The Liberal Gun Club Forum

A congressional hearing on the withdrawal from Afghanistan devolved into shouting and chaos on Monday when Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) accused Secretary of State Anthony Blinken of committing treason and then refused to let him respond.

Mast started his questioning of Blinken by holding up photos of soldiers who died in Afghanistan during the withdrawal and suggesting that President Joe Biden manipulated intelligence to justify his withdrawal from the country.

Biden didn't initiate the withdrawal, former President Donald Trump made the announcement before the 2020 election that he was withdrawing troops from the country after making a deal with the Taliban.

"They deserve to know if President Biden manipulated intelligence and that's what led to everything going so wrong," claimed Mast. "We deserve hearings on what's going on with that leaked transcript and why there are others that remain in Afghanistan."

He went on to claim that Biden left "the most advanced military weaponry," in the country. Republicans have falsely claimed that $85 billion of military equipment was abandoned in the country. A report last week detailed that the weaponry left was destroyed or was rendered useless. Al Jazeera reported that the Taliban was "disappointed" that they ultimately ended up with nothing beneficial in the end.

Mast also described the administration's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan as "absolutely aid and comfort to the enemy," which fits the legal definition of treason.

"Simply put, Congressman, what you said is dead wrong!" Blinken shot back.

"I don't have time," Mast interrupted. "I don't wish to hear your lies!"

"There was no manipulation of intelligence, period!" Blinken interjected.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) at this point interjected and tried to let Blinken reply, but Mast kept shouting above him.

Ted Lieu schools GOP on Trump's role in botching the Afghanistan withdrawal

During a hearing Monday dealing with the mistakes made during the Afghanistan withdrawal, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) called out former President Donald Trump's role in making things worse ahead of the evacuation.

Lieu, a former active duty Air Force colonel now serves in the reserves, cited the Feb. 29, 2020 document from Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that committed to the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He noted that on the first page of the agreement that the U.S. committed to "removing all military forces from the allies and coalition partners, including non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security, contractors, advisers and supporting services within 14 months following announcement of this agreement."

"That is a very specific timeline," said Lieu. Sec. Anthony Blinken agreed. "In fact, it gets even more specific. It says in the first 135 days, the United States, its allies, and the coalition with — will withdrawal forces from five military bases. Did Donald Trump do that?"


"He did," said Blinken.

"When you read this document, let's be clear, this is a surrender document," said Lieu. "Donald Trump surrendered to the Taliban. He said, we are leaving Afghanistan, we are not coming back, and we will not fight you anymore. Now, our Republican colleagues want to say it is conditions-based. Did you notice earlier they didn't want you to talk about the conditions? Because the main condition is that the Taliban was going to stop attacking U.S. forces."

He went on to cite the soldiers who died in Afghanistan during President Donald Trump's presidency. There were 14 in 2017, another 14 in 2018, and 21 in 2019.

"And then Republican colleagues say, hey, for a whole year and a half, U.S. forces did not die," Lieu explained. "That is because the Taliban stopped attacking U.S. forces because of this agreement. If the Biden administration said hey, just kidding, we are not leaving Afghanistan, the Taliban would have started attacking U.S. forces again."

Blinken agreed with Lieu's assessment, and then the congressman continued.

"Donald Trump executed not only the surrender agreement but also 80 percent of the surrender of the withdrawal," said Lieu. "And he left you all with nearly 2500 U.S. troops, and the Taliban was still meeting their conditions. They literally put in a box that you have to withdraw all U.S. forces, or they would essentially start attacking our forces again."

Lieu further noted that for 20 years, the U.S. has gotten "rosy" assessments out of Afghanistan that turned out not to be entirely accurate.

Blinken explained that reducing the American fighting force from 13,000 down to just 2500 made it very difficult for Americans to ensure the Taliban met their agreements and in keeping Americans safe as they exited the country. Republicans criticized Blinken for not taking responsibility and instead blaming the Trump administration

wings wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:42 am Not without another surge he couldn't. The position of the remaining troops was untenable, by intent. Contract mercenaries were the only thing that kept it from falling apart sooner.

Crow wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:01 am
In my mind the right thing was to stop laying lives at the feet of some bullshit ego-driven war with no discernible end or realistic goals. As to the weapons we left behind, we couldn't control the fact that the Afghan army shit the bed. What were we supposed to do... take all their weapons when we withdrew? How would that have helped? (Not being confrontational here... just putting the question out there)
-Crow

TrueTexan wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:14 pm I agree on part what you state. But, Trump and his Administration dumped this on Biden by setting the timeline for total withdrawal after Trump was not in office and setup to be a clusterf*ck no matter what Biden did. This was so when the screwup happened, he could flap his little hands and cry not my fault.

featureless wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:58 am
The media and Blinken's claim that we left no weapons is similarly so (you're right, it was the army folding, of which we had no real control, but to say it didn't happen and that it wasn't our weaponry is a flat out lie).

