Category Archives: Republican

Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., on Sunday warned that there could be "bloodshed" in future elections while echoing former President Donald Trump's false claims about "rigged" votes.

The far-right freshman congressman repeated the widely debunked narrative about election fraud during a speech to the Macon County Republican Party despite federal intelligence warningsthat such rhetoric could spark domestic terror attacks like the January 6 Capitol riot.

"Anybody who tells you that Joe Biden was dutifully elected is lying to you," Cawthorn declared in a video the party posted on its Facebook page before deleting it on Tuesday following blowback.

"The things that we are wanting to fight for, it doesn't matter if our votes don't count," Cawthorn said. "Because, you know, if our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen, then it's going to lead to one place and it's bloodshed."

The comments drew immediate condemnation, even from Cawthorn's fellow Republicans.

"This is insane. Based on a total lie," tweeted Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republicanwho voted to impeach Trump after the Capitol riot. "This must stop."

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Democrats roundly said that Cawthorn's rhetoric must be condemned.

"Law and order is the foundation of democracy. When elected officials ignore facts and advocate for committing crimes, that foundation cracks," tweeted Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn. "Rep. Cawthorn's rhetoric is a threat to all of us, and it's time for real patriots to condemn it and marginalize those who propagate it."

Despite millions spentto investigate election fraud claims pushed by Trump, there has been no evidence of any widespread fraud that could have influenced the election outcome. Attorneys who pushed the claims in court have been sanctionedand face disbarment.

Cawthorn even suggested that he would be willing to take up arms against the government to defend "election security."

"As much as I am willing to defend our liberty at all costs, there's nothing that I would dread doing more than having to pick up arms against a fellow American," he said. "And the way that we can have recourse against that is if we all passionately demand that we have election security in all 50 states."

Cawthorn's speech comes just months after a joint intelligence assessment warnedthat "narratives of fraud in the recent general election" and "the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the US Capitol" would "almost certainly" spark domestic terror attacks.

Luke Ball, a spokesman for Cawthorn, told CNNthat the congressman was "CLEARLY advocating for violence not to occur over election integrity questions."

"He fears others would erroneously choose that route and strongly states that election integrity issues should be resolved peacefully and never through violence," Ball said.

The remarks are a turnaround from Cawthorn's comments in January amid backlash to his vote to object to the certification of President Joe Biden's win after the Capitol riot.

"I think I would say that the election was not fraudulent," he said at the time. "You know, the Constitution allowed for us to be able to push back as much as we could and I did that to the amount of the constitutional limits that I had at my disposal. So now I would say that Joseph R. Biden is our president."

Ball insisted to CNN that Cawthorn's "views on the 2020 election have remained consistent."

"He raised objections to electors from several states in January because he had severe concerns about how the elections were conducted and how laws were changed last-minute to favor Democrats," he said.

Cawthorn, who spoke at Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally on January 6, also called detained rioters "political hostages" and "political prisoners."

"The big problem is, we don't actually know where all the political prisoners are," he said. "So if we were to actually be able to go and try and bust them out and let me tell you, the reason why they're taking these political prisoners is because they're trying to make an example. 'Cause they don't want to see the mass protests going on in Washington."

An audience member asked Cawthorn "when are you going to call us to Washington again?"

"We are actively working on that one," Cawthorn replied. "We have a few plans in motion I can't make public right now, but this is something that we're working on."

Ball told HuffPostthat Cawthorn is "not actively working on any 'protest' or 'plan' to bring people to Washington" and insisted that the comment was related to the earlier statement about "political prisoners." Ball said Cawthorn was calling for "due process" and "was not advocating for any form of illegal action."

Trump supporters are planning a rally in support of the arrested rioters, who they call "political prisoners," in Washington D.C. next month. The D.C. Metropolitan Police is planning a "full activation"ahead of the protest.

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., came under fire on Tuesday for failing to push back on his party members' election lies, which have also been echoed by far-right lawmakers like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.

"There is no bottom for Kevin McCarthy and his big tent caucus where insurrectionists, anti-Semites, and alleged sex traffickers can all find a home," the Democratic National Committee said in a statement. "In any other world, Madison Cawthorn's abhorrent remarks would be unanimously condemned and a party leader with an actual spine would hold Cawthorn accountable for suggesting bloodshed. Madison Cawthorn keeps proving he's an embarrassment to North Carolinians and it raises the question of how long Kevin McCarthy will continue to let his caucus be run by extremists."

Former Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., tweeted, "every Republican Member of Congress should be asked if they agree with [Cawthorn's] call for another January 6th."

Continue reading here:

Fellow Republican rips freshman GOP Rep. Madison Cawthorn over "insane" threat of bloodshed - Salon

A group of violent insurrectionists storms the Capitol building, attempting to destroy our votes and kill our elected representatives, and Sen. Jake Corman, along with the rest of the GOP, rewards them with a sham audit of the 2020 election.

Supporters of this bogus investigation say, lets have this audit to remove any doubt over the election results, which is a baldfaced lie. The only result they want is one where President Trump wins, and they will keep calling for phony audits until they get that result. These supporters have disregarded every court case, recount and legitimate audit of the 2020 election, so why would this audit be the one that finally convinces them to accept the results?

Moreover, even if this farce has no effect on the 2020 election, it will affect future elections. I believe the results of the audit will be used as justification for voter suppression laws where the GOP will give themselves the power to discard votes from entire counties and install their own candidates.

The GOP attempted to discard thousands of votes during the 2020 election; they most certainly will try again.

The GOP cannot restore election integrity when they themselves have no integrity.

Jeff Gibbons

Wilkinsburg

Go here to see the original:

Letter to the editor: Integrity of Republican Party - TribLIVE

Potential 2024 GOP presidential candidates are "racing to the bottom" as they look to win over the MAGA base in the event that former president Donald Trump opts not to run, according to a new report from Vanity Fair.

However, some Republicans fear that if Trump doesn't run, he may try to sabotage the race, because he "looks at every decision through the prism of self-interest."

"What benefits himfinancially, emotionally, politicallymay actually damage Republican electoral chances," Vanity Fair reported, adding that the former president is fueled as much by a desire for revenge as a desire to win.

