| To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1321821) | 9/26/2021 12:06:05 PM | | From: sylvester80 | | | | What Trump’s Disgraceful Deal With the Taliban Has Wrought
nytimes.com
Aug 28, 2021
Believing you’re uniquely capable of bending things to your will is practically a requirement for becoming president of the United States. But too often, in pursuit of such influence over foreign policy, presidents overemphasize the importance of personal diplomacy. Relationships among leaders can build trust — or destroy it — but presidents often overrate their ability to steer both allies and adversaries.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev had built such a solid relationship that during the Reykjavik summit most of Reagan’s administration worried he would agree to an unverifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. Bill Clinton believed his personal diplomacy could deliver Palestinian statehood and Russian acceptance of NATO expansion. George W. Bush believed he looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, and Barack Obama believed he could persuade Mr. Putin it wasn’t in Russia’s interests to determine the outcome of the war in Syria.
But in both hubris and folly, none come close to matching Donald Trump. For someone who prided himself on his abilities as a deal maker and displayed an “I alone can fix it” arrogance, the agreement he made with the Taliban is one of the most disgraceful diplomatic bargains on record. Coupled with President Biden’s mistakes in continuing the policy and botching its execution, the deal has now led to tragic consequences for Americans and our allies in Kabul.
Mr. Trump’s handling of Afghanistan is an object lesson for why presidents of both parties need to be better constrained by Congress and the public in their conduct of foreign policy.
Mr. Trump never believed Afghanistan was worth fighting for: As early as 2011, he advocated its abandonment. Once in office, his early infatuation with “my generals” gave the Pentagon latitude to dissuade the president from exactly the kind of rush to the exits we’re now seeing in Afghanistan. Mr. Trump wanted to abandon the war in Afghanistan, but he understood atavistically that it would damage him politically to have a terrorist attack or a Saigon comparison attached to his policy choices.
Thus the impetus for a negotiated settlement. The problem with Mr. Trump’s Taliban deal wasn’t that the administration turned to diplomacy. That was a sensible avenue out of the policy constraints. The problem was that the strongest state in the international order let itself be swindled by a terrorist organization. Because we so clearly wanted out of Afghanistan, we agreed to disreputable terms, and then proceeded to pretend that the Taliban were meeting even those.
Thanks for reading The Times.
Subscribe to The Times
Mr. Trump agreed to withdraw all coalition forces from Afghanistan in 14 months, end all military and contractor support to Afghan security forces and cease “intervening in its domestic affairs.” He forced the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban fighters and relax economic sanctions. He agreed that the Taliban could continue to commit violence against the government we were there to support, against innocent people and against those who’d assisted our efforts to keep Americans safe. All the Taliban had to do was say they would stop targeting U.S. or coalition forces, not permit Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to use Afghan territory to threaten U.S. security and subsequently hold negotiations with the Afghan government.
Not only did the agreement have no inspection or enforcement mechanisms, but despite Mr. Trump’s claim that “If bad things happen, we’ll go back with a force like no one’s ever seen,” the administration made no attempt to enforce its terms. Trump’s own former national security adviser called it “a surrender agreement.”
Mr. Trump and his supporters clearly considered the deal a great success — until just days ago, the Republican National Committee had a web page heralding the success of Mr. Trump’s “historic peace agreement.” Really, the Trump administration’s deal with the Taliban deserves opprobrium even greater than what it heaped on the Iran nuclear deal struck by the Obama administration.
Editors’ Picks
Tony Awards: What to Expect Tonight
24 Low-Fuss, High-Reward Recipes Ready in 30 Minutes or Less
Wole Soyinka Is Not Going Anywhere
Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump wasn’t unique among American presidents in the grandiose belief that he alone could somehow change behaviors of our enemies and adversaries. Ever since Theodore Roosevelt brought an end to the Russo-Japanese war and won the Nobel Peace Prize, most American presidents have found irresistible the siren call of personal diplomacy.
Instead of banking on other countries being charmed or persuaded that American leaders know their interests better than they do, presidents should return to the practice of persuading their fellow Americans of the merits of agreements with foreign powers. Congress can begin by reasserting its role in diplomacy and requiring specific authorizations for the use of military force rather than continuing to acquiesce to claims that existing executive authorizations can be endlessly expanded. It should refuse the shifting of funds previously authorized and appropriated for other purposes (Mr. Trump made such shifts to construct the border wall). It should reject foreign policy changes enacted by executive order rather than congressional approval, and it should force the Supreme Court to clarify the extent of the president’s war powers.