Secretary of State Antony Blinken delivered an unwavering defense of the Biden administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan on Monday, insisting it was "time to end America's longest war" and praising the evacuation from Kabul as "extraordinary."

Why it matters: Blinken, who is appearing Monday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Tuesday before Senate Foreign Relations, is the first senior Biden official to testify on Afghanistan in the wake of the chaotic withdrawal. Tempers flared in the first session, with House Republicans accusing Blinken of lying and demanding his resignation.

Highlights: Blinken was pressed on how the U.S. would conduct counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan now that it no longer has a local partner, extensive intelligence capabilities or a regional air base. Blinken declined to go into detail and proposed discussing the matter with the committee in closed session.

On the Taliban government: Blinken acknowledged that the acting Cabinet includes members with "very challenging track records," such as FBI-wanted interior minister Sirajuddin Haqqani. He said that when it comes to engaging with the Afghan government, the U.S. will do so "on the basis of whether or not it advances our interests."

On Trump's Taliban peace deal: "We inherited a deadline. We did not inherit a plan," Blinken said in response to a question about the Trump administration's guidance for getting Americans out of the country and keeping military equipment out of the hands of the Taliban.

On al-Qaeda: "The current assessment of the intelligence community is that long ago, al-Qaeda was so significantly degraded that it's not in a position to conduct externally directed attacks. But we will remain hyper vigilant about any reemergence of that threat," Blinken said, while stressing that the terrorism threat has "metastasized" beyond Afghanistan.

On who's left in Afghanistan: Blinken said there are roughly 100 U.S. citizens and likely "thousands" of American green-card holders in Afghanistan, but the latter is not something the State Department actively keeps track of. He was unable to provide an exact number of SIV applicants who have been evacuated but said the "overwhelming majority" of Afghans who have been brought out are at-risk.

On humanitarian aid: Blinken announced the U.S. is providing an additional $64 million in new humanitarian assistance, which will flow through independent organizations. He also said he plans to appoint a senior State Department official to "focus entirely" on supporting women and girls whose rights have been threatened by the Taliban regime.

On lessons from 20 years of war: "One of the lessons is while we are very effective in dealing with terrorist threats to our country and eliminating them, which we did very successfully in Afghanistan, the idea of using military force to remake a society is something that is beyond our means and capacity," Blinken said.

On intelligence assessments: Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) accused Biden of manipulating intelligence about the weakness of the Afghan government, repeatedly calling Blinken a liar. Blinken, when he was finally allowed to respond, said Mast was "simply wrong" — stressing that nobody believed Afghanistan would collapse in just 11 days.

On U.S. drone strikes:A New York Times investigation found that an Aug. 29 drone strike mistakenly killed 10 civilians. Blinken told Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.): "That is being looked at very, very, very carefully by others in the administration. No country on earth takes more precautions to ensure that no one other than the terrorist target is struck by a drone."

On President Ashraf Ghani: Blinken said that Ghani, whose decision to flee precipitated the collapse of the Afghan government, told him on Aug. 14 that he would "fight to the death" if the Taliban chose not to negotiate a peaceful transfer of power. He fled the next day.

The big picture: Blinken has been the target of blistering criticism by Republicans. GOP lawmakers berated him and refused to let him respond to questions several times during the hearing, accusing him of "betrayal" and incompetence.

Democrats are viewed as less united when it comes to their defense of Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, but largely believe Republicans are exploiting the situation for political purposes. Sources say Democrats intend to use the hearings to raise broader issues concerning Afghanistan and post-9/11 interventions, while preventing Republicans from laying 20 years of mistakes at the feet of one president.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is testifying Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he'll face a second day of interrogation from Republican lawmakers highly critical of the Biden administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Driving the news: The committee's chair, the hawkish New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez, pulled no punches in his opening statement, threatening to subpoena Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other Biden officials who decline to voluntarily appear before the committee.

"Mr. Secretary, the execution of the U.S. withdrawal was clearly and fatally flawed," Menendez told Blinken.

Menendez promised accountability for the multiple administrations who "lied" about the stability of the Afghan government, and said Austin's refusal to testify "will affect my personal judgment on Department of Defense nominees."

Highlights: Blinken testified that the administration began planning for a "worst-case scenario" in Afghanistan in the spring and summer, including contingencies for evacuating the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in 48 hours and establishing control over the airport.

The secretary declined to give the committee a copy of a July 13 State Department dissent cable that warned of the imminent collapse of the Afghan government soon after the U.S. withdrawal, saying those cables are designed "only to be shared with senior officials in the department."

