The Biden Presidency - 2020

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Well given that we are wedded to the binary in so many ways, it's either they just wanted Taliban rule OR they wanted democracy in the way we see it. They did not accept the second option so they HAD to have wanted the first option. There are no other acceptable answers.

Well we never really offer democracy to these countries. They can pick a leader, but it has to be someone we approve of who will hand all the valuable resources to our businesses. It's the same proposition we've made in Central and South America for half a century.

Plus we aren't exactly all that big on democracy in our own country, so maybe we shouldn't be the ones trying to set it up elsewhere.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

The Taliban did offer to hand Bin Laden over to us. We said no.

They did no such thing, and specifically refused to. The Taliban offered first to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and then later went as far as saying they were willing to hand Bin Laden only, none of the rest of the organization, over to a third country that the US would agree to not put pressure on for extradition etc, for trial in that hypothetical third country. This was accompanied by a demand for evidence, evidence they had already been given not just by us, but also by Pakistan after they'd reviewed our information.

I think those are and were transparently unreasonable terms.

I think you're largely correct when it comes to corruption on the military side of things, and partially when it comes to keeping our hands on the wheel too much in forming the new Afghan government. But this idea that all we had to do is accept them handing over Bin Laden to avert a war just isn't so.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well we never really offer democracy to these countries. They can pick a leader, but it has to be someone we approve of who will hand all the valuable resources to our businesses. It's the same proposition we've made in Central and South America for half a century.

Plus we aren't exactly all that big on democracy in our own country, so maybe we shouldn't be the ones trying to set it up elsewhere.

it's either they just wanted Taliban rule OR they wanted democracy in the way we see it.

For emphasis.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Least you could do is stay current pal. I made this bad joke yesterday :P

Dad jokes are always better the second time around

(whoops, my bad)

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

They did no such thing, and specifically refused to. The Taliban offered first to try Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and then later went as far as saying they were willing to hand Bin Laden only, none of the rest of the organization, over to a third country that the US would agree to not put pressure on for extradition etc, for trial in that hypothetical third country. This was accompanied by a demand for evidence, evidence they had already been given not just by us, but also by Pakistan after they'd reviewed our information.

I think those are and were transparently unreasonable terms.

I think you're largely correct when it comes to corruption on the military side of things, and partially when it comes to keeping our hands on the wheel too much in forming the new Afghan government. But this idea that all we had to do is accept them handing over Bin Laden to avert a war just isn't so.

The Taliban offered many times to turn him over if the United States would provide them with evidence he was behind the attack. They even were willing to involve the OIC which is a very favorable bloc that is pro-US. The Taliban is obviously not a reliable source, but neither is George Bush.

Ignoring the fact we had no extradition treaty with Afghanistan, there are next to no countries who would willingly turn over people without evidence or an agreement. That includes our closest allies.

The United States had no interest in trying Bin Laden. It's why their offers were always vague enough to be out of reach (just like they did with Iraq). They wanted war. Likely a mix of the country needing the morale boost of blowing up some brown folks and enriching military contractors.

But the fact is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are different entities with different goals. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

[RainMaker]

For those who are surprised Afghans would support the Taliban, remember that we spent the 80's pumping their citizens with radical Islamic materials in the hopes it would help them fight the Soviets better.

You spend billions pumping propaganda into a country and then are shocked that they bought it.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

For those who are surprised Afghans would support the Taliban, remember that we spent the 80's pumping their citizens with radical Islamic materials in the hopes it would help them fight the Soviets better.

The Soviet Union did a much better job of trying to force their ideology on Afghanistan than we did. After withdrawing, it took three years for their Marxist puppet government to fall, and it took three weeks for our democratic puppet government to fall.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ignoring the fact we had no extradition treaty with Afghanistan, there are next to no countries who would willingly turn over people without evidence or an agreement. That includes our closest allies.

