Breaking Fake News Update (v22)

Fake News Broke on October 1, 2025! 

If you followed the reporting yesterday, you'll understand how this one practically wrote itself.  But let's dive in, just in case some folks haven't gotten up to speed on yesterday's hastily called, in-person gathering of military leadership in Quantico, Virginia.

Real news broke last week that the meeting would happen, and earlier this week, news leaked that it was basically going to be a pep talk, one of those dreaded teambuilding off-sites. And after that, news broke that FOTUS was also going to attend, which brought it down to a whole nother level. 

Anything in quotes in the fake news update are Hegseth's words; the rest, of course, are mine. There were lots of words, and lots of attempts to embarrass the leadership of the military, and lots of complaints about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and how we had to get rid of folks who are in place because of what they are, instead of based on merit, like he and the rest of the folks from the Fox News network were.  

 I also incorporated some of the rambling, sloppy political rally garbage offered by the FOTUS; it was he who suggested, after complaining about both President Obama and President Biden, and the media, and talking about the wars he's won, and telling folks how to walk down stairs, that our military could be deployed for training in American cities, to fight the enemy within. I did not make that part up. 

Was everything Hegesth said ridiculous? No, it wasn't. Could this have been an email? Yes, it could have, but then no one would have seen Hegseth parading in front of a giant flag, exhorting the troops, and no one would have seen him at the end, waiting for applause that never came. 

Should FOTUS have been there at all? Of course not, because he simply cannot do anything other than a rally, whether it's a Cabinet meeting, a meeting with a foreign leader, a speech to the United Nations, NATO, or any other gathering.  He, too, lamented the lack of applause, I guess thinking that these folks who are obligated not to participate in partisan political garbage would ignore that because they were in his presence. Good for them for not falling for it.

As always, when fake news breaks, we'll be on the case!

TGIF 7/15/22

I'm sure there'll be more weeks like this one, when members of the Red Team make total fools of themselves on the issue of abortion. 

I mentioned a few in my Wondering on Wednesday post, including Rep. Jim Jordan, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, and Ohio AG David Yost. 

And let's take James Bopp Jr. According to this Alternet article, Mr. Bopp is "the top attorney" for the National Right to Life Committee," and he's on the bad week list for his grossly inconsiderate and tone-deaf comments about the 10-year old Ohio child who had a legal abortion in Indiana. Under legislation Bopp's promoting, a child rape victim would be banned from having an abortion.

She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child. 

Seriously? What "reason and ultimately the benefit" is there for a ten-year-old, traumatized, raped child to bear a child of her own? 

And there's Indiana's AG Todd Rokita, who stuck his landing on the bad week list, for going public with efforts to find out of the doctor who performed the child's medical abortion had timely filed the appropriate paperwork. From a Politico article,

...Rokita is threatening criminal charges against the doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape survivor from Ohio — a major escalation in the ongoing saga that has put the midwestern state on the frontlines of the post-Roe war.

In a letter dated July 13th, Rokita asked Gov. Eric Holcomb for help in getting info on the case. Here's what he's looking for, and the inflated urgency associated with his request:

In this case, the paperwork was filed - on time - and now the doctor's lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney, is speaking her mind, planted firmly on the good week side of the ledger. Her client

took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician. She followed all relevant policies, procedures, and regulations in this case... She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer. We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client.

Good for her, and for the doctor for stepping up.

Another good week representative? Attorney and podcast host Ken White was quoted in the Alternet article above about the danger of relying on "the exception to protect the life of the mother." He thinks it's "a grave risk for anyone involved in the abortion," as doctors will be dealing with frequently politically-motivated District Attorneys in these cases.

Speaking of the risk of prosecutorial bad judgment, it seems some hospitals in Texas are also not willing to take a chance they'll run up against one of those prosecutors. According to this AP article,

Some hospitals in Texas have reportedly refused to treat patients with major pregnancy complications for fear of violating the state’s abortion ban, the Texas Medical Association said in a letter this week. 

The association did not name the hospitals but said it’s received complaints that hospitals, administrators and their attorneys may be prohibiting doctors from providing medically appropriate care in some situations, The Dallas Morning News reported. 

In one case, a doctor was reportedly told not to treat a woman with an ectopic pregnancy "until it ruptured." This type of action "...creates a substantial risk for the patient’s future reproductive ability and poses serious risk to the patient’s immediate physical wellbeing." Immediate, as in, she could die. 

Why the fear to act, you ask? Here it is, in two parts: first the good week part, and then the bad week part. 

The Biden administration issued guidance this week that said hospitals must provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. Texas sued Thursday over that guidance, arguing that the federal government isn’t authorized to require emergency healthcare providers to perform abortions. 

Also having a bad week? Efforts to positively impact climate change, as WV Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Yeah? Make Me!) announced another delay in his willingness to consider a big ugly bill covering climate change, among other things.

Democrats have struggled for months to pass a slimmed-down climate and energy package as part of a budget reconciliation bill that would require the support of all 50 Senate Democrats, including Manchin. He had previously said he could reach agreement on climate if legislation included elements helping both renewables and fossil fuels. 

But Manchin informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday that he wouldn’t support the investments in climate and energy ahead of the August recess, and his office pointed to his concerns about stoking inflation in a statement. 

Manchin said he hadn't walked away, he just wanted to wait for July's inflation numbers. 

Let's give Manchin a bad week mention, while we're at it, and a good week mention to Sam Ricketts of Evergreen Action, who said, after Manchin's decision broke, who said he struggled to think of a "single elected official in American history" who'll cause "more massive suffering."

...if you want to look decades out from now, this decision by this one senator from West Virginia is going to have repercussions that affect millions, if not billions. 

Speaking of millions and billions  - dollars, not people - there's this bad week list entry, brought to us by the Defense Department and its first mandatory report on Congressional defense appropriations: Congress "funded more than $58 billion worth of military projects that the administration did not request..."   

Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-MI, wrote the bill which requires the report, and gets a good week mention for that. And her fellow lawmakers in the House and Senate who added all this junk to the bill get the bad week mention. Some of it was 'reasonable' in some eyes - disaster aid, funding for Ukraine, and what not, but a lot of it was pork - pure pork, such as

more than $4 billion worth of unrequested warships, many of them built by the constituents of senior appropriators. 

And, the article notes, "a substantial portion of the money goes for programs of arguable utility to the US military, critics say."  There are examples included in the article, if you want to check them out. 

The upcoming fiscal year's NDAA is being debated now; it "would add $37 billion to the amount the president requested for all national defense programs..." And there's this.

On Wednesday, the House rejected an amendment by California Democrat Barbara Lee to subtract that $37 billion. And the House soundly defeated another Lee proposal to take away $100 billion from the authorized level... The House also rejected an amendment by Washington Democrat Pramila Jayapal to make the unfunded priorities lists optional, not mandatory. 

Yay, us, or something.  

Finally, a resounding bad week to those Secret Service employees and others in the Department of Homeland Security who are actively thwarting investigations by the Inspectors General of DHS departments. 

You're likely aware of the deleted Secret Service texts from around the insurrection. Some have said this was intentional (to protect pro-Trump folks, for example). Others say the deletions were part of a transition to different equipment. Yeah, right.

The Intercept is reporting some stonewalling on other investigations, not just on the insurrection. From the article, we learn that it's "not uncommon" for IGs, to face resistance. "Tasked with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, inspectors general are not always welcomed."  And, on that last part, there's a scoop. A Customs and Border Protection official shared some info with the reporters.

A briefing memo produced by the agency for a leadership meeting with the DHS Office of Inspector General on July 7 instructs participants on how to push back against what it calls the inspector general’s “persistent” request for “direct, unfettered access to CBP systems,” as part of its “high number of OIG audits covering a variety of CBP program areas.” 

Again, yay us, or something...

Why do I feel like we're all having a bad week, courtesy of the folks who are supposed to be working in our best interests? 

TGIF, everyone.

If Zelenskyy Zoomed with Trump

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been Zooming around the West; he's spoken with the Canadian parliament, our Congress, and the German Bundestag just in the past few days. In his messages, he's referenced iconic landmarks, historical events, and even the dark days of the nation he's addressing.  

