Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

1232426282935

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,442 ✭✭✭NSAman


    Personally, I don’t think they should ever have gone in. But they did.

    that leads to more issues. They have supported a country with money protection and tried to change it, yet, that country (as you stated) is running on non-western standards. The Russians couldn’t sort it, the Brits the same. While American Might, thought they could change it, it was never going to.

    The issue for me now, is returning a country to Taliban rule. Thousands who worked for the US will be slaughtered, anyone who had dealings with them. It was never a “winnable” war due to it being ideologically based. The Taliban will return, as evidenced, and now what?

    i don’t blame the Biden administration fully, yet he made the decision. For me they should never have been there initially.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,625 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Bagram airbase fell. People are leaving freely through Kabul airport.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    The decision was made a long time ago, as previously pointed out



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    The opening paragraph is absolutely not true!

    The Trump Administration, largely excluding the Afghan Govt from the process, 'negotiated' a flawed deal with the Taliban, and signed it in February 2020. The House Armed Services Committee decided, on a Bi-partisan basis, that the deal was a badly constructed one, and voted to put the brakes on it, through an amendment to the National Defense Authorisation Act. The amendment required that additional conditions would need to be met before troop numbers were reduced be!ow thresholds of 8,000 and 4,000. The Trump Administration ignored all this with wingnuts like Matt Gaetz bleating that such conditions would 'unfairly tie the Administration's hands'. By the time Trump left, BOTH the 8,000 and 4,000 thresholds had been blown away, and only 2,500 remained at end of January! So, if ANYONE ignored your much-touted Bi-partisan 'conditions', it was not Biden, but Trump!

    But, that's not the meat of most sensible discussion here. Having a pop at Trump is not the objective of previous posts as I read them! Most posts seem to agree that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is a **** show, but also seem to agree that it would always have been so, given that the original mission was flawed, the region was totally misunderstood and the medium- to long-term strategy was absent from US thinking. Centuries of history were ignored and no 'end-game' was ever drawn up. Pumping billions of $$ into a totally-misunderstood, tribal society to re-crsate an army that was taught to rely on US air-power for its tactical 'army-ing' was doomed to failure once that air-power was withdrawn! The Afghan army knew that, once the agreement between the US and the Taliban was forged, largely excluding the Afghan Government, it would be on the outs, so why would it fight 'to the death' when the US had signed a deal with its enemy that largely excluded them?

    If we're going to have/continue a sensible/respectful discussion on the current crisis, can we at least base it on verifiable information and not on Fox News talking points alone!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,368 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    And I wonder how those taliban prisoners that the trump administration released last year are adding to this mess. I’ve checked and it was 5,000 that were released in total as a way to start peace talks. I’m sure those 5,000 might be back in action and possibly in Kabul.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    And you can now add a further 5,000 who were released from Bagram prison today, to the volatile mix. Can you.imagine how this 5,000 worst of the worst Taliban and Al Quaeda buckos will exact their revenge on non-Taliban Afghans? It doesn't bear thinking about!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Reuters and AP are reporting that Ashraf Ghani has left Afghanistan and fled to Tajikistan..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,368 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    That’s nice of him. He should have been made stay and sort out his troops to fight. There was a report of a tribal militia who were meant to protect a town, **** off to Uzbekistan rather than do what they pledged to do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,391 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Watched an analyst on one of the news channels last night, describing that it doesn't matter who the Western players are, that this was always going to be the challenge for the Afghan people to deal when coalition forces withdrew.

    The fact is, the standing Afghan National Army is a force of 300,000 with state of the art Western kit, facing a Taliban of 150,000 with pickup trucks, AKs and a few RPGs. There is far more going on politically, societally and religiously than a straight fight between those two.

    There are 38 million Afghans and if that is what they are willing to tolerate strolling over their nation once again and subjugating them, then that will be their lot.

    Nobody can change this except Afghans for Afghans. At the same time, I believe the Western coalition has a moral duty to provide those opposing the Taliban with limitless air attack support and ground equipment until the Afghans can enable a democratic choice for their own future



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,337 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Your last paragraph is what was the reality for the last decade; look where that ended up in reality once they stopped having someone providing them with all the support and how much that helped. The simple reality is that what is needed is an actual will on the ground by Afghans to do something about the situation; and that's not there now or before. The weapons are there, the training has been provided what's lacking is a will to actually execute and that's not something no amount of money is going to get done.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    I feel like I'm in a parallel universe right now!

