Page 646 - Competitors News Today

Pullout. >> that status quo was not sustainable. like it or not, there was an agreement that the forces would come out on may 1. had we not begun that process which is what the president did, then we would have been back at war with the taliban and back at war with tens of thousands of troops having to go in because the 2500 troops we had there and the air power would not have sur niced to deal with the situation especially as we see the afghan security forces. and there is nothing that our comp...

Take a listen to what he had to say this morning. >> there was an agreement the forces would come out on day 1st, had we not begun that process, which is what the president did and the taliban saw, then we would have been back at war with the taliban and been back at war with tens of thousands of troops having to go in because the 2500 troops there and the air power would not have sufficed to deal with the situation as we see the hollowness of the afghan security forces and by the way from compe...

In the 19th century the british were there. weve now been there far longer than they have. in the 20th century, the russians were there. weve now been there twice as long as they have. as a strategic matter, there is nothing that our strategic competitors would like more than to see us bogged down and mired in afghanistan for another five, ten, 20 years. that is not in the national interest. >> secretary blinken, i know its been a long week, long weekend and it may be a long week ahead. thank yo...

Is why they left their posts. you said their withdrawal was a mistake and a political decision what was a political gain? for political gain? you said it was a political reason so why was it political?— so why was it political? because donald trump — so why was it political? because donald trump did _ so why was it political? because donald trump did not _ so why was it political? because donald trump did not do - donald trump did not do nation—building. he wanted to take a box which said ...

Remember, this is not saigon. we went to afghanistan 20 years ago with one mission. and that mission was to deal with the folks who attacked us on 9/11. we have succeeded in that mission. the objective we set bringing those who attacked us to justice, making sure they couldnt attack us again from afghanistan, weve succeeded in that mission. in fact we succeeded a while ago. at the same time, remaining in afghanistan for another one, five, ten years is not in the national interest. the british we...

At risk. that is exactly what were doing. >> why not have the troops in there and let that happen first before taking them out? >> again i come back to what we were talking about which is that status quo was not sustainable. like it or not, there was an agreement that the forces would come out on may 1st. had we not begun that process which is what the president did and the taliban saw, then we would have been back at war with the taliban. we would have been back at war with tens of thousands of...

The british were there for a long time in the 19th century. the russians were there for a long time in the 20th century. weve been there twice as long as the russians. how that is in our national interest, i dont see. as i mentioned a moment ago i think most of our strategic competitors around the world would like nothing better than for us to remain in afghanistan for another year, five years, ten years and have those resources dedicated to being in the midst of a civil war. it is simply not in...

As occupiers. nobody likes people with uniforms and guns in their country year after year, telling them what to do. we did a lot of good things. we made tremendous sacrifices for the right things, to make a better country. but in the end, i think we lost our way, and we didnt understand really what we were doing there. >> and i want to get your reaction to something secretary of state tony blinken said this morning. lets listen to this. >> there was an agreement that the forces would come out on...

Sufficed to deal with the situation especially as we see the hollowness of the afghan security forces. by the way, from the perspective of our strategic competitors around the world, there is nothing they would like more than seeing us in afghanistan for another five, ten, 20 years. it is simply not in the national interest. >> you keep changing the subject to whether we should be there forever. im talking about whether or not this exit was done properly. taking out all the service members befor...

Were seeing up were in demand by workers who say they want that flexibility —— some uproar. this is a way for google to give that option with a penalty attached. if a way for google to give that option with a penalty attached.— with a penalty attached. if you were a bettin: with a penalty attached. if you were a betting man. _ with a penalty attached. if you were a betting man, what _ with a penalty attached. if you were a betting man, what would - with a penalty attached. if you were a be...