He's a powerful, impassioned, evocative speaker; that's to be expected, given his background as an actor. And, he's getting the lengthy ovations and adulation that a certain former president of ours craved, and still craves. 

Watching the videos and reading the transcripts of his remarks, I can't help thinking what it would sound like if Zelenskyy were to have a "perfect" Zoom call with Donald Trump today. In my mind, I picture it going something like what you see below, put together with thoughts from his message to the Congress the other day, modified with these comments of mine.

Mr. Trump, I'm proud to greet you from Ukraine, from our capital city of Kyiv. A city that is under missile and airstrikes from Russian troops every day, but doesn't give up. And we have not even thought about it for a second, just like many other cities and communities in our beautiful country, which found themselves in the worst war since World War II. 

I have the honor to greet you on behalf of the Ukrainian people. Brave and freedom-loving people, who for eight years have been resisting the Russian aggression, like you say you have been resisting the RINOS in your party, and the fake news media. Right now, the destiny of our country is being decided. The destiny of our people, whether Ukrainians will be free, whether they will be able to preserve their democracy.

Russia has attacked not just us, not just our land, not just our cities, it went on a brutal offensive against our values, basic human values. It threw tanks and planes against our freedom, against our right to live freely in our own choosing our own future, against our desire for happiness, against our national dreams. Just like the same dreams you have, you Americans, just like anyone else in the United States.

I remember your national memorial in Rushmore, and how you want to see your face there, with the faces of your prominent presidents, those who laid the foundation of the United States of America as it is today. Democracy, independence, freedom, and care for every American, for everyone who works diligently, who lives honestly, who respects you and the law. We in Ukraine want the same for our people. All that is normal part of your own life.

Mr. Trump. In your country's great history, you have pages that would allow you to understand Ukrainians. Understand us now, when we need you right now. They say you don't Remember Pearl Harbor, but we all remember it. Terrible morning of December 7, 1941, when your sky was black from the planes attacking you. Just remember it.

Remember September the 11th, a terrible day in 2001 when evil tried to turn your cities, independent territories, in battlefields. When innocent people were attacked from air, yes, just like no one expected it, you could not stop it. When you suddenly had the tallest building in Manhattan. Our country experiences the same destruction every day. We have very few tall buildings left in our cities. Right now, in this moment, every night, for three weeks now, various Ukrainian cities of Odesa, Kharkiv, Lviv, Sumy, Mariupol, Zaporzhzhia and Dnipro. Our tall buildings are being destroyed, and you, as a builder, I know how this must hurt you. I know you remember, Mr. Trump, when you said that the coronavirus pandemic was the worst attack on your country, even worse than Pearl Harbor. Well, I say to you, the Russian attack is even worse than the coronavirus, for my country.

Russia has turned the Ukrainian sky into a source of death for thousands of people. Russian troops have already fired nearly 1,000 missiles at Ukraine. Countless bombs. They use drones to kill us with precision. This is a terror that Europe has not seen for 80 years, and we are asking for a reply, for an answer to this terror from the whole world. Is this a lot to ask for? To create a no-fly zone over Ukraine to save people. Is this too much to ask? A humanitarian no-fly zone, something that Russia would not be able to terrorize our free cities. If this is too much to ask, we offer an alternative.

You know, what kind of defense systems we need as 300 and other similar systems. I understand that you are not personally familiar, because of your bone spurs, with how much depends on the battlefield, on the ability to use aircraft, powerful, stronger aviation to protect our people, our freedom, our land. But I can assure you, it is vitally important to have aircrafts that can help Ukraine, help Europe. And you know that they exist, and you have them. But they are on earth not in the Ukrainian sky. They do not defend our people.

Do you recall our perfect conversation back in July of 2019? I do, Mr. Trump. I told you then I had learned a lot from you, and what I learned helped us win the election. You told me you do a lot for my country, more than the Europeans, especially more than Germany. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because "the United States has been very very good to Ukraine." I asked you for more Javelins, more defensive weapons, and you asked me for a favor. Do you remember that, Mr. Trump?

