Connect with us

Nation

‘I could not disagree more’: Graham slams Trump’s support of Biden’s proposed U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

Published

on

Lindsey Graham

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said Monday that he disagrees with former President Trump’s support of President Biden’s proposal to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Trump said Biden’s decision was ‘wonderful’ and ‘positive.’ The former president, however, disagreed with withdrawing the troops on September 11, as proposed by the administration. Instead, he urged an even faster withdrawal on a different day, suggesting September 11 must remain a date to remember the victims of the tragic attacks on the United States by al-Qaeda.

Trump said withdrawing from Afghanistan is “a wonderful and positive thing to do.” Originally, Trump had set a May 1 withdrawal deadline if he was to remain in office.

“With all due respect to former President Trump, there is nothing ‘wonderful’ or ‘positive’ about allowing safe havens and sanctuary for terrorists to reemerge in Afghanistan or see Afghanistan be drawn back into another civil war.

Sen. Lindsey Graham

Moreover, He suggested the Biden Administration “should keep as close to that schedule as possible.”

“I wish Joe Biden wouldn’t use September 11 as the date to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, for two reasons. First, we can and should get out earlier. Nineteen years is enough, in fact, far too much and way too long,” Trump said.

“September 11 represents a very sad event and period for our Country and should remain a day of reflection and remembrance honoring those great souls we lost,” he added.

However, Graham, a strong supporter of Trump, says he is in absolute disagreement with him.

Afghanistan 676001056
Squad of Three Fully Equipped and Armed Soldiers Standing on Hill in Desert Environment in Sunset Light.

“I could not disagree more with former President Trump regarding his support for President Biden’s withdrawal of all forces from Afghanistan against sound military advice,” Graham said. “With all due respect to former President Trump, there is nothing ‘wonderful’ or ‘positive’ about allowing safe havens and sanctuary for terrorists to reemerge in Afghanistan or see Afghanistan be drawn back into another civil war.

Graham noted that senior military and intelligence officials are arguing against complete withdrawal. He stated that a “capable residual counter-terrorism force be left in Afghanistan.”

Further, he said keeping these forces “act as an insurance policy to prevent the rise of ISIS and al-Qaeda, which threaten the American homeland, as well as to prevent another Afghan civil war.  The intelligence regarding withdrawal is ominous for U.S. interests and no one believes the Taliban can be trusted to police al-Qaeda and ISIS as envisioned by the Biden-Trump plan.”

Continue Reading

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending