US Politics

TexasTexas governor Abbott, who fought mask mandates, tests positive for CovidGreg Abbott, who was vaccinated in December, is at least the 11th governor to contract the virus01:07Alexandra Villarreal in AustinTue 17 Aug 2021 18.51 EDTLast modified on Wed 18 Aug 2021 03.37 EDTTexas governor Greg Abbott tested positive for Covid-19 on Tuesday, after weeks spent banning local mask requirements and meeting maskless crowds.Texas officials ask US government for mortuary trucks as Covid cases riseRead moreAbbott, a Republican, is fully vaccinated against the virus and is not experiencing symptoms, his office said in a statement. He is taking a monoclonal antibody treatment and isolating in the governor’s mansion.Spokesperson Mark Miner said: “Governor Abbott is in constant communication with his staff, agency heads and government officials to ensure that state government continues to operate smoothly and efficiently.”Texas has once again emerged as a hotspot for the coronavirus, with only 314 available intensive care unit beds statewide. Pediatric ICUs are running out of space while children head back to class.Abbott has restricted cities, counties, school districts and public health authorities from requiring masks or Covid-19 vaccines. And when officials in Texas’s major cities defied his order, the state supreme court barred their local mask mandates – at least temporarily.The governor has kept a busy social calendar ahead of next year’s primary election, when he faces Republican challengers even further to his right. He recently took heat for literally fiddling around, seemingly jamming at a political event as the public health crisis worsened.On Monday – less than 24 hours before testing positive for Covid-19 – he tweeted photos of himself waving to a room packed with seniors, almost no masks in sight.“Another standing room only event in Collin county tonight,” Abbott captioned the images. “Thank y’all for the enthusiastic reception.”Abbott posted another series of photos with Texas musician Jimmie Vaughan on Tuesday afternoon, shortly before his diagnosis was announced. “Everyone that the governor has been in close contact with today has been notified,” Miner said.The Texas Democratic party chair, Gilberto Hinojosa, said in a statement that he wished Abbott well and hoped for his speedy recovery.“Covid is not a partisan issue,” Hinojosa said. “This is a stark reminder that no one is immune to this surge, especially as the Delta variant continues to spread rapidly among our communities.”TopicsTexasUS politicsCoronavirusnewsReuse this content More