You asked for my help, and I said yes. I remember that, my people, my country remembers that, the whole world remembers that. And they remember that you refused to give me the aid I so desperately needed, and I had to wait for your Congress to help my country. I cannot wait again, not now. 

'I have a dream.' These words are known to you today, I hope? They are like Pearl Harbor, unforgettable and known to all. I can say I have a need. I need to protect our sky. I need your decision, your help, which means exactly the same. The same you feel when you hear the words, 'I have a dream.'

Ukraine is grateful to the United States for its overwhelming support. For everything that your government and your people have done for us, for weapons and ammunition, for training, for finances, for leadership in the free world, which helps us to pressure the aggressor economically. I would be grateful to you, Mr. Trump, for your personal involvement, for your sincere commitment to the defense of Ukraine and democracy all over the world. 

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and your country knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what more can be done to help us. And I know you have wealthy friends in Russia, even your son said you have all the money you need from the Russians. We need your help, with the Russians and their money and the oligarchs. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

 ... now, it is true in the darkest time for our country, for the whole of Europe, I call on you to do more. Are there oligarchs living in your apartment towers? Are they members of your private clubs? Did they help build your business empire? New sanctions are needed constantly, every week until the Russian military machine stops. Restrictions are needed for everyone on whom this unjust regime is based. We propose that you personally sanction these Russians from whom you get money today and before. You need to cut ties with those who are responsible for their aggression against Ukraine. You must no longer take money from them, anywhere in the world, if we are to break this state terror. All American companies must leave Russia from their market, including your Trump company. Leave their market and their money behind immediately because it is flooded with our blood. That is the favor I ask from you, Mr. Trump.

Please take the lead. If you have Russians in your circle, in your business or personal circle, I'm asking to make sure that the Russians do not receive a single penny that they use to destroy people in Ukraine, and that you cut all ties with them. The destruction of our country the destruction of Europe, all American ports should be closed for Russian goods, all American apartments should be closed for Russian people, all American golf courses - closed for Russians. It all must be closed. Peace is more important than income, and we have to defend this principle in the whole world.

Some people might say you are not a man of principle. I know you are, of some principles. We already became part of the anti-war coalition, a big anti-war coalition that unites many countries, dozens of countries, those who reacted to in principle to your friend, your smart friend President Putin’s decision to invade our country, but we need to move on and do more. If he is your friend, and he wouldn't have done this if you were in charge, think how he would act if you got involved right now? 

We propose to create an association, U24. United for peace, a union of responsible countries that have the strength and consciousness to stop conflict immediately, provide all the necessary assistance in 24 hours, if necessary, even weapons if necessary, sanctions, humanitarian support, political support, finances, everything you need to keep the peace, and quickly save the world to save lives. In addition, such association, such a union could provide assistance to those who are experiencing natural disasters, man-made disasters fell victims to humanitarian crisis or epidemic.

 Remember how difficult it was for the world to do the simplest thing just to give vaccines against COVID to save lives to prevent new strains. The world spent months, years, doing things like that much faster, to make sure there are no human losses. No victims, ladies and gentlemen, Americans if such alliance would exist today, that is U24, we would be able to save thousands of lives in our country. In many countries of the world, those who need peace, those suffer inhumane destruction... We have to stop it. We must preventively destroy every single aggressor or who seeks to subjugate other nations. 

And in the end, to sum it up. Today, it's not enough to be the leader of the nation. It takes to be the leader of the world. Being the leader of the world means to be the leader of peace. Even in your America first vision, Mr. Trump, peace in your country doesn't depend anymore only on you and your people. Depends on those next to you and those who are strong.

Strong doesn't mean big. Strong is brave and ready to fight for the life of his citizens and citizens of the world; for human rights; for freedom; for the right to live decently; and the right to die when your time comes and not when it's wanted by someone else. By your neighbor. You have called upon your supporters to lay down their very lives over what is taught to their children in school. Can that be more important than to call them to lay down their very lives for children of the world? If you asked them to, how many would? You know the answer to that, Mr. Trump.