    Ann Coulter (yes, THE Ann Coulter) tweeted earlier:

    "How about: Thank you, President Biden for fulfilling one of Trump's many broken promises by FINALLY ending the pointless war in Afghanistan."

    (https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1426954255169204224?s=02)

    And, on this day of Afghanistan's final take-over by the Taliban, I heard Eric Prince earlier on Tucker Carlson actually making more or less the same points most on here have made over the past few days: stupid atempt at 'nation building' with no plan, failure of understanding/intelligence for decades, complete denial in State Dept & Pentagon etc.

    Jeez... A day I can actually agree with Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson and Eric Prince! Wow! 😨🤔



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon



    Did the bi partisan committee prevent trump from fully withdrawing from Afghanistan unless conditions were met.

    Yes

    Did Biden withdraw fully, Yes


    Were the conditions met, clearly No

    This mess is Bidens to own



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Melanchthon


    I mean they arrogantly thought they knew better than the military.

    It's in the article I linked a while ago, they have a quote in it of a source saying they think they will regret it in a few months, instead it's been a few weeks.


    Yeah that was an autocorrect error but if they wanted the Taliban might be able to shut down flights from Kabul now, how far are they from the airport?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Its a waste of time bringing facts to the table when you have no interest in considering them!

    For the record, the bi-partisan committee 'conditions' you're extolling didn't make a blind bit of difference to the Trump withdrawal. The US and Taliban agreed on a US total withdrawal by May 1st 2021. So the fact that Trump didnt take them all out by January was in line with his un-fettered implementation of Doha and paid NO mind to the Armed Services Committee. Indeed, it was all over bar the shouting when Trump reduced the force to a mere 2,500, who could NEVER do anything other than protect the Embassy, vital interests and the evacuation of 'friendlies'.

    When Biden came in, he found that the withdrawal planning was so piss-poor in respect of catering to 'friendlies' that he delayed the total withdrawal until 9/11, and later moved that to Aug 31.

    So, in summary, Trump ignored the wishes of the Armed Services Committe, and Biden extended the deadline to make the withdrawal more workable. IF he had blindly followed the Trump non-plan, the carnage would now be in full flight and ppl like you would be excoriating him for not changing the plan!

    There's absolutely no honesty in your position, and it fails every kind of smell test.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,625 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    US Embassy now reported to be fully evacuated except for a small number of contractors..

    One assumes these are the explosives/demolition experts who will take the whole building down...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    As for the speed at which the Afghan Army gave up, and thereby donated huge amounts of US hardware to the Taliban, I hope the US had the foresight to ensure the vehicles, drones, high-tech weapons, planes etc would cease to function once they fall into the wrong hands... Self-destruction must surely be built into the firmware, engine management systems etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,633 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    I think most of the blame is on successive American governments and their policy on the Middle East.

    Those outside of the American media and political bubble, don't see much difference in foreign policy between the two parties.


    Back in 2001, the Democrats did not oppose anything regarding action taken in Afghanistan.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,586 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Storm on a teacup. Afghanistan can go back to being an irrelevancy. Hopefully Pakistan can reap the whirlwind for their actions.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,533 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Biden coming in for some heavy criticism.




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,684 ✭✭✭FatherTed


    Biden is in a no-win situation thanks to the previous 3 administrations. The US could have stayed another 20 years and it would still be the same sh1tshow there. The ANA with a size double of the Taliban, more weapons, training etc just decide to give up and say here you go.

    There is no good way to get out of Afganistan for Biden.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    So, a couple of general staff became furious last Thursday that Biden wasn't willing to reverse the withdrawal? LAST THURSDAY?? Like, where was their fury ANY time since February 2020 when the withdrawal was agreed?? It doesnt sound like they were great at the ould 'over the horizon' planning that military folks are supposed to be good at.. Would it have been too much to ask that these boyos would actually have foreseen that there would be utter carnage whenever the Taliban took over again?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,368 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    i know expecting accountable from the people in the administration who messed up something is a lost cause, but something had to go wrong in the intelligence arena. I mean Biden has been around Washington long enough and been on the foreign affairs committee, so you would expect him to not say something like the comments last month about there being no chance of a Saigon 2.0 unless the info he was getting was to that affect. If I was the deputy director of the CIA or the second in command at the state department, I wouldn’t be making any plans.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Agree totally!