OpinionInequalityAmerican CEOs make 351 times more than workers. In 1965 it was 15 to oneIndigo OlivierRather than address stagnant wages for hourly workers and yawning inequality, corporations are blaming a ‘labor shortage’ Tue 17 Aug 2021 06.24 EDTLast modified on Tue 17 Aug 2021 06.25 EDTLast week, the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan thinktank, released a report on the increasing pay gap between chief executives and workers. This research tells a familiar story with updated figures. When taking into account stocks, which now make up more than 80% of the average CEO’s compensation package, the report found that chief-executive pay has risen by an astounding 1,322% since 1978. That’s more than six times more than the top 0.1% of wage earners and more than 73 times higher than the growth of the typical worker’s pay, which grew by only 18% in the same time period. Most remarkable, however, is the 18.9% increase in CEO compensation between 2019 and 2020 alone.Bob Woodward’s third book in Trump trilogy to cover handling of pandemicRead moreCEO compensation outpacing that of the 0.1% is a clear indication that this growth is not the product of a competitive race for skills or increased productivity, the EPI report explains, so much as the “power of CEOs to extract concessions. Consequently, if CEOs earned less or were taxed more, there would be no adverse impact on the economy’s output or on employment,” the report concludes.This report joins a slew of data sounding an alarm on a massive upward transfer of wealth to the top 1% over the course of the pandemic. One estimate by the Institute for Policy Studies puts this figure as high as $4tn, or a 54% increase in fortunes for the world’s 2,365 billionaires.Today in the US, the CEO-to-worker pay gap stands at a staggering 351 to one, an unacceptable increase from 15 to one in 1965. In other words, the average CEO makes nearly nine times what the average person will earn over a lifetime in just one year.It’s worth remembering that the federal minimum wage would be $24 an hour today had it kept pace with worker productivity, rather than $7.25, where it’s been stuck since 2009. Additionally, inflation has resulted in a nearly 2% pay cut over the past year despite modest gains in hourly wages, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.This reality is unfolding against a narrative of a “labor shortage,” with small businesses, retail giants and fast-food chains expressing difficulty in filling poorly paid positions – even though there are one million more unemployed workers than there are open jobs. Clearly, something else is going on here.The grim reality is that a huge section of the American labor force – between 25% and 40% – made more on unemployment than they ever have working full-time at a minimum wage job. $7.25 an hour is $290 a week before taxes, compared with the $300 in weekly federal benefits that pandemic unemployment assistance provided. Nor does this account for the additional weekly state benefits that those on unemployment received.In our current milieu, “labor shortage” has become doublespeak for a stubborn reluctance on the part of politicians and businesses to address poverty wages, the remedy for which has been to let pandemic unemployment assistance expire so that workers are desperate enough to go back to the exploitative conditions that billion-dollar companies insist are necessary to keep the economy running.Rather than succumb to mainstream accounts that our “labor shortage” is the consequence of welfare-induced idleness, we should have an honest discussion about how we’ve allowed the essential workers who uphold our standard of living to be abused for so long while the mega-wealthy billionaires whom they work for realize their infantile fantasies of starting colonies in space.The EPI is correct. A wealth tax on the 1% would not hinder the economy nor employment, so much as rein in the excesses of the billionaire space race and luxury doomsday bunkers that stand in stark relief to the floods, fires, famine and pestilence that have currently taken hold.Among the report’s policy recommendations for reversing skyrocketing pay for CEOs are raising the marginal tax rate on the ultra rich to “limit rent-seeking behavior” and penalizing companies with unacceptable CEO-to-worker pay ratios with higher corporate taxes. Let’s examine the feasibility of both under Joe Biden’s administration.When Biden came into office, Trump had cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21% and lowered rates on the ultra-wealthy to such an extent that the richest 400 people in the US paid a lower tax rate than any other group in the country – including the minimum wage workers who are rightly refusing to return to the same conditions they withstood before the pandemic. Investopedia called Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act the “largest overhaul of the tax code in three decades”.Biden, seeking to undo some of this pillaging of the public sphere, has proposed raising corporate taxes to 28% – 7% lower than what they had been when Barack Obama left office – and raising the top rates for individuals back to 39.6% from Trump’s 37% as part of the Democrats’ $3.5tn budget proposal (though there was some suggestion that Biden would concede to a 25% corporate tax rate if it would please congressional Republicans). Biden has also stated that he will not increase taxes on those making less than $400,000 – meaning less than the top 2% of wage earners.In other words, popular slogans taking aim at the top 1% have resulted in an administration of corporate Democrats that will attempt to take aim at the 1%, but make clear to their base that the 1% is as far as they’re willing to go.This is a far cry from the popular policies Bernie Sanders proposed during the presidential primaries, such as giving workers an ownership stake in the companies they’re employed by, democratizing corporate boards through employee elections, passing a wealth tax, banning stock buybacks and more. And it falls short of what is by far the cheapest and easiest solution to stimulating the economy and vastly reducing income inequality while steering clear of Republican interference: full student debt cancellation through executive order.With the stroke of a pen, Biden could provide life-changing financial relief for one in eight people living in the US. Each day he chooses not to is further proof that Biden is keeping to his original promise to rich donors on the campaign trail: “… nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”
Indigo Olivier is an investigative reporting fellow at In These Times magazine
TopicsInequalityOpinionUS politicsEconomic policyExecutive pay and bonusescommentReuse this content More

