He just gave what I thought was nice speech, and he is obviously very tired and emotional. But he's answered every question.
I mean, it wouldn't shock me, but I've never seen him do or say anything that wasn't also pretty consistent with him simply being a very profoundly dumb and lazy person with an enormous ego (edit: and absolutely no scruples).
Trump is an arrogant ass who was used to “yes” people. His answers were rambling and often nonsensical. The press was often openly hostile during question and answer sessions. I believe he even enjoyed the banter due to his ego. There is no chance anyone was telling him who he could call on. He did what he wanted which proved one of his greatest weaknesses. I see Biden as the complete opposite. He does what his handlers instruct him to do. There’s no doubt in my mind he went off script with the last reporter. Didn’t go well and he quickly ended the presser.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. One of, if not, the worst Presidents in US history.
Always preferred poker to bridge..but then nobody played bridge for money other than my grandma..
That's fair, and I don't mean to relitigate his presidency. I agree that he called on who he wanted to, but that wasn't really my point.
Possibly security concerns if classified information is involved. There are classified communications lines, but it's unwieldy and if they are in the DC area it might be easier to have someone hand-carry things over.
Pretty unsettling if the United States doesn’t have the capability to have secure phone communications within our own borders between the President and those with which he needs to speak. Hand carrying letters from place to place without the opportunity to ask questions and obtain feedback seems like a form of communication we would have seen hundreds of years ago.
I don't disagree and I am just speculating.
That makes a lot of sense. Random fact, but this
Every President does that. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump. They all do it. Heck it was made famous in the West Wing 20 years ago. At least he’s respectful to the questioners unlike Trump.
Poker is good, but it doesn’t involve any allies. Also bridge’s game mechanic is more complex.
www.militarytimes.com
There is zero chance Trump was told who to call on and followed those instructions. I’ve seen many of press conferences with Clinton, Bush and Obama where they got into rather heated discussions with the reporter. There is zero chance those egos would be limited to calling on those they were instructed. Defeats the purpose of the press when the President requires them to ask certain questions or even certain types of questions in order to be called on. Disappointing for all parties concerned.
Instead Trump simply never took questions from non Fox News-esque entities. He was taking questions from Newsmax instead of the likes of ABC News. The few times he did take questions from any other outlet, he just interrupted them, called them fake news no matter what their question was, and never actually answered their questions. I assure you all presidents are told which questions are coming and which reporters to call on.
I was pretty clear above that Trump should not be our presidential standard. Why have press conference if Presidents choose which questions are going to be asked? Not really the purpose of the press.
The argument here is so stupid. 'Much of it was foreseeable'. Everything seems foreseeable with hindsight. Pearl Harbor was foreseeable. Sometimes there is more at play than we understand. There might have been better outcomes, but there are also a lot of variables and desired outcomes which we likely have zero idea about.
Isn’t at least one of the problems is the inability to establish a perimeter around the Kabul airport due to its location in the middle of the city? Bagram is apparently located in open country where a secure perimeter could have been secured well away from the physical base. It was also already set up as a military base with fortifications already in place. I’m looking forward to hearing the reasoning behind the decision. I’m not sure how allowing the Taliban to take over Kabul AND provide perimeter security for us was ever a good idea. Someone obviously thought differently. Anxious to hear their reasoning.
Again, I concede that Bagram is located in the middle of nowhere. That's the exact reason that it would be really difficult to get to for our citizens and the Afghani's that we apparently would like to save if things went south. Establishing a perimeter doesn't actually do anything for an IED. There are still people (Civilians) around the perimeter. There are likely more people required to man a bigger perimeter (Soldiers), and a bomb in the right spot will still kill a crap load of people including our own. A perimeter doesn't really do anything (besides possibly keep people from rushing the planes like they did but I feel like we are willing to let that level of people go considering the number that we saved).
But they weren’t killing our soldiers over the past year. The situation on the ground was very different than what the Russians experienced. We had the ability to keep control of Kabul and conduct this operation without relying on the Taliban to provide passage, security, etc…. It’s no coincidence that these attacks started in Kabul once the Taliban arrived. That is on us…period. Shouldn’t have happened. Hold the real estate until everyone is out. Pretty basic stuff
The Soviets have brokered (bought) ceasefires with various leaders of the mujahadeen as they left as well. The only thing that was different for them was that they weren't having to air lift out.
We’ve had 2500 casualties in 20 years in Afghanistan. The Soviets had 5x that amount in half the time. I would say several things were different.
As soon as we started airlifting Afghans out of the country, or even significant levels of our own civilians it's likely that the government would have folded anyway, and the army with it. That would have meant we would have been left defending Kabul on our own. I agree with your second point. Evacuations / Retreats are hard. They're nearly damn impossible when you're doing it by air. There have really only been two significant air evacuations / retreats in military history. Saigon, and now Kabul.
No chance the Taliban invade Kabul with US air power in place. The government only folded when we removed air support. Which was a vital part of their armed forces and an element they weren’t trained to fight without. We were warned what would occur once air support was removed. We chose to remove it anyway. This
show is a direct consequence of allowing the Taliban to take over the city prior to us evacuating out our people. Never should have been allowed. This is on us. Anxious to hear why we ignored the warnings and allowed it.
This article is from July 26. Two weeks later, the Taliban had taken Kandihar a strategic focal point for the Afghans and the US. Air support wasn't winning the war at that time.No chance the Taliban invade Kabul with US air power in place. The government only folded when we removed air support. Which was a vital part of their armed forces and an element they weren’t trained to fight without. We were warned what would occur once air support was removed. We chose to remove it anyway. This
www.reuters.com