"The nightmare scenario for Republicans is that Trump doesn't run and sabotages the Republican nominee to punish Mitch McConnell and other party leaders for not endorsing his big lie," according to the report. "It's happened before. Trump told people he wanted Republicans Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue to lose the 2021 Georgia special election so that Democrats would control the Senate."

"Trump thought he'd be much more influential if McConnell was in the minority," a Trump confidant told the magazine.

Trump denied the report and blamed McConnell for the GOP's Senate defeats in Georiga, but longtime confidants reportedly said he wouldn't be able to tolerate a Republican president other than himself.

"He's got zero interest in having any heir. It's always been about him," one of them said.

If Trump decides to run, it's a "metaphysical impossibility that anybody, even a senator named Jesus H. Christ, could beat" him, according to Michael Caputo, a veteran of Trump's 2016 campaign.

If Trump doesn't run, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is widely viewed as the current frontrunner. But DeSantis faces some challenges, including his "abrasive personality" and his "fraught relationship with Trump," the magazine reported.

"Trump f*cking hates DeSantis. He just resents his popularity," a Trump confidant reportedly said.

The situation is unprecedented because the would-be potential candidates have to pretend they aren't running. At the same time, the "knives are out" between them, and if Trump doesn't run, the 2024 primary could be "2016 on steroids," featuring as many as 25-30 candidates possibly including the likes of Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.

But Caputo said he believes a Trump run is "more likely than not" which appears to be the majority opinion.

"What does Trump have to lose by running?" one prominent GOP strategist said. "His business sucks. He's doing tours with Bill O'Reilly."

Read the full story here.

'He's got zero interest in having any heir': Republicans fear Trump will sabotage 2024 GOP primaryyoutu.be

Read more:

'He's got zero interest in having any heir': Republicans fear Trump will sabotage 2024 GOP primary - Raw Story

Republican efforts to question Donald Trumps defeat in 2020 have led to voting system breaches experts say pose a risk to future elections.

Copies of Dominion Voting Systems software used for designing ballots, configuring voting machines and tallying results were distributed at an event this month in South Dakota organized by the MyPillow chief executive, Mike Lindell, a Trump ally who has made unsubstantiated claims about last years election.

Matt Masterson, a former top election security official in the Trump administration, said: We told election officials, essentially, that you should assume this information is already out there. Now we know it is, and we dont know what [hackers] are going to do with it.

The software copies came from voting equipment in Mesa county, Colorado, and Antrim county, Michigan, where Trump allies challenged results last fall. Dominion software is used in some 30 states, including California, Georgia and Michigan.

Harri Hursti, an election security pioneer, was at the South Dakota event and said he and other researchers were given three separate copies of election management systems that run on the Dominion software. Data indicated they were from Antrim and Mesa counties. While its not clear how the copies came to be released, they were also posted online and made available for public download.

The release gives hackers a practice environment to probe for vulnerabilities and a road map to avoid defenses, Hursti said. All hackers would need is physical access to the systems because they are not supposed to be connected to the internet.

The door is now wide open, Hursti said. The only question is, how do you sneak in the door?

US election technology is dominated by three vendors, meaning election officials cannot easily swap out existing technology. A Dominion representative declined comment, citing an investigation.

Hackers could sabotage the system, alter ballot design or even try to change results, said Kevin Skoglund, an election technology expert.

This disclosure increases both the likelihood that something happens and the impact of what would happen if it does, he said.

The effort by Republicans to examine voting equipment began soon after the November election as Trump blamed his loss on widespread fraud. Judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans, election officials of both parties and Trumps own attorney general dismissed the claims. A coalition of federal and state officials called the 2020 election the most secure in US history, and post-election audits across the country found no significant anomalies.

In Antrim county, a judge allowed a forensic exam of voting equipment after a brief mix-up of results led to a suit alleging fraud. It was dismissed in May. Hursti said the date on the software release matches the date of the forensic exam.

Calls seeking information from Antrim countys clerk and the local prosecutor were not immediately returned; a call to the judges office was referred to the county clerk. The Michigan secretary of states office declined comment.

In Colorado, authorities are investigating whether Mesa county elections staff provided unauthorized access to systems. The county elections clerk, Tina Peters, appeared with Lindell in South Dakota and told the crowd she was being targeted by Democrats.

Colorados secretary of state, Jena Griswold, said she alerted federal officials of the breach and was told it was not viewed as a significant heightening of the election risk landscape at this point. This week, Mesa county commissioners voted to replace voting equipment Griswold ordered no longer be used.

Geoff Hale, who leads election security at the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa), said his agency has always operated on the assumption system vulnerabilities are known by malicious actors. Officials are focused instead on ways to reduce risk, such as using ballots with a paper record that can be verified by the voter and rigorous post-election audits, Hale said.

Having Dominions software exposed publicly did not change the agencys guidance, Hale said.

Jack Cable, a security researcher, said he assumed US adversaries already had access to the software. He said he was more concerned the release would fan distrust among the growing number of people not inclined to believe in the security of US elections.

It is a concern that people, in the pursuit of trying to show the system is insecure, are actually making it more insecure, said Cable, who recently joined a cybersecurity firm run by the former Cisa director Christopher Krebs and former Facebook security chief Alex Stamos.

Concerns over access to voting machines and software first surfaced in Arizona, where the Republican-controlled state senate hired Cyber Ninjas, a firm with no elections experience, to audit Maricopa county results. The firms chief executive tweeted support of conspiracy theories surrounding last years election.

After the countys Dominion voting systems were turned over, Arizonas top election official determined they could not be used again and ordered new ones.

Dominion has filed suits contesting unfounded claims about its systems. In May, it called giving Cyber Ninjas access to its code reckless and said it would cause irreparable damage to election security.

Ryan Macias, an election technology and security expert who was in Arizona earlier this year to observe that review, was alarmed by a lack of cybersecurity protocols. There was no information about who was given access, whether those people had passed background checks or were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements. Cyber Ninjas did not respond to an email.

Macias was not surprised to hear copies of Antrim countys system had surfaced online, given the questionable motives of the various groups conducting the reviews and the central role that voting systems have played in conspiracy theories.

This is what I anticipated would happen, and I anticipate it will happen yet again coming out of Arizona, Macias said. These actors have no liability and no rules of engagement.