OpinionUS politicsIn the post-9/11 era, America’s greatest threat isn’t jihadist terrorism any moreMichael German, Elizabeth Goitein and Faiza PatelTwenty years after 9/11, it’s time to set priorities based on reason instead of fear – and talk about the true cost of ‘national security’ Tue 17 Aug 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Tue 17 Aug 2021 10.36 EDTThe 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks is a natural time to assess our nation’s response over the last two decades and chart a course for the future. Our single-minded focus on defeating terrorist groups claiming to act in the name of Islam over all other priorities, international or domestic, has allowed vulnerabilities to fester.FBI offer to release some Saudi files not enough, 9/11 families sayRead moreThe biggest problems our nation faces today have little to do with the terrorist groups that have consumed so much of our attention. Far-right militants launched a deadly attack on the US Capitol. Systemic racism continues, vividly illustrated by the killing of unarmed Black men by police. The mishandled coronavirus pandemic killed more than half a million Americans and put millions out of work. The opioid epidemic has claimed more than 500,000 lives, while 2020 saw a record number of gun deaths. Climate change drove natural disasters costing a record $22bn across the US in 2020.Few people would likely argue that they feel more secure today than they did on 10 September 2001. It is time to recalibrate our priorities to ensure that we are protecting all Americans effectively from the most significant threats to their health, safety and wellbeing.Defining our prioritiesWhen government officials claim that national security demands a particular action, few interrogate how national security is defined. Is it the territorial integrity of the nation? The physical safety of its people? Or something less tangible, such as the preservation of constitutional rights, economic prosperity, or the institutions of democracy?Absent a clear definition, the “national security” label is often affixed in ways that seem arbitrary, inconsistent, or politically driven. And yet the invocation automatically elevates the issue’s priority of the issue, triggering increased government attention and resources regardless of any objective measure of the threat’s magnitude.After 9/11, “national security” became nearly synonymous with preventing attacks from groups such as al-Qaida and Isis and any individuals who identified with these groups’ stated goals. Congress practically threw money at counter-terrorism efforts – by some estimates, the United States spent $2.8tn on counter-terrorism between 2002 and 2017. In the meantime, white supremacist violence was often treated as a civil rights or violent crime problem, far lower on the government’s list of priorities, even though this type of terrorism kills more Americans most years than any other. Only recently has the government labeled it a national security threat, with the attendant resources and attention.Moreover, terrorist acts of all kinds are prioritized over problems that are generally not viewed through a national security lens but are far more damaging to public health and safety. Terrorism is typically responsible for fewer than 100 fatalities a year – smaller than the number of Americans killed in bathtub accidents. In comparison, there are over 16,000 annual homicides, mostly by firearms. And the homicide numbers pale in comparison to estimates of American deaths due to environmental pollution, substandard healthcare, and poverty.The ‘liberty versus security’ paradigmWhen something is labeled a “national security” threat, it is often assumed that the response will require extraordinary assertions of executive power and diminished protections for civil rights and civil liberties. This assumption has dominated our government’s response to 9/11. Yet it is rarely tested, as few counter-terrorism tactics have been evaluated for effectiveness using scientific, evidence-based methods. Indeed, in many instances, there is reason to believe these heavy-handed responses have been ineffective or even harmful.Examples abound. The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq ostensibly to stem terrorism. Instead, the wars destabilized the regions, allowing new terrorist groups to flourish. Our 20-year military presence in Afghanistan neither crippled the Taliban nor gave the Afghan government the means to resist it, as recent events have shown. Tactics that the military and CIA deployed in the name of counter-terrorism – including kidnapping, indefinite detention, torture, and targeted killing – tarnished America’s reputation as a champion of human rights, damaged relationships with allies, and provided fodder for terrorist group recruitment.At home, terrorism prevention efforts have included mass surveillance, bloated and inaccurate watchlists, and racial, religious and ethnic profiling. The benefits of these approaches have been assumed rather than proven. In the few instances where a cost-benefit analysis was conducted, programs designed to identify terrorists were found to be ineffectual or counterproductive.For instance, two independent reviews of the NSA’s program to collect Americans’ phone records in bulk concluded that it resulted in little to no counter-terrorism benefit. A congressional review of fusion centers – information-sharing hubs that try to turn state and local police into intelligence agents – found that they are wasteful and do not produce valuable intelligence. Government reviews of domestic terrorist attacks, such as the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, concluded that important threat information had been missed because it was buried in a flood of collected data.At the same time, these initiatives have imposed heavy costs, not only on the nation’s treasury but on our democratic society and vulnerable communities. Islamophobic and nativist counter-terrorism training materials and countering violent extremism programs have stigmatized American Muslims and immigrants. Ubiquitous “see something, say something” programs have trained Americans to be constantly suspicious of one another. These efforts have exacerbated existing divisions in the country and directly undermined the security of the communities they target.Looking beyond national securityGoing forward, we must take a holistic approach to protecting our country and our people – one that prioritizes the welfare of all Americans in accordance with an objective measurement of the threats we face. The billions wasted on military and intelligence programs that do not demonstrably make Americans safer need to be reinvested in evidence-based solutions to our nation’s biggest problems.This new approach goes beyond shifting resources within the category of threats traditionally considered “national security” issues, or even bringing new categories under that umbrella. Instead, it situates national security threats – however designated – in the broader context of challenges to the health and resilience of our nation.In his 1953 Chance for Peace speech, President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the opportunity costs of war: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies … a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” His words are equally salient today.Traditional “national security” issues – terrorism, cybersecurity threats, espionage – will continue to require serious attention and responses. But an evidence-based approach to our problems will almost certainly entail rightsizing our bloated national security establishment. Investing a fraction of the funds that were devoted to terrorism prevention over the last 20 years into the health, education, and welfare of the American people over the next 20 is the best way to build a society that is stronger and more secure.
Elizabeth Goitein and Faiza Patel are co-directors and Michael German is a fellow at the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
This essay is co-published with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law as part of a series exploring new approaches to national security 20 years after 9/11
TopicsUS politicsOpinionSeptember 11 2001US militarycommentReuse this content More

