its members will allow governments to let all Westerners and some Afghans through to board flights out of the country, there have been reports that they blocked journalists. ABC News reporters who were trying to get to the airport were blocked by two armed Taliban members who appeared to question their credentials and forced them into their vehicles, which was caught on camera and aired by “Good Morning America” on Aug. 19.
Video footage from Aug. 18 and 19 also shows apparent Taliban members firing shots at crowds of people, whipping them with various objects, and shouting at them to get back near the airport.
State Department Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman confirmed reports that Taliban extremists were blocking Afghans from going to the airport. Afghans who had worked alongside the U.S. military during the 20-year conflict could be at risk of reprisal attacks, torture, or execution at the hands of the Taliban, human rights groups fear.
not what I have been hearing on the air support. One of the reasons for the rapid collapse was the removal of air support by the Biden team. The afghans have been trained that way for years. On top of that the air was not used to defend any target of the Taliban or the American/Afghan foot soldiers.......but let me tell you this Biden military know all about gender studies/race/crt and how to bend over......Millie the joint chiefs head idiot was asked point blank if the US was buying fuel from the Taliban.....that dumbass stood right there and said "I prefer not to answer that question"
did ya happen to hear Biden tell Stephanoupolus that we have control of the airport......shit forgot we are totally surrounded by the taliban
There are many things that make no sense here.
We will never be privy to all the relevant information to explain why it went so badly.
The opposite party will always jump at opportunities to arm chair(Monday morning) quarterback the other guys (bad decisions).
This is one of those times when any objective person from the same party has every reason to be asking what the hell happened to mess this up so badly?
If we didn't have the CRISIS on the southern border that is being completely mismanaged, one could say.........."ok, they got some bad advise or used some bad judgment in a very unpredictable environment" or say "well, this is not like Biden, the seasoned foreign affairs veteran of over 4 decades with more experience in that area than any active politician right now"
But on these 2 really key issues its been an unprecedented display of incompetence by Biden/Harris and whoever is making the decisions for them.
They are giving the very divided republican party a huge life line.
I have been strongly behind us getting all the way out of the Middle East for almost 2 decades and support/congratulate Biden for following thru with Trumps plan to get out.
But he botched the exit really bad.
He took a winning position and made is look like a huge loss!
Yeah, we stopped the additional losses after a trillion dollars and thousands of deaths and many patriotic/brave soldiers damaged .......but wait a second......let's do even more damage here at the end for our grand finale ala President Biden.
I was for leaving Afghanistan. It's an unwinable situation. The withdrawal was not handled very well. The timing was off. But not sure there is a good way to leave a country that's been war torn for centuries in a peaceful state.
What makes it unforgivable for me is Biden trying to blame Trump. "The plan was already made".
Suddenly, Biden can't change a plan Trump put into place?
Agree Tim!
I'm guessing that from this point on, we will get a ton of spinning that will make it hard to understand everything with clarity.
Actually, there's a ton that we don't know already and never will know that would allow us to understand the true nature of the situation.
Glad to see us leaving.
leaving was the easy part...leaving the right way was and is way over Biden's pay grade and even today he still does notunderstand the difference....and those God awful people that he appointed to run the show, well lets just say, lost in space.
More evidence by the day that those few who had the nerve to say flatten the country first, right from day 1, were right on the money. If we went in we should of leveled the place then rebuilt it and the ones who said so took great heat but they were right.
Thanks mcfarm!
This is from over a decade ago:
The Taliban’s Winning Strategy in Afghanistan
https://carnegieendowment.org/files/taliban_winning_strategy.pdf
The Taliban’s strength explains why the reinforcements sent in 2009 (21,000
troops) cannot beat the Taliban in their southern and eastern strongholds.