See the original post here:

Republican election audits have led to voting system breaches, experts say - The Guardian

From the Committee On Oversight and Reform

WASHINGTONToday, House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer and House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations Ranking Member Don Bacon (R-Neb.) wrote Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack about the 27% increase in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

SNAP benefits are intended to help low-income Americans provide food for their families. SNAP benefits are increased annually to match inflation. This year, however, the Biden Administration increased SNAP benefits far beyond inflation levels, costing American taxpayers an additional $20 billion annually.

The Biden Administration is abusing its authority and expanding SNAPwithout congressional authorization, wrote Congressmen Comer and Bacon.

The law requires the Thrifty Food Plan to be updated every five years. The Biden Administration, however, broke with longstanding precedent that the USDA only increase the cost of the plan in accordance with inflation. Even last month, the Congressional Budget Office acknowledged this precedent when it estimated only inflationary adjustments to the Plan through 2031 . . . The Biden Administrations actions to dramatically expand SNAPwithout guardrails and without congressional inputappears to be another example of its efforts to keep Americans dependent on government handouts.

The full letter is available here.

Visit link:

Republican Congress members say USDA abused its authority with SNAP increase Produce Blue Book - Produce Blue Book

Good Wednesday morning Utah! Thanks for reading The Rundown.

Slide into my DMs. I love to hear from readers, and I read every email. Send me your news tips, feedback about this newsletter, or anything else on your mind. Send me an email or find me on Twitter @SchottHappens.

Get this newsletter delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. Sign up for free here.

Its no secret that many hardcore Utah Republicans are no fan of Sen. Mitt Romney. Witness the less than cordial reception he got at this years GOP convention when he was mercilessly booed from the stage.

A new poll suggests Romney may no longer fit neatly in the Trumpified version of todays Republican Party.

OH Predictive Insights finds only 42% of Utah Republicans believe theres room for Romney in todays GOP. 44% say Romney does not belong.

Graphic via OH Predictive Insights

Trump, on the other hand, would find a much more welcoming atmosphere. 58% say theres room for the twice-impeached former President.

Romney is not popular among Republicans in Utah, with almost two-thirds (63%) saying they would rather see someone else in the Senate instead of Romney.

In the 2012 Presidential election, Mit Romney earned the largest share of the vote in Utah of any Republican presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984. The data shows that Utahns opinions have flipped since 2012 with two-thirds of GOP voters preferring a Republican senator other than Mitt Romney, he is more vulnerable than ever in a primary election, Mike Noble, OHPI Chief of Research said in a press release.

The good thing for Romney is he has more than 3 years before hes up for re-election. Another factor working in his favor is there are very few Utah Republicans with the political juice to mount a credible challenge to Romney. The Tribunes Robert Gehrke makes a compelling case that former congressman (and friend of the newsletter) Jason Chaffetz is preparing to challenge Romney in 2024. Thats certainly a possibility, but its difficult to see him giving up his prime gig on Fox News.

You can see the question and crosstabs here.

Breaking overnight: A Texas law banning most abortions after six weeks goes into effect after the Supreme Court declines to step in and stop it. [WaPo]

Gov. Spencer Cox will meet with Utah lawmakers today to discuss how to address the increasing number of COVID-19 cases in the state. But, its likely nothing will come from the meeting as legislative leaders dont think theres much they can do to help the situation in the short term. [Tribune]

President Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, calling the airlift to evacuate thousands of Americans and Afghans an extraordinary success. [AP]

The Taliban stopped a bus loaded with explosives headed toward the Kabul Airport shortly before the U.S. finished its withdrawal from Afghanistan. [NBC News]

An Afghan interpreter who helped rescue then-Senator Joe Biden in 2008 was left behind after refusing to leave his family. [WSJ]

A Republican congressman from Oklahoma threatened staffers at the U.S. embassy in Tajikistan as he attempted to cross into Afghanistan with a large amount of cash. Rep. Markwayne Mullin was going to rescue five American citizens and planned to hire a helicopter to get them out. [WaPo]

House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy threatened to punish companies that turn over phone records to the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. [Politico]

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, one of former President Donald Trumps most vocal supporters in Congress, was caught on hidden camera blaming Trump for his election defeat. Theres nothing obviously skewed about the election results, Johnson said in the recording. [WaPo]

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan says its really clear former President Trump lost the 2020 election. It was not rigged. It was not stolen, Ryan said during a local television interview. [The Hill]

The CEO of Intermountain Healthcare pleaded with Utahns to wear a mask to stem the surge of coronavirus infections in the state. [Tribune]

The CDC is asking unvaccinated Americans not to travel over the Labor Day holiday because of the risk of further spreading COVID-19. [CNN]

Social Security will have to start cutting benefits in 2034, a full year earlier than expected, because of a projected shortfall due to the pandemic. [CNN]

Democrats are sounding the alarm about anemic Latino turnout in the California recall election. [Politico]

Google again pushed back their plans for employees to return to the office until mid-January. [AP]

Last week I asked readers if they thought the ferocious debate around COVID-19, vaccines and masks was bound to tear the country apart, or if it was more of a tempest in a teapot.

Many readers responded to my query with some very insightful thoughts about our hyperpolarized political culture. Here are some of those responses:

I think that Covid-19 and all the accompanying disruptions to peoples lives may have affected peoples mental health more deeply than we realize. I think that most people found a way to trudge through and will recover in time but for some people, the perfect storm of last years presidential election and Covid-19 pushed them over the edge. There will always be wackos but I think that the rancor will start to subside rather than get worse barring another catastrophe. Alex White

Mask mandates arent the problem. Vaccine hesitancy isnt the problem. The problem is poor quality education that has led to a large portion of the population being unable to use reason and scientific thought to analyze a problem and come to a solution. Distrust of the pillars of society has caused these people to seek out alternative news, alt-facts, quacks, charlatans, and psychics. They dont trust mainstream media, mainstream politicians, or the best and brightest doctors and scientists. This is not a new problem but it is a steadily worsening problem. As more and more school boards are taken over by these people the quality of education diminishes. Books are altered to present half-truths and tall tales as fact. Those educated in these systems of less knowledge go on to multiply and their progeny have issues with even more facts. This is not so much a political problem though it seems the majority of these people have flocked to the new Republican Party. The Democrats are not exempt from this as many on the far left have never studied and have little knowledge of the problems of communism and other extreme socialist governments and societies. David Crispin

I am a 72-year-old retired physician who has cancer in remission. I spent March 2020-July 2021 essentially homebound, only leaving home for doctor appointments. I do not understand those who do not want to be vaccinated. When I was a child, Polio was the disease we all feared When the Polio vaccine became available, our parents lined us up as soon as it was available so we would be safe. The vaccines are safe. Also, face masks are safe. If we do not use face masks in school, children are going to become infected. Some with underlying conditions may die. In previous crises our country has pulled together for the greater good, I just dont understand why our citizens are so resistant to doing the same with this crisis. Kathie Coopersmith, MD

I am appalled by the current political climate surrounding COVID, and I am fearful that the longer it continues the more lives it will cost. This Is a health crisis! Death does not distinguish whether its victims are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other. At the end of it all people are dying from this Thing. How many people reading these columns remember the days when, in order to even attend public schools, you had to produce your immunization records? The purpose then, as it should be now, was to make sure that all children were SAFE! Where are the politics in that? I understand people who are claiming parents rights but What about the children? I just wish that everyone would recognize this pandemic for what it is: a killer! It is the enemy Not my neighbor down the street. Maybe if we applied something other than political views, like a sense of unity to defeat this enemy we could make a difference? Perhaps this may sound pollyannish but what have we got to lose? B. Murphy

Utah

$10,000 reward offered for information in Moab double homicide. [Tribune]

Advocates want a needle exchange program in St. George to help the citys homeless, but not everyones on board. [Tribune]

Afghan and Iraqi refugees can ask to be resettled in Salt Lake City. [Tribune]

Eccles Theater requiring vaccination or negative result to enter live shows. [ABC4]

COVID-19

The rolling 7-day average of new COVID-19 cases in Utah is the highest in 7 months. [Tribune]

Davis County reopens mass vaccination center with COVID-19 surging. [FOX13]

Weber County officials prepare to offer booster COVID-19 shots. [Standard Examiner]

Is COVID vaccine safe while pregnant? A pregnant infectious disease doctor answers. [KSL]

Bear River Health Department outlines plan to keep kids in school despite COVID concerns. [ABC4]

Environment

Why indoor air can be just as bad as the pollution outside and what you can do about it. [Tribune]

BLM resumes oil and gas leasing in Utah. [Tribune]

Floods

Month after devastating flooding hit Enoch, community still working to rebuild. [FOX13]

Herriman homeowner asks city to pay for flood damage despite law saying it doesnt have to. [KUTV]

Water

Davis and Weber Counties Canal Company shutting off secondary water early due to drought. [KSL]

Orem building moratorium amended after City Council inundated with emails and calls. [Daily Herald]

Richins Ranch conservation easement approved, preserving 851 acres near Chalk Creek. [Park Record]

On the Opinion Pages

How Cox let dirty industry take over Utahs air quality planning, Tribune Editorial Board writes. [Tribune]

Will oil and gas foxes be watching Utahs air quality henhouse? Robert Gehrke asks. [Tribune]

Gerald Elias: Public health measures through the years were called demagoguery. [Tribune]

Paul Krugman: The snake oil theory of the modern right. [Tribune]

The Tribunes Connor Sanders contributed to this report

Here is the original post:

A new poll shows Utah Republicans may be ready to move on from Mitt Romney - Salt Lake Tribune

It has been obvious for some days that the right-wing is preparing a major pivot from hand wringing about Joe Biden's alleged betrayal of Afghan refugees to hand wringing about all the Afghan refugees he brought into the country to kill us all in our beds.I wrote about the early shifts in perspective last week and it's starting to come into full focus now that the military evacuation is over. Right-wing fear-mongering about immigrants and refugees is as predictable as Republican voter suppression.

Fox News celebrity Tucker Carlson has made theevacuation of refugeespart of his Grand Unified Theory,The Great Replacement, whereby Joe Biden and the Democrats conspired to bring these foreigners to America in order to supplant good, pure white people anddominate the American culture and politics. Carlson is influential in right-wing circles but while his argument feeds into their sense of grievance, it may be a bit esoteric for many of the folks in his audience. Former president Trump's top immigration adviser Stephen Miller makes it more explicit andfolds insome of the old "welfare queen" arguments, complaining that the refugees will get benefits and it would be cheaper to settle them in Pakistan, which he thinks proves this is all about an "ideological objective to change America."

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., edged toward what is going to be the ultimate argument when he said this on Monday:

Knowing that they said they took more than a 120,000 lifts with only 5600 being American, I I think we should look through and screen before people come to America. We've got to make sure what's in there.

When asked if he thought it was OK for these Afghan refugees to settle in the U.S., McCarthy replied "after we get the screening it's a whole different question" which isn't exactly responsive. But then he's made his position clear before.According to the New YorkTimes,he told a bipartisan group of House members last week, "we'll have terrorists coming across the border."

He knows his base. After all, back in 2016, Donald Trump had promised to repatriate all the Syrian refugees who had been fully vetted and already settled in the U.S. simply because you just can't trust 'em. He wanted to send Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaiband Ayanna Pressley "back to where they came from" even though they are all American citizens, the latter two having been born here. (Not that that matters, he wanted to end birthright citizenship as well.)

As I noted last week, Trump himself has wavered between needling President Biden by pretending to care about the Afghans left behind and accusing the administration of allowing terrorists into the country. But on Monday,he toldFox News' Stuart Varney, "We should have hit that country years ago, hit them really hard, and then let it rot" so it's hard to believe any protests of concern for the Afghan people. It's just not in him. I think we can expect him to jump on the "terrorist" bandwagon 100% from now on.

All signs point to the GOP believing that it can turn the "Biden screwed up Afghanistan" into "Biden brought the threat of terrorism back to the U.S." And the whole thing fits neatly into their overarching worldview that they, and the U.S.,have been humiliatedat the hands of "the other" whether it's a foreigner or devious Democrats stealing the election right in front of everyone. This is the same worldview that brought us the deranged mass shooters with their Great Replacement-stylemanifestosandscreeds about Jews and caravansand the violent events of January 6th.