The fight to voteCensusThe census shows how the US is diversifying – will it lead to political power?The once-a-decade redistricting process is set to unfold over the next few months, but Republicans will draw district lines in most places The fight to vote is supported byAbout this contentSam Levine in New YorkTue 17 Aug 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Tue 17 Aug 2021 06.14 EDTSign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterThe data the Census Bureau released last week offered a remarkably clear picture of how the United States is becoming more diverse. For the first time ever, America’s white population declined, while people of color accounted for almost all of the population growth over the last decade in the country.For Arturo Vargas, CEO of the Naleo Educational Fund, a Latino advocacy group, the steady growth among the nation’s Latino population – it increased by 23%, or about 12 million people, over the last decade – sends a clear message to policymakers that they need to consider how their decisions will affect Latinos across the country. In state capitols across the US, the overwhelming majority of state lawmakers are white, according to a 2020 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures.The census proves the US is diversifying. Here’s how – in five chartsRead more“You can’t just make a policy, whether it’s on education or health, or even infrastructure, without considering how this is reaching and affecting your Latino constituents, given that they’re such a large share of the US population,” Vargas said.But the once-a-decade redistricting process, set to unfold over the next few months, will determine whether the population growth among Latinos and other minorities translates into meaningful political power. Republicans, who control most state legislatures, will draw district lines in most places. They could use their line-drawing power to blunt the effects of that significant population growth and make it more difficult for minority voters, who tend to support Democrats, to elect candidates of their choosing (Trump made inroads with Hispanic voters in Texas and elsewhere in 2020.)Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (Maldef), said he was “very concerned” lawmakers across the country would draw districts that deprived Latinos of political power. His group is one of several that will be closely monitoring the redistricting process and is preparing to quickly challenge district plans that appear discriminatory.“Extraordinary growth of the Latino population, everywhere in the country, means that there should be new opportunities to create Latino-majority districts,” he said. “In general, no one voluntarily cedes power. So wherever you have elected officials drawing their own lines, which is still the prevalent practice nationwide, they are not going to naturally be inclined to create new seats for a growing community like the Latino community.”Of particular concern to Saenz and Vargas is Texas, where the Hispanic population now nearly equals the white population, the new numbers show.The state has a long history of discriminating against Latinos during redistricting. In 2011, Republican lawmakers carved up the state’s districts in such a way to increase the voting power of white citizens over Latinos. In one state house district, for example, Republicans replaced Hispanic voters who were likely to vote with ones who were not likely to do so. On paper, they made it look like Latinos had political power, when they did not.A federal court would later rule Republicans used a “deliberate, race-conscious method” to manipulate the Hispanic and Democratic vote.“I can almost guarantee we will wind up in litigation in Texas,” Saenz said. “[The] history of redistricting in Texas is that despite dramatic growth in the Latino population, particularly in comparison to non-Latino folks in Texas, the legislature never recognizes that growth by appropriately creating majority looking seats.”This will also be the first redistricting cycle in decades without some of the strongest federal protections to prevent discrimination against minority groups. Until 2013, places with a history of voting discrimination had to get their maps pre-approved by either the justice department or a three-judge panel in Washington before they went into effect. The US supreme court gutted that requirement in 2013. Now, civil rights groups can challenge maps, but they will probably go into effect while litigation, which can last years, is proceeding.Kristen Clarke, the head of the justice department’s civil rights division, which is responsible for enforcing the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws, told Congress on Monday that the agency could not adequately protect voting rights using case-by-case litigation to challenge maps.Vargas said the lack of federal oversight meant his group would have to step up its vigilance and monitoring of the redistricting process.“We know certain jurisdictions are notorious for racially gerrymandering Latinos out of political representation. Texas being exhibit A in that regard,” he said. “This really forces us to step up our advocacy and our vigilance of some of these jurisdictions who are going to ignore these population changes and draw lines that benefit them politically and in partisan ways.”TopicsCensusThe fight to voteUS voting rightsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