They were given evidence though. By Pakistan, who got it from us. Pakistan agreed the evidence was sufficient, and they were longstanding Taliban allies, having fought with them against the Northern Alliance in numbers of tens of thousands.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

the fact is that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are different entities with different goals. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.

They absolutely were different entities with different goals, but they were also de facto allies. This wasn't the first time the Taliban had been furnished proof of Bin Laden's involvement of terrorism and asked to take action. This included, among other elements, UN Security Council Resolution 1267 which, almost two years prior to 9/11, demanded Bin Laden be turned over and that the Taliban stop permitting it's territory be used for terrorist training activities. It's not as if 9/11 happened and it was the first thing Bin Laden had done, the Taliban were shocked that their friend would do such a thing and needed proof to verify it. The international community had been very clear with them in escalating terms leading up to 9/11 and had gotten nowhere.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This included, among other elements, UN Security Council Resolution 1267 which, almost two years prior to 9/11, demanded Bin Laden be turned over and that the Taliban stop permitting it's territory be used for terrorist training activities. It's not as if 9/11 happened and it was the first thing Bin Laden had done, the Taliban were shocked that their friend would do such a thing and needed proof to verify it. The international community had been very clear with them in escalating terms leading up to 9/11 and had gotten nowhere.

The Taliban were complicit with and very accommodating of several Al Qaeda training camps, the most notorious of which was the Al Farouq training camp which operated unabated throughout the 90's until September 2001. Four of the 9/11 hijackers received their basic training at Al Farouq.

[RainMaker]

Wait till you guys hear about Saudi Arabia.....

The Taliban are bad but they also didn't have anything to do with 9/11. There are a lot more countries and groups in that region who helped 9/11 than the Taliban ever did.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The Taliban are bad but they also didn't have anything to do with 9/11. There are a lot more countries and groups in that region who helped 9/11 than the Taliban ever did.

There are a lot of very fine people on both sides.

[miami_fan]

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani reportedly fled Kabul with $169 million in cash

Yes, the source is the Russian Embassy. Yes, the Afghan president says it is not true. No, I am not letting any of those things get in the way of the story as reported.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has been "welcomed" to the United Arab Emirates on "humanitarian grounds," the UAE government confirmed Wednesday. On Sunday, Ghani fled Kabul without announcement or known destination, as the Taliban laid siege to Afghanistan's capital, writes CNBC. He took with him $169 million in cash, reports BBC journalist Kawoon Khamoosh.

[sterlingice]

How do you carry around $169M in cash? Like even if they're all hundreds, that's over a million bills.

Grasping Large Numbers

"The height of a stack of 1,000,000 one dollar bills measures 4,300 inches or 358 feet – about the height of a 30 to 35 story building."

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How do you carry around $169M in cash? Like even if they're all hundreds, that's over a million bills.

Grasping Large Numbers

"The height of a stack of 1,000,000 one dollar bills measures 4,300 inches or 358 feet – about the height of a 30 to 35 story building."

SI

Corrupt world leaders have access to higher denomination bills.

Spoiler

[miami_fan]

The fact that it is supposedly USDs as opposed to Euros or some other currency is fitting. Almost like it was shipped directly from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Almost.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Corrupt world leaders have access to higher denomination bills.

I was going to make a trillion dollar bill joke and then didn't. Good to see someone picked up the spare on my 7-10 split

SI

[molson]

After the mediocre presidents reference it was the least I could do.

[Edward64]

No idea how this will play out or how real the story re: ability to resist is, but interesting tidbit that ties back to previous post about Massoud.

Inside the Afghanistan province that refuses Taliban control

The small, picturesque province of Panjshir – meaning “five lions” – at the foot of the lush Hindu Kush mountain range has become the last bulwark against Taliban fighters, who have seized the country at breakneck speed after America’s pullout.
:
In the immediate aftermath of Kabul’s fall to the insurgents Sunday, high-ranking Afghanistan government officials immediately directed helicopters and armored vehicles to be sent to Panjshir before the equipment could be seized by the Taliban.