All the screeching about phantom Afghan terrorists will end up inflaming the real would-be terrorists who live among us and they are plenty inflamed already.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

All over the country, we are seeing anti-vaccine and anti-mask protesters explode into full-blown hysteria over the idea that kids might be required to get vaccinated and wear masks when they come to school. Dress codes and vaccines are already commonly required in public and private schools and have been for many decades. Now they are an infringement on the fundamental freedom of their parents to be irresponsible fools with their own families and the families of others. And they are getting more and more violent in their rhetoric:

PA GOP Gov candidate Steve Lynch today: “Forget going into these school boards with freaking data. You go in to these school boards to remove them. I’m going in with 20 strong men and I’m gonna give them an option - they can leave or they can be removed.” pic.twitter.com/A0M6SsOldI

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) August 30, 2021

It isn't entirely unprecedented for GOP candidates to promote violence in recent years and be richly rewarded for it. One of them became president of the United States. You may also recall that a congressional candidate by the name of Greg Gianforte was even arrested forassaulting a reportera couple of years back. He is now the Governor of Montana. But the myriad threats against local officials such as public health officers and school board members in the last year is an escalation of political violence on a new and much more intimate level than we've seen. Across the nation,aggrieved right-wingersareintimidating officialswith the words "we know where you live, we will find you" andtargeting at their homes.

And while most Republican officeholders are more or less standing back and allowing this to happen out of cynical self-interest, some are saying the quiet parts out loud themselves.

Congressman Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C.,told a group of constituentsthe other day that "if our election systems continue to be rigged and continue to be stolen" there is going to be bloodshed and he really doesn't look forward to taking up arms against other Americans.

History Professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat defined what is happening in stark terms on "All in with Chris Hayes" on Monday: "Authoritarianism is when thugs and criminals become the lawmakers." Hussein Ibish, Senior Resident Scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, made a startling observation about this turn of eventsin The Atlantic:

Decades of living in, studying, and writing about the Middle East have taught me that whenever a political faction becomes obsessed with violent rhetoric and fantasies, brutal acts aren't far behind. And while there's always been a strain of militancy on the American right and left fringes, there is something unmistakably new, and profoundly alarming, about the casual, florid, and sadistic rhetoric that is metastasizing from the Republican fringe into the party's mainstream.

The truth is that the violent rhetoric and fantasies have been there for quite a while, it's just that they were channeled into wars on foreign soil like the tragic 20-year quagmire that ended this week. And soon they will no doubt be directed at the new immigrants from Afghanistan as "floridly as ever. The American right-wing has always found somebody to hate. But if Trumpism is defined by one unique characteristic it's that it feels free to direct its violent rhetoric against fellow Americans in ways we have not seen since the Civil War.

Read the original here:

Republicans are right to worry about Afghanistan and terrorism but they're wrong about who incites - Salon

Professionally, Liam Donovan is a lobbyist and former GOP political operative. But hes also known as a keen, clear-eyed analyst of legislative maneuvering on Twitter (@lpdonovan), and hes got some friendly advice for Democrats, if theyre willing to listen.

The key for these guys is dont lose the plot. You have to fight your battles with the proper perspective. You have to go in knowing that youre not going to get all of what you want. Theres going to be a half loaf involved, he says.

Dont put yourself in a position where you cant save face at the end of the day, because thats what the bottom line is. Everybody has to save face, Donovan adds. Give yourselves off-ramps, give yourselves opportunities to take the win. And I think its ridiculous coming from a Republican lobbyist, but I think thats how you get it done.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democratic caucus are in for a rough month ahead. Pelosi has promised moderates a vote on the infrastructure bill by Sept. 27, but progressives vow they wont provide their support unless a sweeping social spending package is passed through reconciliation first. Meanwhile, how Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema can find consensus on the reconciliation bill is the multi-trillion-dollar question.

Here are seven takeaways from our conversation on how Democrats got to this point and what they need to do next. It has been edited for length and clarity.

Its funny, I actually did not think it was particularly wise, mostly because I didnt think there was much to be gained. But I think what informs everything broadly, and frankly, whats coming in September is just a profound lack of trust between these two sides.

Its both sort of intra-caucus and intra-cameral. So theres this mistrust between the House and the Senate the House is sick of getting jammed but also within the House, this is playing out. This was [moderates] only real leverage point. If you outsource all of the squeaky wheel stuff to the Senate, then that's a big leap. Youre sort of trusting Manchin and Sinema to be the safety on whatever might get through [on budget reconciliation].

And I think theres something to be said for what they secured here from their perspective in terms of at least nominally separating the fate of infrastructure versus the reconciliation package. And what informs all of this, whether youre coming from the moderate perspective or from the progressive perspective, is the improbable extremes: the moderates are basically acting as though theyll be faced with a choice of swallowing a $3.5 trillion bill or not getting what they want, and conversely, the progressives are acting as though they have to hold this hostage in the form of the infrastructure bill or moderates are just going to take down the whole process. I dont think either of those things are going to happen.

I think mutually assured destruction sort of got us into this process. But its going to take a leap of faith to some degree to kind of land this thing. And I think that's what were kind of running into. I think the mistrust and prospective disagreements on substance have seeped into process. And thats what they're going to have to get around if they want to truly start negotiating in earnest.

I think the meaningful thing in here is [moderates] dont want to be put in a position where they have to go beyond their comfort zone [on the reconciliation bill]. Essentially, they dont want to be legislatively extorted. Neither side wants to swallow something that they dont like, and so they want to keep something that that they can hold over the other.

This is only as convincing as these people are likely to shoot the hostage. We saw for the first time, the moderates put in a position where they have to either press leadership or blink, and I think they came out somewhere in between where they stared [Pelosi] down and forced tangible concessions.

Did they truly delink these things? I think that remains to be seen. She said what she had to say to make these guys happy and lived to fight another day. What she would tell you, and Im sure what her team would tell you privately, is this was always going to happen. This was always going to be the plan. The problem is that might be the case. But she couldnt say the plan out loud because saying the plan out loud makes it complicated. And so now theyre on this abbreviated timetable where you have to whether or not you can actually get [reconciliation] done in September you have to act like you can and try until you cant. And thats going to make it really tricky.

All of this is about saving face and that intersection between trust and saving face. And by putting a firm date on infrastructure, thats a serious concession. But it also makes it harder to see how we let everybody save face, particularly when the speaker is out there on a limb saying, Im going to pass this, I'm going to rally the House.