Agreements with foreign powers, whether states, international institutions or organizations like the Taliban, should be submitted to Congress for a vote. The best way to prevent catastrophic foreign policy mistakes is to require the 535 representatives of the American people to put their jobs on the line, become informed, and support, reject or modify a president’s program. Congress tried to slow or block Mr. Trump’s planned drawdown of U.S. forces. Members who supported the Taliban deal should be explaining why they thought the outcome would be different than the tragedy unfolding in Afghanistan now. Apathy and unaccountability are the real enemies of good foreign policy. Presidents get around oversight by offering unilateral policy actions or claiming international agreements aren’t formal treaties. Congress shouldn’t let a president from either party get away with that.
Addressing foreign agreements as stand-alone votes would raise the profile and stakes even more. Supporting Mr. Trump’s Taliban agreement would have been — and should have been — a tough vote. There are reasonable arguments on the side of continuing the war and on the side of concluding it. America would be more secure today if Congress exerted its prerogatives more forcefully — both when Mr. Trump agreed to the Taliban deal, and when Mr. Biden continued it.
These are not partisan issues. They get at the heart of the constitutional separation of powers, a division that makes America strong and resilient. Restraining presidential fiat may mean that some foreign policy opportunities are missed, that some deals will remain out of reach. But it also insulates the president, and the American public, against bad deals by allowing for greater public scrutiny and oversight. As the debacle in Afghanistan shows, closer evaluation of Mr. Trump’s Taliban deal and of Mr. Biden’s withdrawal plans would have been preferable to the tragedy now unfolding. |
| | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| From: Mick Mørmøny | 9/26/2021 12:06:56 PM | | | | | | Biden said: "I promise you, those people will pay. There will be an investigation underway now and there will be consequences. There will be consequences."
 |
| | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1321821) | 9/26/2021 12:09:21 PM | | From: sylvester80 | | | | BOMBSHELL: LIAR tRump Denies Releasing 5,000 Taliban Prisoners, But His Administration Negotiated For Their Release
Sep 13, 2021
forbes.com
Former President Donald Trump on Monday blamed the “inept Afghan government” for releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners last year, even though the Trump administration called for prisoner swaps in an agreement with the Taliban.
KEY FACTS
Trump lashed out against the former Afghan government and ex-president Ashraf Ghani for the prisoner releases in a statement issued Monday, at around the same time U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the House Foreign Affairs Committee the 5,000 prisoners freed last year “almost certainly” included some known terrorists.
In reality, a commitment to release up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners and 1,000 prisoners from the U.S.-backed Afghan government’s side was included as a confidence-building move in a February 2020 peace agreement inked by the Trump administration and the Taliban in Doha.
At the time, Ghani — whose government wasn’t a party to the U.S.-Taliban deal — told reporters he’d made “no commitment” to release Taliban prisoners, arguing prisoner swaps should be part of a wider peace settlement between the Taliban and the Afghan government instead of a precondition, the New York Times and Reuters reported.
Despite this skepticism, Ghani’s government freed thousands of Taliban members, and government officials agreed to release a final set of prisoners in August 2020.
Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged prisoner swaps were controversial but argued they would clear the way for peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government last summer, and warned “the decisions and conduct of both parties to intra-Afghan negotiations will affect the size and scope of future U.S. assistance.”
Last September, Zalmay Khalilzad — who served as U.S. special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation under the Biden and Trump administrations — told the BBC he’s “not happy about” the releases but “sometimes you have to make hard decisions.”
Trump's office did not respond to a request for comment from Forbes.
CRUCIAL QUOTE
“The inept Afghan government, led by corrupt President Ghani, released 5,000 prisoners—not the Trump Administration,” Trump said in a Monday afternoon statement. “Secretary of State Blinken is doing everything in his power to make the most inept withdrawal in history look, at least, acceptable. It never will.”
CHIEF CRITIC
“Trump’s deal forced the Afghan government to release 5,000 prisoners, and offered international legitimacy to the Taliban,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said ahead of testimony from Blinken on Monday.
KEY BACKGROUND
Last year’s landmark U.S.-Taliban deal was designed to wind down the United States’ 20-year presence in Afghanistan at a time of bipartisan war-weariness. Trump agreed to pull all U.S. troops from the country by May 2021, and the Taliban promised not to let al-Qaeda use Afghanistan as a base to threaten U.S. security, among other concessions. Trump also pushed to remove all U.S. troops by late December, several months ahead of schedule. In the spring, Biden extended the troop withdrawal deadline to Sept. 11 but backed the decision to leave Afghanistan, arguing the conflict is no longer important to U.S. interests. But the Afghan government crumbled at a rapid pace as the United States withdrew, and the Taliban took over the capital city of Kabul last month, forcing the Biden administration to launch a frenetic and often dangerous evacuation mission from Kabul’s airport. Biden has faced stiff criticism for his handling of the withdrawal, including from Trump and his allies, but he’s insisted a longer U.S. presence in Afghanistan would put American troops at risk, partly because the Taliban expected him to abide by the 2020 agreement with the Trump administration. |
| | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Bonefish who wrote (1321875) | 9/26/2021 12:09:37 PM | | From: Wharf Rat | | | | mRNA is a recent development.
