senator rand paul has been on him from the beginning. harris: i look at this also a slightly different way. was it just a lie or was it people are too busy, they re not smart enough to figure this out? i will say it this way, we didn t pay for the pandemic. it is really important to see with clear eyes what the likely source of this pandemic was. u.s. had a ban on the research. rogue scientists disagreed with that decision. anthony fauci is on record disagreeing with that. he went through the back door. either by accident or worse, that leaked from a lab and created the pandemic of a century. and you wonder why americans mistrust science or scientific beliefs? they have given you no reason to trust anything that they say. possible responsible parties in part for the greatest pandemic of a century going about, lying about it over the course of the
about you won t even remember because you were doing it for so many of us but the idea of what the taliban is. the taliban is not a bunch of people from afghanistan. you re hearing all the talks from the interpreters about them speaking erdu or pashtu. who is the taliban and what are they worried about? they began in 1994 when the pakistani intelligence service wanted to get a group that could defeat all the warlords because in 1994 there were like six warlords in afghanistan all fighting each other. and pakistan wasn t one government and they want any of the warlords to be in charge. they found these religious fanatics, some of them were afghans but they were going to religious school in pakistan. but they trained them, equipped them, they ran them and gave them this technique of going into a city negotiating with the
provincial capitals. so i do not think. . think. but the intelligence community think. but the intelligence community said, think. but the intelligence community said, to - think. but the intelligence community said, to the - think. but the intelligence - community said, to the present, that this city and this country would full. president. the government is too weak and it might take at best, 90 days, at worst 30. they managed to hold it for about seven in the end. to say we hope the evacuations are done well, but how else could we have planned around it? perhaps there was no plan? i think there was a plan for the evacuation, the larger picture is the utterly failed strategy that was pursued for 20 years, a counterinsurgency strategy that required an afghan partner when there wasn t one, when the government and military leadership was corrupt, ineffective, illegitimate as a result of
revealed with the afghan papers and with the wikileaks back in 2010, and with the wikileaks back in 2010, and with the wikileaks back in 2010, and with the special inspector general for afghanistan, they have been reporting net relentlessly. that the afghan security forces are not going to be capable, relying on that, i was senior officials knew it. that is something that is going to have to be. and if we continue to pretend it wasn t, someone has to answer for that because thousands of people have now put their lives and god only knows what happens when they get under complete taliban rule. ~ , ,., ~ they get under complete taliban rule. ~ , , ., they get under complete taliban rule. ~ ., ~ . rule. when i spoke to afghan leadership. rule. when i spoke to afghan leadership, they rule. when i spoke to afghan leadership, they saw - rule. when i spoke to afghan leadership, they saw the - rule. when i spoke to afghan - leadership, they saw the departure of americans as inevitable. the
this is a very temporary mission for a very specific purpose nan that s a big difference than saying you re deploying for eight, nine, 12 months forces to stabilize and secure afghanistan, which we ve been doing for the last 20 years. this is a very narrowly defined, temporary mission. once this mission is over, there are only going to be 650 troops to protect the airport and the embassy staff? once this mission is over i won t get into specific numbers here, but we anticipate having less than 1,000 u.s. troops on the ground to support the diplomatic presence in kabul, which we all agree we want to still be able to have. are you considering the need for more troops if the situation continues to deteriorate? if there wasn t one event that