A look back at the official photographs of Obama’s presidency shows his skill at conjuring a sense of pride and possibility – but today his victories seem narrow indeedby More

The departure of US forces was followed by a rout of Afghan government forces. Now, after 20 years of western intervention, Afghanistan is back under the control of the Taliban

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

It began with a steady trickle of military defeats. First Afghan government control was ceded to the Taliban in provincial towns and cities. Then, as the lack of resistance became apparent, bigger cities and regional capitals began to fall. Finally on Sunday the Taliban entered Kabul as the western-backed government fled the country. The Guardian’s senior international correspondent, Emma Graham-Harrison, tells Michael Safi that it marks a stunning reversal for the Afghan government, which had begun negotiating a deal with the Taliban in recent months. And as deeply flawed as the government in Kabul has been for the past 20 years, it has created space for the education of girls and a free press. All of that is now in grave doubt as Afghans wait to see whether their new Taliban rulers plan to carry on where they left off in 2001. We hear voices from inside Afghanistan including reporter Zahra Joya, who was a child when US forces invaded in 2001 and drove out the Taliban. She describes her fears for what will come next. More

Key events

Show

5.13pm EDT
17:13

Today so far

5.08pm EDT
17:08

Botched Afghanistan withdrawal gives Biden biggest crisis of his presidency

4.12pm EDT
16:12

‘I stand squarely behind my decision,’ Biden says after Taliban takes Kabul

4.05pm EDT
16:05

Biden acknowledges ‘rapid collapse’ in Afghanistan after Taliban takes Kabul

1.59pm EDT
13:59

Ambassador to UN tells security council meeting Afghanistan must never be a terrorism base again

1.18pm EDT
13:18

Third Bob Woodward Trump book will also focus on Biden

1.01pm EDT
13:01

Today so far

Live feed

Show

5.41pm EDT
17:41

The publishers of the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and New York Times asked Joe Biden to move journalists to the US military-protected side of the airport in Kabul, as they evacuate.
“Brave Afghan colleagues have worked tirelessly to help The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal share news and information from the region with the global public. Now, those colleagues and their families are trapped in Kabul, their lives in peril,” the publishers said in a joint statement.
The airport today was overrun with desperate civilians fleeing Kabul after the Taliban’s seized the city. Seven died amid the chaos.

.