Youve put progressives in a position where they've had to stake out turf that theyre going to have to recede from or stick to in a few weeks here. It does put progressives in a tough spot of having to shoot down what is essentially a must-pass bill at the end of September, go against leadership and deny the White House a win that they presumably want.

Theres two elements that made [the infrastructure bill] work. One was the experience of the American Rescue Plan, where the president steamrolled Republicans because he had consensus. And I think demonstrating to Republicans, you lowball my offer and put Democrats in a position where they all agree, Im not going to hesitate for the sake of bipartisanship. So I think that was a shot across the bow that, hey, I can get Democrats to agree to big things, even the ones you think are on your side. I can get them if you dont play ball in a good faith manner. So I think that was a gut check for Republicans. I think that informed the infrastructure negotiations.

At the same time, I think there was always a sense among many Democrats that Manchin and Sinema are just doing this for show, when it fails, theyll say, hey, we tried and go to reconciliation. I think without Manchin and Sinema insisting not that this be theater, not only that, but this come to fruition, thats why this happened. And it intersects with Bidens brand. I think he sees the inherent value in bipartisanship. But I think those two things had to happen. Biden had to prove that he could go it alone, and the Democrats the marginal Democrats had to really want it.

The Senate, I think we all can agree, is going to be the lowest common denominator [on reconciliation], both procedurally and in terms of the scope and scale. And I guess the most interesting part of the resolution of the standoff with the moderates everyones really focused on the date, because thats the tangible thing they got if you read Speaker Pelosis statement very closely, the most interesting line in there relates to her commitment that they pass a bill that can pass the Senate, which would fly in the face of the idea, which I think was sort of common, which was, the House passes a big bill that makes progressives happy; they do this sort of back and forth; and then they settle somewhere in the middle. And that would seem to foreclose that and also make it so they need to go through the Byrd bath process sort of preemptively, pre-conference as much of this as possible, which is both smart if you want to get this done smoothly, but also is going to make it really tough to get it done by the end of September.

Its a key part of the tension, because the collective interest is in accomplishing as much as you can as soon as you can, whereas the individual interests are much more fraught. We could argue in theory as to whether it matters if you vote for this or that, or go big or go small, do voters really parse these things? But to a member, considering their individual circumstances, this all feels very important.

And so I think for progressives, theres the fierce urgency of now. For the vulnerable members or the front-line members, I think there's a wariness of going too big or doing something that is going to be used against you.

Lets look back at Obamacare. The Blue Dog members that opposed Obamacare, that didnt save them. To the extent they survived, theyre gone now. They were gone within a few cycles. Most of them lost anyway. Youre not going to save your own skin by going against your party. The parties are sorted. Voters are polarized. The D next to your name or the R next your name determines most of this. Youre going to get blamed for this if it happens, youre going to get credit for it if it does.

I think what members are wary of the ACA vote is not instructive but I think the cap-and-trade vote is. What members dont want to do is take hard votes that dont lead anywhere. Thats what informs the commitment, however nominal, that they got in that statement, which is were going to vote on something that can become law, thats something that can pass the Senate. Everybodys going to have to hold hands and jump at the end of the day, but they dont want to take a messaging vote that is going to come back to haunt them next fall. And I think thats a perfectly, perfectly rational concern.

I think the key for these guys is dont lose the plot. You have to fight your battles with the proper perspective. You have to go in knowing that youre not going to get all of what you want. Theres going to be a half loaf involved. And I think whos been most savvy about this all along has been Bernie Sanders. Hes the guy that was pushing for a $6 trillion bill, knowing full well it was going to land somewhere less. He has the trust of the base such that if he blesses it, then it has to be OK. I think that his counterparts in the House have that same credibility.

And the question is and will continue to be, are they sort of in on the joke that a lot of this is theater, in the sense that you need to leverage the best you can get, but at the end of the day, whether thats $1.75 trillion or $3 trillion or whatever it is, thats going to have to be what it is? And I think this goes back to the issue of mutually assured destruction being useful until it isnt. Because at the end of the day, if youre if youre willing to blow up a trillion-plus dollar deal because its not everything you want, I dont think that is productive. I dont think its helpful to anyone.

The incentives are aligned such that they will get something done. The question is who can afford to walk away? And I think thats where Manchin and Sinemas leverage comes in, which is, theyre game to do this, but they have a walk away number and theyve already said that its $3.5 trillion. The question is where that ceiling is. And I think theyre very credible as people who don't need this at any cost, whereas its much tougher to see progressives blowing it up, because again, like a micro-sized version of this is still the second biggest piece of legislation ever.

I think thats the key for these guys. Play your part and fight the battles until theyre over. But dont lose the plot and get the expectations so out of whack that you cant save face and take the win at the end of the day. Because everybody, whether this is a trillion dollars, two trillion dollars, whatever it is, at the end of the day, these guys are going to go out and sell this on the trail and its going to be the best thing ever. So I think thats what they need to remember.

And again, it comes back to this sort of mutual trust, which is in short supply. But I think getting to the budget resolution was an opportunity to build some good faith. I think it just sets up some other tests of trust coming up in September.

I think trust will be strained before it is rebuilt.

I think, to make the House process work in September, there probably have to be certain assurances made by the Senate. I think there will have to be like smoke signals sent that help to build trust of whats going to happen. Ben Koltun, one of the things he pointed to was in 2010, before Pelosi would bring something to the floor, she got [Harry]Reid to get every Democratic senator to sign a letter saying that they would pass this. So I think there are small things that can be done publicly, privately, signaling exercises that will have to be there to sort of build this trust.

I think I think theyll have to build trust along the way. Again, I feel like its easy to talk yourself into a corner and dig your position in so deep you cant get out. I think the keys for these guys is to be patient. Dont try to rush it and try not to lose the plot. So much of this is like coalition management, both in terms of your members and in terms of your stakeholders. And its easy to then have that run into the tension of expectations and requirements versus, again, the plot.

This is going to have some twists and turns. Youre going to land somewhere in between. Dont put yourself in a position where you cant save face at the end of the day, because thats what the bottom line is. Everybody has to save face. Give yourselves off-ramps, give yourselves opportunities to take the win. And I think its ridiculous coming from a Republican lobbyist, but I think thats how you get it done.