Today, the Ukrainian people are not only defending Ukraine. We are fighting for the values of Europe and the world, sacrificing our lives in the name of the future. That's why today the American people are helping not just Ukraine, but Europe and the world to keep the planet alive. To keep justice in history. Now, I’m almost 45 years old. Today, my age stopped when the hearts of more than 100 children stopped beating. I see no sense in life if it cannot stop the deaths. And this is my main issue as the leader of my people, brave Ukrainians. And as the leader of my nation, I am addressing you, Mr. Trump. You are still somehow a respected leader of your great nation. I wish you to be a leader of the world. Being a leader of the world means to be the leader of peace. Help my country with the favor I ask from you. Thank you. 

Sunday School 3/13/22

We've got three Senators in the classrooms this morning: Rob Portman (R-OH) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), members of the Ukraine Caucus, and Jim Risch (R-ID), the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is where we'll start.

Risch talked with Brett Baier in the Fox News Sunday classroom. He expressed dismay at how things are going on the new Iran nuclear deal, noting that US representatives aren't even doing the negotiating. Since the Iranians refuse to talk with us, they're working with European, Russian, and Chinese teams, while we wait for updates. Risch seems to think this whole thing is a waste of time, saying unless they get an actual treaty, rather than an executive agreement, it

will not last past the next Republican president that's elected, just as the last deal didn't last the minute that the Republicans took over.

Shifting to Ukraine, he thinks we must "be wary" of getting into direct confrontation with Russia, although he suggests the "ineptness" they've shown so far might lead to a quick end if we did. He also said the Biden administration "has projected weakness throughout," and that they've only done stuff after our allies stepped up first.

Look, when you're dealing with these people, if you project weakness, you're going to have a real problem. And that's going on with both Iran and with Russia right now and it is a serious situation. We need them to project some strength.

Finally, Risch told Baier he voted against the omnibus spending bill, with its billions for Ukraine, because of a bunch of "other pork" in the bill. He mentioned "earmarks, for crying out loud," and "some gun legislation... that a couple of the gun lobbies were very much against... some provisions in there that a number of the pro-life groups were against." 

Whenever we have these doggone big bills, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, whether you vote yes or no. But I -- I have -- I hope that no one would take this as not being the support for -- for the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian war.

I've said that myself, many times before. 

Sunday School 8/29/21

For this week's Sunday School, I'm only visiting the classroom with the day of the week in its name: Fox News Sunday, where Chris Wallace chatted with the Grim Reaper, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Floundering for Relevance), and with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, which is where we'll start. 

Sullivan said that President Biden "will stop at nothing" to make the ISIS-K terrorists pay for killing 13 Americans (and killing and wounding hundreds more Afghans); he also pointed to our successful 'over-the-horizon' capability that the president mentioned the other day. 

Wallace wondered if our intelligence was so good after the fact, why we didn't prevent the attack from happening in the first place. Here's part of Sullivan's response.

With respect to the attack at Kabul airport, we, of course, had been warning for days that such an attack could take place. We took action to try to prevent and disrupt such attacks. But, of course, all we can do is mitigate risk. We cannot eliminate risk. And this is a fundamentally dangerous and high-risk condition. The president has said that from the beginning. Those of us working on it have reiterated that from the beginning. And it continues, Chris, to be very dangerous. 

They talked a bit about what the next couple of days, and our final hours in Kabul, will look like. Sullivan was careful, particularly when Wallace asked how many people would be left. He said there were 300 or fewer Americans still there, some of whom have chosen not to leave. And we have some commitments from the Taliban about getting our folks out, even after the end of the month. 

Finally, Wallace wondered why President Biden wasn't "taking full responsibility" on abandoning Bagram Airport, instead of "laying this off on the generals." Sullivan reminded Wallace that he's heard Biden "take ultimate responsibility for every decision" he's made And, he explained the difference between a tactical decision, which is the purview of the generals, and a strategic decision, which belongs to the president. 

Moving on to the Grim Reaper, here's his assessment of the war in Afghanistan.