5.13pm EDT
17:13

Today so far

Joe Biden defended his decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan, even after Taliban forces took Kabul and the world saw images of desperate Afghans attempting to flee the country. “I stand squarely behind my decision,” Biden says. “After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw US forces.”
At least seven people were killed amid the chaos at Kabul International Airport today, according to the AP. Videos widely shared on social media showed desperate Afghans trying to cling to a US military plane as it departed Kabul and then falling to their deaths.
Administration officials have continued to defend Biden’s strategy in Afghanistan, even in the face of rebukes from Democrats and Republicans over how the troop withdrawal has been executed. National security adviser Jake Sullivan said this morning, “What the president kept saying over and over again is that it was not inevitable Kabul would fall. And it was not inevitable. There was the capacity to stand up and resist. That capacity didn’t happen.”
The US ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield said at the emergency security council meeting today that other countries should Afghanistan becoming a base for international terrorism again. “We must all ensure Afghanistan cannot ever, ever again be a base for terrorism,” she said in New York.

– Joan E Greve

5.08pm EDT
17:08

Botched Afghanistan withdrawal gives Biden biggest crisis of his presidency

David Smith

Joe Biden was facing the biggest crisis of his presidency on Monday after the stunning fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban caught his administration flat-footed and raised fears of a humanitarian catastrophe.
Recriminations were under way in Washington over the chaotic retreat from Kabul, which one Biden opponent described as “the embarrassment of a superpower laid low”.
Bowing to pressure, officials said the president would leave his country retreat, Camp David, to address the nation from the White House on Monday afternoon.
The Taliban swept into Kabul on Sunday after President Ashraf Ghani fled the country, ending two decades of a failed experiment to import western-style liberal democracy. Diplomatic staff were flown to safety but thousands of Afghans who worked with US forces were stranded and at risk of deadly reprisals.
As harrowing scenes played out on television – including desperate Afghans clinging to a US transport plane before takeoff – the White House scrambled to explain how the government collapsed so quickly.
Last month Biden, pointing to the Afghan military’s superior numbers and technology, predicted: “The likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.”
Unrepentant, the president issued a statement on Saturday, insisting the sudden withdrawal had been the only possible choice.
But the response by Biden, who ran for election promising unrivalled foreign policy credentials after 36 years in the Senate and eight as Barack Obama’s vice-president, was jarring to many. A headline in the Washington Post read: “Defiant and defensive, a president known for empathy takes a cold-eyed approach to Afghanistan debacle.”
Read more:

4.30pm EDT
16:30

Joe Biden acknowledged that his decision to continue with the Afghanistan withdrawal mission would be criticized by many, and he pledged he would not “shrink from my share of responsibility for where we are today”.

CBS News
(@CBSNews)
Biden says he takes “my share of responsibly” for what is happening Afghanistan: “I’m deeply saddened by the facts we now face, but I do not regret my decision… I cannot and will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another country’s civil war.” https://t.co/almuVAk3AW pic.twitter.com/xJicyWQTTu

August 16, 2021

“I am president of the United States of America, and the buck stops with me,” Biden said.
“I’m deeply saddened by the facts we now face, but I do not regret my decision to end America’s warfighting in Afghanistan,” the president added. “I cannot and will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another country’s civil war.”
After concluding his prepared remarks, Biden left the East Room without taking any questions from reporters. He will soon return to Camp David.

4.26pm EDT
16:26

Joe Biden warned that the US would carry out a “swift and forceful” response if the Taliban attacked US citizens or attempted to disrupt evacuation efforts in Kabul.
“We will defend our people with devastating force, if necessary,” Biden said.
The president said that, once all evacuation efforts have been successfully completed, the US will move forward with wrapping up its withdrawal mission and “end America’s longest war”.
“The events we see now are sadly proof that no amount of military force would ever deliver a stable, united, secure, Afghanistan,” Biden said.
“I am now the fourth American president to preside over war in Afghanistan. Two Democrats and two Republicans. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth president.”

