Quantcast
Connect with us

Julián Castro is skeptical of Trump’s ‘bizarre episode’ of calling off Taliban peace talks

Published

on

Julián Castro, the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who is running for president as a Democrat in 2020, told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that he felt President Donald Trump’s supposed peace talk attempts with the Taliban were “bizarre.”

“This is another bizarre episode, Jake, for two reasons,” Castro explained to CNN anchor Jake Tapper. “First of all, I think like most Americans I don’t know what to believe anymore that comes out of the mouth or the tweet of this president. Folks will remember that just a few days ago he said he had been in touch with China, apparently in order to try to calm the markets, and staff later said that that wasn’t the case. So the way he tweeted this out… I’m still looking for confirmation that an actual, physical trip to Camp David was planned.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Castro added that “if it was, if it had been planned, that’s bizarre as well. Because even though I do support a negotiated political settlement there that will increase stability and make sure that Afghanistan is not used as a base for terrorist operations, it is very odd to invite a terrorist organization like that to Camp David. That’s not in keeping with the way the United States negotiates.”

On Saturday Trump posted a trio of tweets on his Twitter account detailing what he claimed had been an effort to bring about negotiations between the Taliban and the official Afghanistan government at Camp David and why they had ultimately failed.

“Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday. They were coming to the United States tonight. Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people. I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations.” Trump tweeted.

He added, “What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position? They didn’t, they only made it worse! If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway. How many more decades are they willing to fight?”

The United States and Taliban had engaged in nine rounds of talks over a period of nearly a year in order to smooth out most of the differences between the two countries, according to The New York Times. This resulted in a deal that would have established a 16-month timeline for the gradual withdrawal of America’s 14,000 remaining troops in the country and required the Taliban to provide counterterrorism assurances that would presumably protect Americans on United States soil. The Afghan government objected to this agreement on the grounds that America had negotiated for the release of thousands of Taliban prisoners in Afghan prisons even though the Taliban refused to reciprocate with a wide-scale ceasefire.

ADVERTISEMENT

That deal, criticized by Afghan officials for lacking measures that would ensure stability, would include a timeline of about 16 months for a gradual withdrawal of the remaining 14,000 American troops, with about 5,000 of them leaving in 135 days after its signing. In return, the Taliban would provide counterterrorism assurances to ease American fears of repeat of attacks on home soil — such as the attacks by Al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001, that precipitated the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile the Taliban refused to meet with the Afghan government at Camp David on the grounds that doing so would have been political suicide, since they view the administration of Ashraf Ghani as a “stooge government.”


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

2020 Election

So is Tulsi Gabbard really a ‘Russian asset? How would we know for sure?

Published

on

Is it valid to accuse Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii and a current presidential candidate, of being a “Russian asset”?This article first appeared in Salon.It’s a strange question, and one that normally wouldn’t need to be answered. Gabbard has never polled above the low single digits and has no realistic chance of being the 2020 Democratic nominee. Surrounded by controversy and facing a primary challenge from a more conventional Democrat, she has already announced she won't run for re-election to Congress either.
Continue Reading

2020 Election

The Democrats are running more female veterans for office than ever before – but can they win?

Published

on

It’s not often that a political unknown’s campaign ad goes viral. But in 2018, M.J. Hegar (TX-13) burst onto the scene with “Doors,” a provocative campaign announcement video that placed her military experience and leadership ability front and center.

M.J. Hegar’s ‘Doors’ video.

Hegar was among a record-setting 14 female veterans running for Congress in 2018.

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

Twitter exempts some ’cause-based’ messages from political ad ban

Published

on

Twitter said Friday its ban on political ads will exempt "caused-based" messages on topics related to social or environmental issues.

The San Francisco-based messaging platform unveiled details of its move to bar all paid political messages, starting November 22, while easing concerns expressed by activists for social causes.

"Ads that educate, raise awareness, and/or call for people to take action in connection with civic engagement, economic growth, environmental stewardship, or social equity causes are allowed," Twitter said in its new policy.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image