This was their move to eventually push Biden out and bring Kamala in or their other pawn. Let's be real. Every knew from day one Joe wouldn't last for year and that he was used to go against Trump with his "political background" which is a disaster but most know fuck all bout politics.

Really? You're already forgetting the Iraq War? You used to be one of the more informed posters but your ability to analyze has seriously gone to shit. Perhaps you need to qualify that statement better.

But let's take a look at a "successful" President such as Clinton. Is the current state of affairs worse than the Battle for Mogadishu?

Making the wrong decision in a long spanning conflict overall =/= poorly handling a crisis.
That's not what the word crisis means. The Iraq War wasn't some immediate crisis that got botched, at least not until the withdrawal, which was a strategic error but a long span one. There wasn't some woeful mismanagement when entering or occupying Iraq that turned it into a clown fiesta. What part of the invasion would you think could be described like that? It was the exit strategy that was always lacking, that was being criticized before we even went in. Going in wasn't the hard part, and they didn't screw it up.

This withdrawal is a clown fiesta. We've got dead afghans falling off of planes in droves and a multibillion dollar invested war machine folding without a shot being fired while the Taliban drive bumper cars and shitpost on twitter.
It was completely mismanaged and it appears that there wasn't any plan for this withdrawal at all, its being done entirely ad hoc by local flight controllers and planes are literally running over people on the runaway in the rush to get out
If the Iraq War invasion was an equivalent to this, we'd have a dozen US warplanes crashed into the sea, an aircraft carrier sunk and Saddam Hussein somehow kidnapping and holding Condy Rice as his sex slave

I don't think is remotely comparable to the battle of mogadishu. They fucked that up tactically, but it was a failure of questionable risk assessment and priorities and force deployments. They had a plan, a strategy, it just got thrown off when they encountered unexpected anti-aircraft capabilities. In this Afghanistan withdrawal, there was no plan, no strategy, no apparent leadership at all. The Taliban just marched in and took over the entire country and encircled Kabul and deposed Ghani while our president was still publicly maintaining this was impossible. The evacuation become so chaotic and disorganized planes were just flying through mobs of afghans on the runway and killing people left and right like its a bloodsport.

There has to be a distinction made between bad strategy that's well executed, good strategy that's badly executed, bad strategy that's badly executed, and no strategy at all
Was invading Iraq a good idea in the first place? No, of course not. But they didn't cock it up with shock and awe. Was launching TOW missiles into a building full of moderate somali elders trying to organize a peace deal with the UN a good move? Fuck no. Was getting out of Afghanistan after 20 years a good idea? Of course. But it couldn't have been executed much worse than this.

"Thanks Biden"

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/568071-lawsuit-accuses-bob-dylan-of-sexually-abusing-12-year-old-girl

bob is a big biden supported. god bless these leftists.

seems like a perfect case to take to the US supreme court instead of the state supreme court to challenge the blatantly unconstitutional CVA
It was one where justice Jaeger issued one of the most ridiculously bullshit decisions of recent memory, saying “a claim-revival statute will satisfy the Due Process Clause of the State Constitution if it was enacted as a reasonable response in order to remedy an injustice.” Because apparently, as long as its """reasonable""", we can just ignore every single other clause of the constitution. With that ruling he'd declare that legislatures can do literally anything they want under any circumstances as long as a judge is willing to agree with its general intent. Bring back star chambers, self-incrimination, indefinitely delayed trials, eliminate right to counsel, no recordings, no right to opposing evidence, its all gravy as long as its a reasonable response to remedy an injustice.


56 year old case with a statute of limitations that expired 55 years ago gets revived because they passed an ex post facto law and a judge said that's totally constitutional. Is Alan Dershowitz dead yet?

Oh, I think this will weigh on Biden and Democrats at the margins. Sure, the rubes don't give a flying fuck about anything that's happening to Afghanistan, but they do care about projecting strength. Biden being responsible for the most visual display of American weakness on the international stage in decades will reinforce their belief that Biden is a weak president who will lead the country into avoidable defeat. Likewise, the high info swing voters form the suburbs care about executive competence and a stable, reliable foreign policy. Trump being an erratic maniac was one of the reasons this type of voter ran away from him in droves. Biden proving that his foreign policy is not actually more reliable or competent is a blow to the central pitch from his 2020 campaign ("return to normalcy and having the 'adults in the room' run the show again).

Of course none of this is gonna be more salient than kitchen table issues, but it will make for great GOP campaign clips depicting Joe Biden's America in freefall. I believe that this stuff can absolutely make the difference at the margins, and with the balance of power being as ultra-tightly balanced as it is, these margins might have huge consequences.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 17 2021 05:01am

im not the most familiar with the US judicial system. also I presume each state has different rules.

i think some crimes should never get a statue of limitations. rape. pedophilia. murder.

also quite curious why abusing a 12 year old is not described as pedophilia.

Biden and maybe more recently it's becoming to feel like the post of a president is merely hyped older respectable looking teleprompter/earpiece reader.

The US constitution very specifically forbids ex post facto criminal laws at the federal and state level (literally written into art 1 sec 9 and art 1 sec 10, specifically forbidding ex post facto laws), and then implicitly forbids it in the due process clause. The state and federal government just love to tip-toe around this by creating civil laws that are essentially criminal in effect but claim they aren't punitive even if they're clearly, blatantly punitive, as long as they stop short of imprisonment. Then they get these judges who say hey, constitution is really more of what you call guidelines, by saying that we can go and retroactively criminalize punitively penalize penalize far in excess of actual damages conduct that was not in jeopardy before the fact of the law.

Its one of those things where the constitution can try very very very hard to specify that state's can't criminalize something after the fact or deny fair trials or right to see evidence against you, so they'll instead slap you with a billion dollar fine and seize all your assets, without a fair trial, while 'suing an inanimate object' in civil forfeiture or whatever.