    That said, Biden's answer at that presser was a hostage to fortune. He could have said "My intelligence folks tell me that nothing currently points to a Saigon-like withdrawal. I can't say more, for.operational security.reasons". Question answered without creating a big stick to beat himself with.

    I think they all knew that the Army had been deserting in their droves since 2020, as they knew the T had won the big prize, since Pompeo had excluded the Afghan Govt from the Doha agreement, freeing 5,000 of the hardest T men. At that presser, Biden was trying too hard to gee up the Afghan army, and the Govt.

    Imagine what would have happened /been said if he had answered the questions with full disclosure?

    " Yeah, you're right! The folks in the Pentagon and in the CIA told me to put a new roof on the Embassy by next week, to be ready for the hundreds of folks who are gonna do a Saigon-style helicopter dash in a fortnight's time! " That would have been honest and fully truthful! Aaand, the current rout would have started an hour later!!

    Hopefully, his apparent denial of Afghan forces' weakness bought enough time to get some extra ppl out of danger. It was never within his power to prevent a Taliban return to power!

    FWIW, there are short term things to be thankful for. Kabul and other cities were not pummeled into submission with thousands of civilian casualties. There wasn't a Tehran Embassy style rout! Sadly not much else to be thankful for, as the inevitable comes to pass.

    God (of whatever stripe) help the women and girls to survive the coming nightmare!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    I'd say his National Security Advisor will be sweating alright! If someone has to go, he must surely be a big target!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,368 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    yeah them too. Now history as it seems to be for US presidents on events which at the time don’t reflect well on them, but the future isn’t much help to joe Biden in August, 2021.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,368 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Well he’s standing behind his decision.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,368 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    He’s not happy with the Afghan government, or maybe the former Afghan government I should say.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    He came out fighting alright! Basically, Afghan leaders were cowards, Afghan army were pussies and he wasn't going to try to save Afghanistan from the Taliban, when they made little effort themselves..I

    We'll see how all that flies over the next few days..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,586 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    I liked his speech. He chose the hard right after decades of the easy wrong. He made a balls of the withdrawal, they ought to planned that out to avoid a scramble.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,633 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Everyone else's fault except his own.

    Joke Biden could catch on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    I'm sure its already cracking them up on Parler and Gab amongst the winQnut fraternity! However that 'joke' is gonna bomb anywhere that tries to be reasonable & objective (like mostly in here in fairness). Still, enjoy the schadenfreude while the heads and hands are being lopped off in Kabul!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    The screeching from so many bores has been hilarious. Corporate media who only praised Trump when he bombed Syria, the Never Trumpers who are all bloodthirsty hawks, and the Trumpers who are moaning because Biden actually followed through with his promise to leave Afghanistan unlike their Messiah.

    Trump like Biden knew well it was a waste of time , he knew that withdrawing would actually be a popular move back home and was a key promise in his campaign, but he simply didn't want to deal with the fallout of such a decision.

    What a coward.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,477 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    They kindof did point out that it was a bad idea to work off an arbitrary date. Repeatedly.

    President Biden’s decision to remove all U.S. troops from Afghanistan ran counter to the recommendations of his top military commanders, who feared it could undermine security in the country.

    Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Gen. Austin “Scott” Miller, who leads NATO forces in Afghanistan, and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all recommended retaining the current force of 2,500 troops while stepping up diplomacy to try to cement a peace agreement, U.S. officials say.

    Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, himself a retired military commander for the region, shared the concerns of the senior officers, cautioning that withdrawing all U.S. troops would suspend what amounted to an insurance policy for maintaining a modicum of stability in the country, the officials said


    As Biden weighed a full exit from the country this spring, top military leaders advocated for keeping a small U.S. presence on the ground made up primarily of special operations forces and paramilitary advisers, arguing that a force of a few thousand troops was needed to keep the Taliban in check and prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for terrorists, according to nine former and current U.S. officials familiar with the discussions.