Itll be messy, itll be messy, and it wont be nearly as abbreviated as theyre saying right now, which doesnt mean its going to be end of the year. But you cant rush this, and you shouldnt rush this because you want to get the policy right. And that goes back to trust, because if you put a clock on it, then the progressives say, Well, we have to get this done before then, because youre going to get your thing. And, you know, it could go sideways before then, but I think theyll ultimately put it back on the rails and get it done.

I think the tricky part is theres just no forcing mechanisms after Sep. 30. Congress works on deadlines and the only deadlines in the fall are vacation related: oh, we want to get it done by Columbus Day, or we want to get it done by Thanksgiving, or the next legislative waypoint is going to be whatever the CR is. If the CR goes to mid-December, then thats going to be the sort of backstop. And it helps to have the election year looming around the corner. I have to think theyll figure it out before then.

The House is in a hurry, but I see no indication that Manchin or Sinema are in a hurry to get to the endgame. And until youre in the end game, I think its still kind of the end of the beginning.

I think the experience of the American Rescue Plan has really obscured how this stuff typically works. Also, it obscures how much work a years worth of work went into making the American Rescue Plan happen. It took a year for all that stuff to be socialized, to be written, passed. Most of that was cribbed from the Heroes Act. What wasnt cribbed from the Heroes Act was just CARES Act programs that were continued. And so this was stuff that was kind of internalized and became consensus within the Democratic Party. It was easy in a way that should not be instructive for anything else. Its not going to happen in weeks like that happened.

And the other one you can point to is Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [from 2017], which is both much narrower in scope it was purely tax and it was something that Republicans generally agreed on. I mean, were cutting taxes, how can you screw that up? And even that took seven weeks from end to end. And what that obscures, again, is, talking to George Callas about this the other day who lived this, he was like, I always have to remind myself, that took seven years, not seven weeks. Because it was built on [Dave] Camp draft 1.0, Camp draft 2.0, all kinds of false starts, all kinds of bills that were there on the shelf.

Some of this has been out there, but a lot of its either from scratch or not quite fully baked. And thats why it's going to take time. Its going to take time to get the policy right. And its not a snap your fingers and get this done kind of thing. So I think seven weeks is the best measure. Can they get it done in the same kind of time frame? Its possible, but that also puts you well into October.

Its arbitrary urgency. And I think thats one thing that Manchin and Sinema have always been clear about and what they were clear about with infrastructure. Its not going to be some arbitrary timeline, were going to get this right. And because it is purely arbitrary and based again on mistrust, you need to be patient. And to be patient, you need to have some level of trust. And so the catch is, OK, how do you start to rebuild some of that?

See the article here:

Mutually Assured Destruction, Nancy Pelosis Plans and the Savviness of Bernie Sanders - POLITICO

The connection between Republican political views and skepticism about COVID-19 precautions, such as mask mandates and vaccine passports, is clear but not intuitive.

While not all unvaccinated people are Republicans, nearly half of Republicans have yet to receive even a single shot, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll from late July. Republicans also make up the largest share of opposition to mask mandates in schools and public places, vaccine mandates at work, and vaccine passports to use services and businesses, and GOP politicians have led the charge against these ideas.

The reasons for this are not obvious. Before the current pandemic, vaccine skepticism was not disproportionately common among Republicans. Republicans are not less likely to get sick and die from the coronavirus. And, as conservative vaccine champions like to note, the current vaccines were largely developed during the Trump presidency.

David Frum: Vaccinated America has had enough

One way to explain the rights resistance to precautions is anti-government sentiment, but as I wrote Thursday, the description doesnt really fit, because enforcing bans on mask mandates and vaccine requirements often requires government to flex its muscles. Nor is it quite right to call this simply a manifestation of anti-science GOP views. Although the resistance to precautions includes a dangerous strain of COVID-19 denialism and vaccine nonsense, many of the debates on responding to the pandemic are more about risk calculations.

Instead, the best way to think about the Republican opposition to COVID-19 precautions might be as another manifestation of the surging feeling in the American conservative movement that it represents an embattled minority that needs to use the power of government to defend its independence. Public opinion consistently shows majority support for mask mandates and vaccine requirements, but several states, all of them GOP-led, have prohibited them. The minoritys insistence on opposing masks and vaccines privileges the individual rights of the few Americans who dont want to take these steps over those of the collective mass of their compatriots who dont want themselves or their loved ones to get sick.

Although it might come as a surprise from reading news coverage, Americans actually broadly agree on many COVID-19 precautions. An Axios/Ipsos poll released Tuesday finds 69 percent of Americans support mandatory masking in schools, and 64 percent back mask requirements in public places. More than half (55 percent) of the respondents support employer vaccine mandates, similar to a Gallup poll (52 percent) released Wednesday. Other surveys have found even an larger backing. That comes in the context of seven in 10 American adults already being fully vaccinated, a figure that falls short of herd immunity but represents, as Ariel Edwards-Levy notes, an astonishing degree of consensus for contemporary America.

Perhaps thats precisely why the minority has been so noisyand so effective. Videos of angry parents berating school officials who are considering mask mandates have gone viral. Governors and legislatures in several states have blocked anti-COVID measures. Eight states (Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah), all of them with Republican trifectas, have forbidden mask mandates, according to Pews Stateline project. (Some of these bans are currently being litigated.) The website Ballotpedia has tallied 20 states with some sort of ban on vaccine requirements, all of them GOP-led. The Axios/Ipsos poll found only 44 and 40 percent of Republicans in favor of school and public mask mandates, respectively.

Like other political questions today, views about COVID-19 restrictions are not only divided by party but also contain little middle ground. The Gallup poll, which found 5238 support for employer vaccine requirements, also reported that two-thirds of respondents held their position strongly.

The gap between what the public overall wants and what its noisiest members demand in opposition is not new. Last spring, as states across the political spectrum hastened to loosen initial pandemic restrictions, I pointed out that the public was strongly supportive of the existing measures. That small portions of the population have repeatedly succeeded in imposing their will on the majority may help to explain the fury, documented by my colleague David Frum, that some vaccinated people now feel toward their fellow Americans who are not taking similar care.

National polls, though, may not tell the whole story. In some conservative enclaves, most residents oppose COVID-control measures. And they dont just want to reject them in their own communities. When local governments in red states have attempted to impose masking or other restrictions, Republican-led state governments have frequently preempted them. They arent just giving local officials a choice about whether to complythey are ensuring that they cannot.