Sealing the border would be politically difficult, and the burden of doing so
would fall primarily on the United States. In addition, it would take time, since
the Taliban have the momentum. Defeating the Taliban would require at least
100,000 new reinforcements as long as the Afghan–Pakistani border remained
open to insurgents. Neither the United States nor NATO is willing or able to pay
the human and fiscal costs of reinforcements at this level. Even if they were,
sealing the border would be extremely difficult in political and military terms
and would take considerable time. There would also be a risk of the situation in
the North deteriorating significantly in the meantime. Indeed, under the current
strategy of concentrating new forces in the South and East, the Taliban will move
the insurgency to the North. One of the key reasons for the lack of a productive IC strategy is the IC’s and
broader western misperception of the Taliban. They are often characterized
as “backward,” “medieval,” and “reactionary,” and as an association of loosely
organized groups. The insurgency is perceived as a local problem to be solved
locally; the national and dynamic dimension of the struggle is not taken
into account. In fact, the Taliban are quite capable of strategic planning and
coordinated action. This means that they will adapt to and counter any moves
by the International Coalition. on-the-ground observations and reliable
evidence suggest that the Taliban have an efficient leadership, are learning
from their mistakes, and are quick to exploit the weaknesses of their
adversaries. They are building a parallel administration, have nationwide
logistics, and already manage an impressive intelligence network. Based on
the analysis of the insurgency, I argue that the Taliban organization and goals
call for a different IC strategy. To describe what appears to be the Taliban’s winning strategy, I will address
three questions: 1) What is the nature of the Taliban organization? 2) How
does the insurgency exploit key social and political issues? 3) How does the
insurgency adapt its strategy to various local conditions? Based on this analysis,
I suggest an alternative strategy to the one the Obama administration seems inclined to pursue.
metmike: This country is way, way more complicated than what most of us understand. Going in and "flattening them" then installing our own leaders would have required an even greater loss of life and materials/money. Then what? We leave and everybody there acts like they live in the 51st state of the United States forever and ever?
oh yes afghan is a complicated may never be suited for an single democracy to rule like we envisioned. All the more reason to put your big boy pats on and level the place if you decide to go in.....just think how quickly our military could of been in and out for the most part. But we were so worried about the bad msm press we went the wrong route and its taken 20 years to admit we took the wrong path
mcfarm,
We can't just go in and kill all the bad people and kill a bunch of good ones too and justify it.
They may be different than us and many have primitive customs that violate our advanced/progressive ways that endow all humans with the same rights......like women over there that have very few rights..... but we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
And accept that we shouldn't force our system on other people using superior kill power.
I know that its been presented to us as defending ourselves because of 9-11-01 but think about that.
It's the 20 year anniversary. If we were having constant terrorist attacks that originated from this source, then you can justify leveling the place to defend ourselves.
After 9-11, we got more Americans killed(brave soldiers) fighting in Afghanistan than from all the terrorists attacks combined since then. ...by a wide margin(plus many came back damaged and we spent over 1 trillion dollars)
If we had leveled the place even MORE Americans would have died for sure, along with alot of innocent people in Afghanistan.
Does that make sense?
If the price that you pay is much greater than the reward.......does it makes sense to take that action?
It's easy for you and me to be ticked off and hate those evil SOB's and feel like they deserve a permanent vacation to Allah-land. But are we doing justice to our soldiers and their families? You and me don't have any skin in the game........so its not right, just like its not right for politicians to risk the lives...........of other peoples sons and husbands and dads.
Unless there's no other choice.
that is exactly what I am saying. We paid a much higher price with are best soldiers coming back without arms, legs and brains and paying off the afghans who then turned on us. We could of leveled the place with actually many less casualties. ?sounds horrible and is horrible but that is what war us. ?got to think about those things before you decide to go in. I had a nephew do 2 tours, have a grandson on the next level to go over there and after 20 years of trying there seems to be the best option of leveling the place. Very cold and hard, sure is but give me another alternative so that this snake we have been fighting does not grow more heads. Did Jefferson not say "we have given you a country if you can keep it", if not him then one of the founders........ well we gave the afghans a country and they walked away from it.