    Gen. Mark Milley, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the four-star commanders of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, Central Command and Special Operations Command, were emphatic proponents of this strategy, the current and former officials said, some of whom spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive planning.

    [...]

    “Everybody knows that the president has every right in the world to overrule the military recommendations he gets,” she continued. “The military absolutely knows, respects and subordinates themselves to that. So yeah, it’s not what they wanted and the president made a different decision — welcome to democracy in America."

    [...]

    David Petraeus, the former CIA chief and commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan said the Taliban have shown no desire to participate in intra-Afghan peace talks, and after the U.S. withdrawal will likely overrun the country and allow terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State to reconstitute.

    It may also be worth noting General Milley's comments last October, pre-Biden.

    Milley: As you know, we the United States government signed an agreement on 28 February. At that time, we had, roughly speaking, about 12,000, a little bit better, U.S. troops in Afghanistan. That came down to, call it 8,500, 8,600 or so by mid summer, and we're on a plan to do a responsible, deliberate drawdown to about 4,500 here very shortly. And then future drawdowns will be determined by the president. And I'm not going to disclose specific numbers and what those are. The whole agreement and all of the drawdown plans are conditions-based, and I expect that we'll have further discussions on the conditions and ensure that they warrant. The key here is that we're trying to end a war responsibly, deliberately, and to do it on terms that guarantee the safety of the U.S. vital national security interests that are at stake in Afghanistan.

    Interviewer: You used an important phrase, general, conditions-based. I want to make sure that people understand that. I think you're telling me you're not going to pick an arbitrary date like the end of the year or Christmas and everybody's going to leave. People are leaving when the situation on the ground makes it possible for them to leave without endangering your mission. Is that correct?

    Milley. Well, that has always been our instructions. That's always been the agreement. That was the decision of the president on a conditions-based withdrawal.

    The difference is that in April, the staff could still take solace in the hope that they might be wrong and the President might get lucky. Last Thursday, they are confronted with the fact that their advice wasn't taken then, they were proven correct, and apparently still were being ignored. I think a slightly different frame of mind might be understandable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,024 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Pretty Grim state of affairs in Afghanistan and from an untrained eye, Biden has seriously underestimated the speed of the Taliban advance but equally the utterly cowardly behaviour of the Afghan Government and Army.

    Surely Military US military commanders on the ground were doing reports, had an incling of the ineptitude of Afghan leadership & their incompetence in advance of a withdrawal.

    No one doubts Bidens long held views on withdrawal but my god, the scene's of utter chaos over the past few days is just beggar's belief. The only saving grace ironically is the Taliban did not actually attack American forces at the airport, it would have been a bloodbath. The Taliban have clearly learned from past mistakes and have played a blinder here, very, very Cunning and dare I say cleverly restrained.

    Watched Bidens press statement also, it was just appalling, a playbook of the blame approach , taken from the Odious Trump, also ironically Biden just handed Trump the excuse he needs to Run again. Biden barely acknowledged the sacrifice of so many, it was shocking.

    Personally I liked the man, have watched him stumble through his presidency over the past few months, the honeymoon long over now, no amount of trips to ballina and proclaimations of his Irish Roots will polish the Turd he's thrown into the mix, shambolic failure and the Pentagon press conference afterwards was actually worse.

    Shocking, Appalling and quite unbelievable a man with so much foreign policy experience could be so Niaeve.

    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭snow scorpion




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Ah, C'mon Man! You missed my point completely! I don't doubt that the military repeatedly sought extensions, and tried to avoid fixed dates that would become targets. But that's not what my post referred to. I referred to the couple of general staff who allegedly went into a huff last Thursday (4 days before the complete rout of the Afghan army) and quit! They went along with a fixed final troops leaving date of 1st May for WELL OVER A YEAR, since the Pompeo/Trump Doha deal was done! They went along with the reduction of numbers down to 2,500 by the time Trump left! They knew the Afghan army was full of 'ghosts', and that barely 100,000 existed in real flesh and blood. They knew that the Afghan government was rotten with corruption and would fold like a cheap suit when the chips would be down! They knew that, as soon as the leaders were faced with a serious threat to Kabul, those leaders would pack their carpet bags chock full of $$$ and **** off to secure havens!