David A. Graham: Its not vaccine hesitancy. Its COVID-19 denialism.

This inverts the typical pattern in a democratic polity. Usually, laws and dictates emerge from popular opinion. Here, Republicans are turning to government as a force to impose their will in situations where they have already lost the battle for popular opinion. The fight over COVID-19 echoes previous battles over preemption, such as gun regulation, transgender bathrooms, and immigration enforcement.

Donald Trump thrust minority rule into the center of the Republican Party. He was elected president in 2016 with a minority of the popular vote, but has always purported to represent the true consensus of authentic Americans. (Silent majorities are, it turns out, just minorities.) When he was defeated in 2020 by an even larger popular-vote margin as well as in the Electoral College, his reactionsupported by many members of his partywas to attempt to have votes thrown out, and to allow the minority to override popular will.

Some Republicans bucked Trump on his blatant attempt at election subversion, but the party as a whole remains firmly countermajoritarian. Representative Liz Cheney and Senator Mitch McConnell, for example, were both critical of the January 6 attempted coup, but have eagerly defended Republican-led efforts to introduce antidemocratic state election laws that would facilitate minority rule and enable future election subversion. McConnell has also wielded the filibuster prolifically, a minority-rule tactic par excellence, even blocking a bipartisan commission to investigate January 6.

David A. Graham: Democracy defeated, 35-54

Many observers have interpreted support for Trump, even among those unlikely to concretely benefit from his policy positions, as a gesture of resentment: They are angry at someone (elites, liberals, the government, the establishment) for telling them how they ought to live. Trump might not materially improve their position, but hes willing to stick it to those groupsand if that requires antidemocratic means, so be it. The current countermajoritarian resistance to masks and vaccine mandates emanates from the same feeling. Many conservatives are tired of being told how to live by the majority, and they want to live exactly as they please, even if that means they may dieand even if that means making other people sick along the way.

Read more:

The Noisy Minority - The Atlantic

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The American-nurtured Afghan military of the last 20 years that had suffered thousands of prior casualties evaporated in a few hours in the encirclement of Kabul.

Enlistees apparently calculated that their own meager chances with the premodern Taliban were still better than fighting as a dependency of the postmodern United States despite its powerful diversity training programs.

Forces more powerful than the Taliban, in places far more strategic, will now leverage an ideologically driven but predictably incompetent administration, a woke Pentagon and politically weaponized intelligence communities.

Why not, when President Joe Biden trashes both American frackers and the Saudis only to beg the Kingdom to rush to export more of its hated oil before the U.S. midterms?

BIDEN SAYS 'NO ONE'S BEING KILLED' IN AFGHANISTAN, CAN'T 'RECALL' ADVISERS TELLING HIM TO DELAY WITHDRAWAL

Why not, when Biden asks Russias Vladimir Putin to request that Russian-related hackers be a little less rowdy in their selection of U.S. targets?

And why not, when our own military jousts with the windmills of "white supremacy" as Afghans fall from U.S. military jets in fatal desperation to reach such a supposedly racist nation?

Biden keeps repeating that he was bound by former President Donald Trumps planned withdrawal.

Really?

A mercurial Trump repeatedly demonstrated that he was willing to use air power to protect U.S. personnel and to bomb an Islamic would-be caliphate. The Taliban knew that and so struck when Trump was gone.

Biden claims he was bound by Trumps decision to withdraw and thus cannot be blamed for his reckless operation of a predetermined departure. But all Biden has done since entering office is destroy Trump pacts, overturning past agreements on energy leases, protocols with Latin America and Mexico on border security, and pipeline contracts.

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL: BIDEN OWNS AFGHANISTAN MESS HE WASTED TIME, IGNORED ADVICE AND NOW BLAMES OTHERS

No sooner did Biden claim he was straitjacketed by Trump than he reversed course to defend not just his own withdrawal but the disastrous manner of it. Biden claims that he has no free will while insisting he would have done nothing differently if he did.

In a sane world, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense would resign. We have heard for too long their careerist boasts about assigning climate change as their chief challenge. For too long they have virtue-signaled their critical race theory credentials to Congress. For too long they have bragged about rooting out alleged white supremacists from their ranks. For too long they have sparred with journalists while fighting Twitter wars and issuing cartoonish commercials attesting to their woke credentials.

In other words, they sermonized on anything and everything except their plans to prevent a humiliating military defeat of U.S. forces and their allies.

GORDON CHANG: CHINA-TALIBAN CONNECTION WE MUST HOLD BEIJING ACCOUNTABLE FOR AFGHAN MILITANTS' CRIMES

Our intelligence and investigatory agencies are just as morally suspect. The legacy of John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and Andrew McCabe has been the destruction of the reputations of the CIA, NSA and FBI.

Current and retired intelligence lackeys and careerists all wasted years promulgating Russian "collusion." They swore Hunter Bidens laptop was Russian "disinformation."

They surveilled and unmasked officials and hatched adolescent plots against an elected president. All that was more important to their careers than warning of the growing threats in Afghanistan.

In the aftermath of the Afghan debacle, we must de-politicize and de-weaponize these warped agencies and incompetent institutions.

We could get a symbolic start by pulling security clearances from all retired operatives, officers and diplomats who go on television to offer partisan analysis.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

The retired and pensioned top brass should finally be held to account if they violate tenets of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When four-star generals lecture the nation that an elected president is a Mussolini or Nazi-like but keep mum during the greatest military setback in a half-century, they should forfeit exemptions from existing military codes.

Retired officers who revolve in and out of corporate defense contractor boards and Pentagon billets should have a cooling-off period of five years before leveraging their inside knowledge of the Pentagon procurement labyrinth.

As for Biden, his team in defeat threatens the victorious Taliban with possible ostracism from global diplomacy as the price of their illiberality. We are to assume that in between executing women, the Taliban will fear losing the chance to visit the U.N. in New York.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Biden has defied a Supreme Court ruling and assumed that it was a good thing to have broken the law. Under his watch, the fate of Americas border, equal enforcement of the laws, economy, energy, safety from crime, foreign policy and racial relations have imploded and in seven months no less.

If Biden were a Republican, the current Democratic House would have impeached him. It would have been right to have done so.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

Continue reading here:

Victor Davis Hanson: If Biden were a Republican, Dems in Congress would have impeached him. They should - Fox News