A number of Afghan Special Forces and security personnel who rebuffed orders to put down their weapons and accede to the Taliban also took the bumpy road into the province before the Taliban could seal the city’s entries and exits.

And while the Taliban have claimed Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar to be the embattled nation’s rightful leader, First Vice-President (FVP) of Afghanistan Amrullah Saleh relocated to Panjshir on Sunday and declared himself the president. Citing the country’s constitution, he reiterated in a statement that “in the event of escape, resignation or death of the President, the FVP becomes the caretaker President.
:
According to Hayat, several other high-ranking government leaders – including its minister of defense and some provincial commanders – are in Panjshir, too, to mobilize assets and prepare to defend the mosaic of land as the region makes what could be its last stand against the Taliban.

The treasured area is now presided over by 32-year-old, British-educated Ahmad Massoud, who commands thousands of deeply dedicated fighters to protect the parcel and is the son of late national hero and anti-Soviet resistance fighter Ahmad Shah Massoud.
:
The Panjshir Valley remains the only parcel of Afghan soil that has never succumb to Taliban control, including during the militant group’s previous reign from 1996 to 2001.

And throughout much of the US-led occupation of Afghanistan, which saw blood stain most of the landlocked country, Panjshir remained largely untouched as a result of its same devoted force of locals.

[Vegas Vic]

Yeah, it's too bad that former vice president Amrullah Saleh wasn't the president all along. He tweeted this earlier this week:

I will never, ever & under no circumstances bow to d Talib terrorists. I will never betray d soul & legacy of my hero Ahmad Shah Masoud, the commander, the legend & the guide. I won't dis-appoint millions who listened to me. I will never be under one ceiling with Taliban. NEVER.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Yeah, it's too bad that former vice president Amrullah Saleh wasn't the president all along. He tweeted this earlier this week:

As our last President proved, there is no problem that can't be solved by tweeting!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

There are a lot of very fine people on both sides.

It's a factual statement. The Taliban did not commit 9/11. I know it's against the 20 years of propaganda spewed but it's the truth.

The Taliban is a horrendous, backward ass piece of shit group. But they didn't commit 9/11 and we never really went after the people that helped facilitate it (because they sell us a lot of oil or have scary weapons).

[sterlingice]

So, more accurately "there's a lot of bad people on both sides?"

SI

[JPhillips]

White nationalists are gonna white nationalist

[NobodyHere]

Dare I say that anyone who didn't answer that question as "Neither good nor bad" is a racist?

[PilotMan]

Re Afghanistan:

I really don't know why people are so up in arms about all this. Look, they had 20 years to figure it out, now, when the money and assistance walks away, are they pointing back and saying that we've done nothing and abandoned them. Look, in a country that essentially operated like a bunch of Sith Warlords, even in the 'legitimate' part that was set up, if you don't appease every corner all the time, they turn and cut you behind your back to seize power at the next level. That's the way that it was before 9/11 and that's how it'll be now. Mostly because the country is so isolated economically from the world that all leadership is based from the ground up. So if my corner doesn't like what the leadership at the top says, I reject it, then get a whole bunch of people to side with me and reject it, and then I claim my own leadership status until I'm deposed by someone else, and rinse and repeat forever. So after 20 years of trying to make inroads in that culture, and largely getting undercut by the Taliban and their foreign supporters we leave, and we leave the rest of them to the country that they wanted all along. The Taliban are more brutal and not afraid of using force to keep everyone in line, and while that's not terribly enlightened it's got to give Jon a huge boner. The country has the leaders and government that they always wanted, because if they wanted something else, someone else, or a legit group would have garnered enough support to make it happen with the billions that have flowed into the country.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, more accurately "there's a lot of bad people on both sides?"