Published: 12 January 2018mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology
Norbert Pardi, Michael J. Hogan, Frederick W. Porter & Drew Weissman
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 17, pages261–279 (2018) Cite this article
2.56m Accesses
741 Citations
6988 Altmetric
Metricsdetails
Key Points
Recent improvements in mRNA vaccines act to increase protein translation, modulate innate and adaptive immunogenicity and improve delivery.
mRNA vaccines have elicited potent immunity against infectious disease targets in animal models of influenza virus, Zika virus, rabies virus and others, especially in recent years, using lipid-encapsulated or naked forms of sequence-optimized mRNA.
Diverse approaches to mRNA cancer vaccines, including dendritic cell vaccines and various types of directly injectable mRNA, have been employed in numerous cancer clinical trials, with some promising results showing antigen-specific T cell responses and prolonged disease-free survival in some cases.
Therapeutic considerations and challenges include scaling up good manufacturing practice (GMP) production, establishing regulations, further documenting safety and increasing efficacy.
Important future directions of research will be to compare and elucidate the immune pathways activated by various mRNA vaccine platforms, to improve current approaches based on these mechanisms and to initiate new clinical trials against additional disease targets.
Abstract
mRNA vaccines represent a promising alternative to conventional vaccine approaches because of their high potency, capacity for rapid development and potential for low-cost manufacture and safe administration. However, their application has until recently been restricted by the instability and inefficient in vivo delivery of mRNA. Recent technological advances have now largely overcome these issues, and multiple mRNA vaccine platforms against infectious diseases and several types of cancer have demonstrated encouraging results in both animal models and humans. This Review provides a detailed overview of mRNA vaccines and considers future directions and challenges in advancing this promising vaccine platform to widespread therapeutic use.
nature.com |
| | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1321876) | 9/26/2021 12:14:07 PM | | From: Wharf Rat | | | | "You can't distinguish the difference between science and politics"
My degree is in science science, not political science.
"Were you a disappointment to your mother's family?"
I didn't ask, and they didn't tell.. |
| | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Bonefish who wrote (1321885) | 9/26/2021 12:34:45 PM | | From: Wharf Rat | | | | "The code can be modified by humans. That could be a problem"
Could and can are words limited only by one's imagination. Getting vaccinated could be the slippery slope that leads to Martians colonizing Uranus. OTH, the unvaxxed are already causing problems. |
| | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Winfastorlose who wrote (1321862) | 9/26/2021 12:41:48 PM | | From: Brumar89 | | | | Georgia Republicans outraged Trump trashed Brian Kemp at rally: 'I am just so mad — beyond words'
[ Let's face it, Trump wants to destroy the Republican party out of revenge. ]
Bob Brigham
September 25, 2021
Republicans in Georgia are worried that Democrats may win the governor's mansion during the 2022 midterms after Donald Trump blasted GOP Gov. Brian Kemp during a Saturday night campaign rally.
Trump did not just tear down Kemp, he also spoke kindly of Democrat Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost to Kemp in 2018 and is widely expected to mount a rematch.
""Of course, having [Abrams] I think might be better than having your existing governor," Trump said. "Might, very well, be better."
"Stacey, would you like to take his place?" Trump asked. "It's okay with me."
It is highly unusual for a former president to trash a member of his own party running for re-election.
Former President Donald Trump returned to Georgia on Saturday to showcase a trio of loyalists he's endorsed in 2022 elections, deepening an internal rift among state Republicans that helped fuel upset Democratic victories in the last election cycle," Greg Bluestein reported for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "The visit only sharpened the division within a state GOP reeling from losses in November's presidential race and the Democratic sweep of U.S. Senate runoffs that flipped control of the chamber."
Trump continued to push his "Big Lie" of election fraud in the state, which may have depressed GOP turnout in the Senate runoff elections enough to allow the Democratic Party sweep.
"Tens of thousands of Trump supporters stayed home in the January runoffs as he promoted the Big Lie and attacked fellow Republicans. Trump intensified that GOP feud tonight, essentially handing [Stacey Abrams] his endorsement," Buestein posted to Twitter.
He also reported text messages he was receiving from Republican officials, one of who described the rally as "a sh*t show."
The texts I’m getting from Republican officials: “What a shit show.” “We have reached a new low.” “I am just so mad… t.co
— Greg Bluestein (@Greg Bluestein) 1632623216.0
rawstory.com |
| | Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