I think what's been lost in all of this, Chris, is why we went there in the first place. We went there to prevent the Taliban from having a regime that would allow terrorists to reconstitute themselves and hit us again here at home. It's been a total success. If you -- this term "endless war," let's take a look at it. The last seven months, the Afghans have lost more people fighting than we have over 20 years. They've taken 65,000 casualties. We've taken roughly 2,000 in 20 years. The last year and a half we've lost no one. With our continued deployment of 2,500 people, we were, in effect, keeping the lid on, keeping terrorists from reconstituting, and having a light footprint in the country. The policy was working. Therefore, I think calling it and endless war or claiming that we're somehow trying to get involved in a civil war is - a domestic civil war is simply not accurate. We went over there to protect us here at home. We've not had a mass casualty attack from over there in these 20 years. I'd call that a successful policy.

Now we're looking at the exit and over the next two days our heroic military is doing the best they can with a horrible policy decision. This is one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history. Much worse than Saigon because after we left Saigon, there weren't Vietnamese terrorists who were planning on attacking us here at home. That we leave behind exactly what we went in to solve 20 years ago. And I fear for the future in continuing the war on terror. You know, just because we decide to quit fighting doesn't mean the terrorists go away. So they're still out there. They're invigorated. They're emboldened and excited about the success they see in bringing America to its knees in Afghanistan.

Next, Wallace turned to the decision to leave Afghanistan, something he said McConnell opposed when Trump started the process, and he opposed Biden continuing down the path to our full withdrawal.  He asked McConnell

Senator, does President Biden have a point there? If in April he had said, hey, the Trump deal is off, we're staying in and, in fact, we're going to beef up the number of troops, he contends we'd have been back in a full-scale war with the Taliban, and, unfortunately taking a lot of casualties.

McConnell said that's not correct. 

Once again, the president's off the mark. We hadn't lost as many as 13 people, which we lost Thursday, in any of the last four years. In fact, our casualties since 2014 have been quite modest, quite modest. We lost more - I repeat - more of our military personnel last Thursday then we lost in any one of the last four years. So the balance has been dramatically reduced for American personnel. Remember, in the whole war, Chris, we have regretfully lost a couple of thousand of our people. We -- that's very regretful. But the Afghans have lost 65,000. They have been fighting and we've been in the background helping them with counterterrorism and the ongoing training of the military. The policy was working if you remember why we went there, which was to keep the Taliban out and the terrorists from being able to operate with impunity so they could attack us again here at home.

Questions Wallace didn't ask? 

• You say we lost more military personnel in last Thursday's attack than we lost in any of the last four years. But this data from the Defense Casualty Analysis System shows we had 13 'hostile' deaths in 2018, and 17 in 2019. What's the basis for your numbers?

• We did have four hostile deaths in 2020, but they were outside your 18-month window. Isn't the treaty that President Trump signed with the Taliban, which required our full withdrawal, the reason for that?

• Wouldn't breaking the treaty that was negotiated with the Taliban have escalated the terrorism threat in and of itself? 

• How much longer should we have stayed in Afghanistan, training their military to do what they are apparently still unable to do, after all these years? At what point should they be able to defend themselves?

• How much responsibility do the Afghans bear themselves for what's happening in their country? 

• Many people are pointing to the extreme religious beliefs of the Taliban, and how those will impact Afghan women. There's been a lot of publicity about an Afghan folksinger who was killed by the Taliban. How much should these, or do these, play in any decision we make regarding involving our military in other countries? 

Keep an eye out for anyone asking that kind of question, and let me know if you find anyone. 

See you around campus, assuming you haven't been disenrolled for not getting a vaccine.

Poll Watch: A Lack of Seriousness

We're in the middle of an "all-Afghanistan, all the time" news cycle, as you're aware, and that means everyone's tripping over themselves trying to get the most provocative story that can be found. 

As is always the case when we're in this type of frenzy, Twitter is a fun place to hang out for a few minutes here and there. And it was in one of those few-minutes-here-and-there sessions that I stumbled on this survey. The tweet that caught my eye said "tell me again how we're a serious country" - and I simply had to read the linked article, which documented the responses to an IPSOS Snap Poll on Afghanistan.

