White House email sparks backlash over veteran concerns on Afghanistan
- John Kirby accidentally emailed a dismissive comment about veteran concerns regarding the Afghanistan withdrawal to a reporter.
- The comment drew significant criticism from Republican lawmakers and veterans, who deemed it callous and insensitive.
- The incident highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the administration's handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and its impact on veterans.
On Wednesday, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby faced backlash after mistakenly emailing a reporter that there was 'no use in responding' to veteran concerns regarding the administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan. This comment was made in the context of criticism from four veterans who accused Kirby of attempting to cover for the administration's handling of the withdrawal. Kirby later acknowledged his error, stating he did not realize the reporter was included in the email chain. The response from Kirby was met with widespread condemnation, particularly from Republican figures. Senator John Thune expressed outrage over the dismissive tone towards veterans, especially in light of the recent anniversary of the Afghanistan withdrawal and 9/11. Other critics, including Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller, labeled Kirby's remarks as 'stupid' and 'insensitive,' while House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul described them as appalling but unsurprising. Earlier in the week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee released a detailed report criticizing the Biden administration's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. The report highlighted that President Biden proceeded with the withdrawal despite significant objections from military officials and allies. Kirby dismissed the report as 'one-sided' and 'partisan,' attributing the chaotic exit to a deal made by former President Trump with the Taliban. Kirby defended President Biden's decision, stating that the president faced a difficult choice upon taking office: to adhere to a flawed agreement or to escalate military involvement. He argued that the decision to withdraw ultimately allowed for additional preparation time and contributed to national safety, despite the criticism surrounding the execution of the withdrawal.