SI

I would say that is a fair assessment.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Re Afghanistan:

I really don't know why people are so up in arms about all this. Look, they had 20 years to figure it out, now, when the money and assistance walks away, are they pointing back and saying that we've done nothing and abandoned them. Look, in a country that essentially operated like a bunch of Sith Warlords, even in the 'legitimate' part that was set up, if you don't appease every corner all the time, they turn and cut you behind your back to seize power at the next level. That's the way that it was before 9/11 and that's how it'll be now. Mostly because the country is so isolated economically from the world that all leadership is based from the ground up. So if my corner doesn't like what the leadership at the top says, I reject it, then get a whole bunch of people to side with me and reject it, and then I claim my own leadership status until I'm deposed by someone else, and rinse and repeat forever. So after 20 years of trying to make inroads in that culture, and largely getting undercut by the Taliban and their foreign supporters we leave, and we leave the rest of them to the country that they wanted all along. The Taliban are more brutal and not afraid of using force to keep everyone in line, and while that's not terribly enlightened it's got to give Jon a huge boner. The country has the leaders and government that they always wanted, because if they wanted something else, someone else, or a legit group would have garnered enough support to make it happen with the billions that have flowed into the country.

We didn't do that though. Most of the money spent went back here to military contractors. The rest was incompetently spent by our own government.

The only goal in the war was enrich certain businesses and maybe get some good PR for a President and Generals.

South Korea is more of the example we should have worked with if the true goal was nation building.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's a factual statement. The Taliban did not commit 9/11. I know it's against the 20 years of propaganda spewed but it's the truth.

The Taliban is a horrendous, backward ass piece of shit group. But they didn't commit 9/11 and we never really went after the people that helped facilitate it (because they sell us a lot of oil or have scary weapons).

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. While the Taliban did not overtly support Al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks, they were complicit with allowing numerous Al Qaeda terrorist training camps to flourish within their borders.

Al Qaeda ideologue Atiyya Allah al-Libi informed his associates that the Taliban’s public stance toward the group was to deny association to manage international pressures, and that Al Qaeda’s top leadership was comfortable with this position. Al-Libi wrote: “Of course, the Taliban’s policy is to avoid being seen with us or revealing any cooperation or agreement between us and them. That is for the purpose of averting international and regional pressure and out of consideration for regional dynamics. We defer to them in this regard.”

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

South Korea is more of the example we should have worked with if the true goal was nation building.

It is amazing to me how rarely South Korea is brought up in cases like this.

[albionmoonlight]

Kind of amazing that as bad as the pullout was, Trump has to come in to remind us "Hey, I would have done it a lot worse. I (apparently) would have left our soldiers there without any equipment or bases or civilian support. Also, the Generals I left in charge after four years as C-I-C suck because I am really bad at personnel."

Like, for 5 minutes there were some people who were thinking "Man, this has gone horribly. I can't imagine even Trump would have done it worse." And that was like the Bat signal to his stupid or something.

[PilotMan]

Raise your hand if you thought that turnip would follow past presidential courtesy and keep quiet and on the sidelines for the betterment of the country and allow the new leadership to effectively govern without someone else distracting or otherwise commenting on every single thing?



Yeah...didn't think so either.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani reportedly fled Kabul with $169 million in cash

Yes, the source is the Russian Embassy. Yes, the Afghan president says it is not true. No, I am not letting any of those things get in the way of the story as reported.

These stories are almost always bullshit.

[Atocep]

So many things in that statement. Above all else I'm struggling to get over the fact that our former President posted in an official statement that "you bomb the bases into smithereens".

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

So many things in that statement. Above all else I'm struggling to get over the fact that our former President posted in an official statement that "you bomb the bases into smithereens".

I love how his strategy is to remove all the Americans and equipment and state they wouldn't know we left. Like they wouldn't wake up one morning and be like, fuck, all the tanks and shit are gone....

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I love how his strategy is to remove all the Americans and equipment and state they wouldn't know we left. Like they wouldn't wake up one morning and be like, fuck, all the tanks and shit are gone....

Not to mention the fact that I'm sure no one would notice the bases being blown to "smithereens".

The plan is up there with nuke a hurricane.