First, the small print: online, English-language interviews with 1,000 adults from all 50 of the United States were done on August 16th. The survey included 247 Republicans, 443 Democrats, and 310 Independents, and has a 3.5% credibility interval at a 95% confidence level. Additional sampling info is in the link. 

I've seen surveys that illustrated a lack of clarity, but one that led to the questioning of our seriousness as a nation was new to me. Let's see if we can figure out why the poster felt that way.

Overall, 71% of respondents expressed familiarity with our involvement in Afghanistan over the last 20 years and with the US plans to withdraw all its forces from Afghanistan; 68% are familiar with the rapid success of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Independents are less familiar (or more honest?) with 64%, 64%, and 58% respectively, while the Republicans (R) and Democrats (D) were about 75% on each topic.

With more specific questions, answers start to take an interesting, if somewhat confusing, turn. For example:

• Only 50% overall (54% R, 53% D, 45% I) support sending combat troops back in to fight the Taliban - but 68% overall (71% R, 72% D, 62% I) support troops fighting the Taliban to allow time to evacuate Afghans. Which leads one to wonder, if we don't send the troops in, how will they fight the Taliban?

Meanwhile, there's a lot of support for the US to complete our troop withdrawal on schedule, currently meaning by August 31st. Overall, 61% of respondents support this; Republicans (48%) less than either the Independents (60%) or the Dems (72%).

The next questions asked for the level of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements. 

• While 61% want us to complete our exit on time, 51% agree it would have been worth it for the US to leave troops in Afghanistan for another year. Disagreement with this statement is consistent, at 32% overall and similar percentages by political affiliation. 

• We don't want our troops fighting the Taliban, but we also don't seem to mind America sending in additional troops to secure key facilities (airports, embassies, bases) until the US withdrawal is complete. Everyone agrees with this - 75% overall, 81% R, 75%D and 70% I, even though doing so would set us up for fighting the Taliban.

• The war in Afghanistan was going to end badly, no matter when the US left, also brought broad agreement, at 68%. By affiliation, Independents (40% agree, 33% disagree) were the outlier; the Rs (64%/25%) and Ds (78%/14%) were more in the mainstream.

• The rapid collapse of US-trained Afghan forces, and the government, is evidence why the US should get out of the conflict saw 63% of respondents in agreement. Dems agreed more (73%), with Republicans (56%agree/30% disagree) and Independents (58%/20%) less agreeable.

The final question, Have the following generally done a good or bad job in relation to Afghanistan, is the one that most accurately portrays our lack of seriousness as a country, in my opinion. 

TG=Total Good TB= Total Bad	All		R		D		I
	TG	TB	TG	TB	TG	TB	TG	TB
Bush Administration	47%	39%	55%	37%	51%	38%	37%	42%
Obama Administration	51%	38%	31%	63%	77%	15%	42%	39%
Trump Administration	51%	36%	83%	10%	36%	55%	39%	40%
Biden Administration	44%	42%	21%	74%	75%	12%	32%	46%
American news media	42%	44%	28%	65%	65%	22%	32%	38%
US military	77%	14%	85%	11%	78%	15%	69%	15%

It seems the Dubya administration was the last one where abject partisanship wasn't in play. Then we had the black president, the TV host president, and now we have the old guy, who's only been in office for seven months, and the only thing that matters seems to be party affiliation, absent that weird bit of balance from the Dems on Trump's handling of this mess.

• 63% of Republicans say that the administration that got Osama bin Laden did a totally bad job? Seriously? That's why we went there, remember?

• 77% of Democrats say that building troop levels up to 100K, and planning to have all our troops out by the end of 2014, which of course didn't happen, was totally good?

• 83% of Republicans think that talks with the Taliban, including an obscene but discarded plan to bring Taliban leaders to the US, to Camp David, on 9/11, for heaven's sake, or forcing the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners, or setting a troop withdrawal date that's in someone else's administration, is totally good?

• 65% of Democrats think the media has done a totally good job, for 20 years, and 65% of Republicans think the opposite?

"Tell me again how we're a serious country," indeed. It's long past time we got our heads out of our partisan you-know-whats, don't you think?