4.17pm EDT
16:17

Joe Biden argued that Afghan troops’ failure to defend their country demonstrates why it was the correct course of action to move forward with the US troop withdrawal.
“It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not,” Biden said.
Echoing his message from earlier this year when he announced the planned withdrawal, Biden added, “How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not?”

4.12pm EDT
16:12

‘I stand squarely behind my decision,’ Biden says after Taliban takes Kabul

Joe Biden continued to defend his decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan, even after Taliban forces took Kabul and the world saw images of desperate Afghans attempting to flee the country.
“I stand squarely behind my decision,” Biden says. “After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw US forces.”

CSPAN
(@cspan)
President Biden: “I stand squarely behind my decision…there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces…The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated. So, what’s happened? Afghan political leaders gave up and left the country.” pic.twitter.com/v3nnvXxRiI

August 16, 2021

Biden said he and his national security team were “clear-eyed about the risks” of leaving Afghanistan, and he argued that the events of the past week demonstrate how America’s continued military involvement could not have ultimately propped up the Afghan government.
The US president criticized Afghan government leaders for fleeing the country and Afghan troops for refusing to properly defend their country.
“The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated,” Biden said.

Updated
at 4.17pm EDT

4.05pm EDT
16:05

Biden acknowledges ‘rapid collapse’ in Afghanistan after Taliban takes Kabul

Joe Biden is now delivering an update on the situation in Afghanistan, a day after Taliban forces took control of Kabul.
The president said he and his national security team have been “closely monitoring” the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, even though Biden has not delivered on-camera remarks about the issue in several days.
Biden acknowledged that the world is now seeing a “rapid collapse” of the Afghan government, but he insisted the US mission in Afghanistan was “never supposed to be nation-building”.

4.01pm EDT
16:01

Reporters are now set up in the East Room of the White House, where Joe Biden will soon deliver remarks on the situation in Afghanistan, a day after Taliban forces entered Kabul.

Peter Alexander
(@PeterAlexander)
Inside the East Room, awaiting @POTUS’ remarks on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. pic.twitter.com/vaEzJJPWkQ

August 16, 2021

3.55pm EDT
15:55

Joe Biden was scheduled to start his remarks on Afghanistan about ten minutes ago, but he appears to be running late — as he so often is.

Nikki Schwab
(@NikkiSchwab)
The pool hasn’t even been called yet, so President @JoeBiden’s remarks will not be happening on time.

August 16, 2021

3.40pm EDT
15:40

The Guardian’s Daniel Strauss reports:
The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a congresswoman from California, distributed a set of talking points to members of Congress on the unfolding crisis in Afghanistan. The talking points, obtained by the Guardian, are below. They were sent out around noon on Monday.

White House Talking Points on Afghanistan
TOPLINE:

The President was not willing to enter a third decade of conflict and surge in thousands of more troops to fight in a civil war that Afghanistan wouldn’t fight for themselves.

It’s clear from the past few weeks that would have been necessary – more troops for an indefinite amount of time.

The administration knew that there was a distinct possibility that Kabul would fall to the Taliban.

It was not an inevitability. It was a possibility.

POTUS said in July that the Afghan military had the capability to fight the Taliban. But they had to demonstrate the will. Sadly, that will did not materialize.

The administration planned for every possibility. We had contingency plans in place for any eventuality — including a quick fall of Kabul. That’s why we had troops pre-positioned in the region to deploy as they have done.

We are focused on safely evacuating US Embassy personnel, American citizens, SIV applicants and their families, and targeted Afghans. We have deployed 6000 US military to Afghanistan to secure the airport and ensure that those evacuation flights, as well as commercial and charter flights can safely depart.

But indefinite war was and is unacceptable to the President.

SIV Applicants

The administration has deployed 6000 US military to Afghanistan to secure the airport and ensure that evacuation flights, commercial and charter flights can safely depart.

Chairman Miley [sic] and Secretary Austin are working to restore order at the airport so those flights can take place.