[GrantDawg]

The facts doesn't matter. His lemmings eat up anything the Great Lord says.

[RainMaker]

lol

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/polit...ina/index.html

[Edward64]

Not a good couple weeks for Biden. Much of the criticism is deserved IMO for this FUBAR. I think we'll be in Afghanistan (airport) for the next several weeks so there'll be weeks more of pics, dire stories etc.

There was a news blurb about US not able to get to citizens (not already at the airport). I don't see how our troops can go out of the airport and pick up folks so best for them to shelter in place. Biden's options are understandably limited here.

Another article said he did not speak to any other world leaders (aka Boris) for 48 hours after the fall. If true, this seems weird to me.

Blurb on him saying AQ not in Afghanistan but then contradicted by DefSec. I think this one is defensible, he wasn't precise with his words but what he said is generally true.

Another on ABC covering up Biden confusing Beau Navy vs Army. Confusion about Beau's service is not reassuring. And of course, Hunter and his latest video he took of himself chatting with prostitute.

Biden has taken some body blows and at least one headshot. He's not counterpunching very well right now.

[Edward64]

I've not read about Pelosi wanting Senate to pass both the $1.2T Infrastructure and the $3T Families bill before proceeding. I rather just do the $1.2T first and then worry about the $3T but can appreciate her games(wo)manship.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/20/hous...mic-plans.html

The House of Representatives will return to Washington next week, setting up the latest test for President Joe Biden’s sprawling economic agenda.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., plans to hold a procedural vote as soon as Monday to move forward with a handful of Democratic priorities: the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure legislation passed by the Senate, the $3.5 trillion Democratic plan to expand the social safety net, and a voting rights bill.

She then aims to join the Senate in passing a budget resolution, the first step toward Democrats approving their massive spending plan without a Republican vote.

The spending plan is not expected to get through the Senate for weeks or even months, which would put off the final passage of the infrastructure bill, if all goes according to Pelosi’s plans.

In an effort to keep progressives on board with the smaller infrastructure plan and centrists in line with trillions more in new spending, Pelosi has said she will not take up either economic plan until the Senate passes both of them. Opposition from within her caucus has threatened to derail the speaker’s plans, leaving Democrats looking for a path forward as they return to the Capitol.

[Flasch186]

It’s good to see cnn hammering Biden too if not just to show me that they weren’t just anti trump to be anti trump

Don’t make a difference in our current country but good for me anyways


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

I think that's a mistake by Pelosi, who I think in general has been making more and more of those from a tactical/strategic standpoint in recent years. Risks losing both of them with how much more opposition there is to the larger package.

[JPhillips]

The duel track has always been a part of this. The left don't trust that the moderates will vote on the second bill, and the moderates won't start with the bigger bill. Neither bill will pass by itself.

[Brian Swartz]

That's unfortunate. The reporting I'd seen was indicating that the first bill was a sure thing at this point and the only question was on the second one. Seems to me a good recipe for getting nothing passed.

[JPhillips]

Progressives won't vote for the first bill if it's by itself. That's always been the case. Even Manchin understands this is the only way.

Now I could see the reconciliation bill total coming down a bit, but it has to pass with or before the bipartisan bill.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

It’s good to see cnn hammering Biden too if not just to show me that they weren’t just anti trump to be anti trump

I've been following this closely, and I think that General Austin Miller is going to be the sacrificial lamb in this ordeal. He has a perfect service record and did the best he could with the hand he was dealt over there. He sent several reports up through command on how the Afghan army could not hold.

Secretary of State Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley should be the ones to take the fall for this, but they're going to throw Miller under the bus. Biden doesn't want to lose any cabinet members so soon for incompetence.

[Brian Swartz]

Does he though? Maybe you've got sources that I don't, or reporting I haven't seen, or statements that I can't find.

Everything I've seen for a long time, and a week ago Manchin said something quite similar, goes the other direction. He said he doesn't understand why the House is holding the first bill hostage, said that the bills should be voted up or down separately on their own merits, that he doesn't support the larger bill in it's current form ...