Blinken said the State Department is “still tabulating" the number of Special Immigrant Visa applicants who need to leave Afghanistan, and that "thousands" of American green-card holders remain in the country.

Pressed by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) on why the administration could not push the withdrawal date past Aug. 31 in order to process SIV applicants, Blinken said "we took some risks" by delaying beyond May 1 and that the timing was ultimately a military consideration. He added that the U.S. had anticipated the Afghan government would still be in control at that point.

Blinken told Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that while the Taliban now controls some of the $80 billion in military equipment provided to Afghan security forces, much of it is "inoperable" and "none of it" poses a strategic threat to the U.S. or Afghanistan's neighbors.

Under questioning from Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a key Biden ally on the withdrawal decision, Blinken said 2,400 U.S. troops would not have been enough to keep the country from falling to the Taliban and that a significant surge would have been required.

The big picture: In more than five hours of testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Monday, Blinken calmly defended nearly every aspect of the withdrawal and evacuation effort — refusing to concede it could have been handled differently even as he faced intense criticism and calls to resign from furious Republicans.

Catch up quick: "We inherited a deadline. We did not inherit a plan," Blinken told members of the committee, repeatedly blaming former President Trump for forcing the Biden administration's hand with the peace deal he struck with the Taliban.

He praised Biden's decision to end the war in Afghanistan as righteous and the evacuation effort as "extraordinary," while acknowledging that about 100 U.S. citizens and possibly "thousands" of green card holders remain in the country.

Blinken also disputed Republicans' claims that Biden ignored or "manipulated" intelligence about the pending collapse of the Afghan government, insisting that the administration performed as well as it could have under conditions no one predicted.

What to watch: Democrats, with Menendez as a notable exception, are broadly expected to defend the withdrawal and push back against GOP efforts to pin 20 years of bipartisan mistakes in Afghanistan on Biden.

Republican senators, meanwhile, will grill Blinken on the administration's posture toward the Taliban and demand to know how he will get the remaining U.S. citizens and green card holders out of Afghanistan.

Republicans are also expected to press the secretary on the challenges posed by Biden's "over the horizon" counterterrorism strategy, though Blinken was reluctant to discuss those issues in an unclassified setting during his House testimony.

Meanwhile: Gen. Austin Scott Miller, the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, will testify behind closed doors before the Senate Armed Services Committee at 3:30pm ET.

Ylatkit wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:18 pm

featureless wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:58 am
The media and Blinken's claim that we left no weapons is similarly so (you're right, it was the army folding, of which we had no real control, but to say it didn't happen and that it wasn't our weaponry is a flat out lie).

Once I transfer a weapon to you, it's your weapon, and is no longer my weapon. Whatever you do with it is not my problem legally or morally.

Kill your mother? Not my problem, it's your weapon, your mother.
Your kid "accidentally" shoots himself? Not my problem. It's your weapon, not mine.
It used to be mine. Now it's yours.
Your army runs away and drops your new weapon? Not my problem.

It's not my weapon.

I haven't heard anyone say it didn't happen.

It wasn't our weaponry. You see, there was a change of ownership.

Ylatkit wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:06 pm I understand you're unhappy with President Biden. But the Afghan's lost weapons just aren't on him. You see, there was a transfer of ownership, and that changed everything.

You're using the same tired logic antis use when they try to sue gun manufacturers because their gun functioned perfectly and someone died.

TrueTexan wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:28 pm We could look at the weapons left were part of Trump’s agreement with the Afghan government for their army to continue protection of the Afghan people. Had we pulled the military equipment out and left the Afghan army nothing what would have been said by the Repugs and critics of Biden. He was in a no win situation, damn if he does, damned if he don’t.

featureless wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:43 pm

TrueTexan wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:28 pm We could look at the weapons left were part of Trump’s agreement with the Afghan government for their army to continue protection of the Afghan people. Had we pulled the military equipment out and left the Afghan army nothing what would have been said by the Repugs and critics of Biden. He was in a no win situation, damn if he does, damned if he don’t.

Again, I'm not saying that was on Biden. It's on every politician that's supported the effort for the last 20 years. What I am saying is that if we ignore it happened (i.e. summary from your article: "we didn't leave no weapons, they were all destroyed") we aren't being told the truth (there is an army's worth of abandoned weapons) and we will keep repeating the same tragic history. We may do so even if we were trusted with an honest account. Why did we believe the army was up to the task? Why did it fail so spectacularly? Pretty important questions, at least in my mind. The ignored weapons are a part of that story, no?

I'm not satisfied with "thank God Biden got us out. Period. End of story." Too many people died in a war that didn't have any justification that spanned 20 years and left us, arguably, further behind the "war on terror" than when it started.