Many have asked why we did not evacuate more Afghanistan civilians, sooner. Part of the answer is that many did not want to leave earlier: many Afghans to whom we gave visas to come to the US chose to stay in their country, still hopeful.

Nearly 2000 SIV applicants and their families are in the United States, and the administration is prepared to evacuate thousands of American citizens, SIV applicants, and targeted Afghans.

Was this an intelligence failure

The Administration knew that there was a distinct possibility that Kabul would fall to the Taliban.

It was not an inevitability. It was a possibility.

And the administration planned for every possibility. There were contingency plans in place for any eventuality — including a quick fall of Kabul. That’s why there were troops pre-positioned in the region to deploy as they have done.

The President said in July that the Afghan military had the capability to fight the Taliban. But they had to demonstrate the will. Tragically, that will did not materialize.

Here’s what the President was not willing to do: enter a third decade of conflict and surge in thousands of more troops to fight in a civil war that Afghanistan wouldn’t fight for themselves.

When Trump made the Doha agreement, there were 13,000 US troops in Afghanistan. When POTUS took office – Trump had drawn down troops to 2500. It’s clear from the past few weeks that would have been necessary.

The President was unwilling to send US men and women back to Afghanistan for an indefinite war.

Counter-Terrorism

The United States face terrorist threats in countries around the world including Syria, Libya and Yemen. We don’t have boots on the ground in those countries. We have over the horizon counter terrorism capabilities. And, that’s what we’ll do in Afghanistan – prevent, detect and disrupt terrorism threats with over the horizon capabilities.

And, we’ll hold the Taliban accountable to not allowing Al Qaeda a safe haven. if they do, there will be consequences that we’ll pursue.

Two points stand out. One is the emphasis put on the collapse of the Afghan government being a possibility, rather than an inevitability. The second is that the Biden administration is now focused on evacuating personnel, including American embassy staff and the special immigrant visa holders who helped American troops while in Afghanistan.
The talking points come as Democratic lawmakers emphasize throughout the day that American military forces must secure and retain control of the airport out of Kabul to evacuate people.

Updated
at 3.49pm EDT

3.22pm EDT
15:22

Maryland governor Larry Hogan said his state is already slated to welcome at least 180 Afghan citizens through the special immigrant visa program, and the Republican leader said he is “ready and willing” to receive more immigrants.

Governor Larry Hogan
(@GovLarryHogan)
Today, I am announcing Maryland’s commitment to receive more Afghan interpreters who have contributed to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. Many of these Afghan citizens—our allies—bravely risked their lives to support our efforts, and we have a moral obligation to help them. pic.twitter.com/1B89nxz3Bi

August 16, 2021

“The chaotic and heartbreaking scenes out of Afghanistan over the last several days—with innocent civilians running for their lives in fear of the Taliban—is the result of a rushed and irresponsible withdrawal,” Hogan said in a video message.
“Many of these Afghan citizens—our allies—bravely risked their lives to provide invaluable support for many years to our efforts as interpreters and support staff, and we have a moral obligation to help them.”
Hogan encouraged anyone who is in need of assistance, or knows someone who is, to immediately contact the state’s Office of Refugees and Asylees.
“I ask all Marylanders to continue to pray for the safety of every American and all of our allies who remain in harm’s way,” Hogan said.

Updated
at 3.22pm EDT

2.59pm EDT
14:59

German Chancellor Angela Merkel acknowledged that she and other global leaders had “misjudged” the Afghan government’s ability to withstand attacks from the Taliban.
“This is an extremely bitter development. Bitter, dramatic and terrifying,” the German chancellor said as the Taliban took control of Kabul, per DW News.
“It is a terrible development for the millions of Afghans who want a more liberal society.”
Merkel also noted that her misjudgment had been “widespread,” alluding to the incorrect calculations by other leaders, such as Joe Biden, about how long the Afghan government would be able to stand once US troops withdrew from the country.

DW News
(@dwnews)
“Bitter, dramatic and terrifying.”German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the international community was wrong in its assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, with terrible consequences. pic.twitter.com/LCi8KRCfsu

August 16, 2021 More