I mean we can always say he's grandstanding, I just don't see how there isn't a huge risk that he means what he's saying - and he's far from the only vote in question here - and that we don't end up in a situation where either the larger bill gets a hatchet taken to it in which case progressives won't approve it, or moderates like Manchin just say no and then neither one passes. What info is out there that I haven't seen?

[JPhillips]

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said on Tuesday that he's supportive of going forward with a larger, Democratic-only infrastructure bill but that it shouldn't be linked to a separate bipartisan framework.

Manchin, during an interview with MSNBC, said that he had been assuming since "day one" that Democrats would have to use reconciliation, a budget process that allows them to bypass a 60-vote legislative filibuster, to pass a larger infrastructure bill because Republicans don't want to make changes to the 2017 tax bill.

“We're going to have to work it through reconciliation, which I’ve agreed that that can be done. I just haven’t agreed on the amount, because I haven’t seen everything that everyone is wanting to put in the bill," Manchin said on MSNBC.

Manchin knows the landscape and while he may bring down the total a bit, he's already shown that when it matters, when he has to vote, he's for proceeding.

I don't think they should be linked and I'll not vote for reconciliation are two very different positions.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Does he though? Maybe you've got sources that I don't, or reporting I haven't seen, or statements that I can't find.

Everything I've seen for a long time, and a week ago Manchin said something quite similar, goes the other direction. He said he doesn't understand why the House is holding the first bill hostage, said that the bills should be voted up or down separately on their own merits, that he doesn't support the larger bill in it's current form ...

I mean we can always say he's grandstanding, I just don't see how there isn't a huge risk that he means what he's saying - and he's far from the only vote in question here - and that we don't end up in a situation where either the larger bill gets a hatchet taken to it in which case progressives won't approve it, or moderates like Manchin just say no and then neither one passes. What info is out there that I haven't seen?

Biden did back away from a veto threat back in Jun after the bipartisanship infrastructure was approved. An argument can be made that he always expected/hinted this but agree with you I didn't read it in the news (or at least it wasn't widespread in the MSM that I read) since then.

My guess is the $3.5T will come down some but overall, it delays the $1.2T and brings in a lot of unknowns.

Biden walks back veto threat on infrastructure amid GOP pushback

President Joe Biden on Saturday walked back a threat to veto his bipartisan infrastructure deal amid intense pushback from Republicans that jeopardized the fragile agreement just one day after it was reached.

In a prepared statement, Biden said he "understandably upset some Republicans" when he said Thursday he would only sign the $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal into law if Congress also passes a multitrillion-dollar package focused on "human infrastructure" outlined in his American Families Plan and supported by only Democrats.

"My comments also created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to, which was certainly not my intent," Biden said.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I've been following this closely, and I think that General Austin Miller is going to be the sacrificial lamb in this ordeal. He has a perfect service record and did the best he could with the hand he was dealt over there. He sent several reports up through command on how the Afghan army could not hold.

Secretary of State Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley should be the ones to take the fall for this, but they're going to throw Miller under the bus. Biden doesn't want to lose any cabinet members so soon for incompetence.

I am curious why you think Gen. Miller would be sacrificed. I took a quick look and he is scheduled to retire after 38 years. I think this would have been his last assignment no matter what so I don't think it is a forced retirement in any way.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I've been following this closely, and I think that General Austin Miller is going to be the sacrificial lamb in this ordeal. He has a perfect service record and did the best he could with the hand he was dealt over there. He sent several reports up through command on how the Afghan army could not hold.

Secretary of State Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley should be the ones to take the fall for this, but they're going to throw Miller under the bus. Biden doesn't want to lose any cabinet members so soon for incompetence.

Agree 100% and I hope they don't try and scapegoat a man about to retire, whose service to this country has been impeccable. There is plenty of blame to go around, but I can't see much room for any of it to fall on his shoulders.