    And knowing ALL this, they got 😠 LAST THURSDAY and up and quit???

    I call that extreme cowardice and desertion, as defined by 'Title 10, U.S. Code § 899 - Art. 99. Misbehavior before the enemy'.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Its hard to argue with a lot of what you say. There's absolutely no doubt that Biden was left with a bag of booby-trapped turds when he came in. There's also no doubt he could have done a better job to flush them rather than smearing himself in so much excrement that any remnants of the pre- inaugeration gloss has been well and truly wiped away!

    All the booby-traps imaginable went off, and 20 years of one-winged chickens are coming home to roost!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Sad and widely reported commentary, but equally sadly believable.

    Never forget, Biden wasn't put in because he was the BEST or PERFECT candidate; he was put in to get the other fella out!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,024 ✭✭✭✭Dempo1


    Is maith an scáthán súil charad.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    I just watched the White House briefing with Jen Psaki and Jake Sullivan (National Security Advisor).

    Clear, professional, informative, somewhat empathetic to the plight of Afghanis under the future Taliban rule, without histrionics. A big help to clarify the Administration's actions, with some retrieval of the negative narrative of recent days.

    Sadly, no erudite, well-researched, thought-provoking question from Peter Doocy- I assume even Fox thought it best not to allow him to be embarrassed by his own stupidity on such a sombre occasion. Also, I remarked to myself how dreadfully stupid many of that WH Press Corps actually are, as evidenced by how they asked their questions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Isn't this usually the point where you equate everyone to each other and tell us they're all the same?

    What have your criticisms of the GOP been like the last few days? I might have missed them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 933 ✭✭✭jamule


    Sleepy Joe has done 4D chess on the Trumpists/Gopshites.

    They didn't have the balls to do it, now they can't decide if they want to be seen as wokists worrying about the poor Afghans or if they want to point out it was them that came up with the plan



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,633 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,633 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    One thing is for sure that supporters of both parties don't give a toss about Afghanis. They seemed more obsessed with the next election.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,296 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    i'll be honest, i never knew biden was so beholden to trumps agreements/deals?

    i thought he reversed them all the minute he got in power, i dunno, maybe i'm wrong.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Yes, I'm afraid you are wrong on that score. 

    Biden reversed some previous decisions such as the Paris Climate Accord, but generally, any agreement signed on behalf of the US by a former POTUS is honoured by the incoming one, even though he might feel obliged to hold his nose while sticking with such agreements.

    In this case however, bear in mind that, for the first time in modern history, Trump instructed much of his Administration not to facilitate the usual smooth transition of power to the incoming Biden Administration. Areas such as Afghanistan troop drawdown etc were not briefed in any detail to the Biden team, along with a range of other transition urgencies such as in the Covid arena. Some might call that clear and unambiguous sabotage. I'm sure history will form a view on that matter! In any case, the lack of a meaningful transition meant that the Biden team were less prepared on day1 of the new Administration than desirable, and were not in a position to take early decisions in many areas.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Going off topic and insisting on "balance" in previous years never seemed to be a big deal for you. I wonder what has changed?

    ---

    On the withdrawal:

    I've softened my disgust the last few days on how this has all played out, seeing it was going to play out this way anyway after Trump's 'deal'.

    Better to pull the plaster off quickly.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Don't be glib when it suits; you know full well any given administration in US politics is a culmination of all those that came before, mixed in with whatever shape Congress or the Senate exists at that time. Biden is picking up a presidency after the chaos of Trump's, indeed Trumpism continues to inform GOP politics, which in turn speaks to how Biden's own choices are enacted or treated. It's inescapable as part of the political conversation with the US - unless one chooses to be selective or absolutist. Would you say the discussion on 2012+ Obama couldn't speak to the GOP, given they (IIRC) controlled both houses at that point? (Indeed after the midterms this could happen again, bolstered by Trumpist GOP members)

    Post edited by pixelburp on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,633 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com




  • Advertisement
Advertisement