The Taliban didn't seize $83 billion in U.S. weapons A figure floating around in right-wing media gives a staggering cost for the U.S. military equipment left behind in Afghanistan — from aircraft to all-terrain vehicles and weapons — now supposedly ripe for the Taliban's plucking. "ALL EQUIPMENT should be demanded to be immediately returned to the United States, and that includes every penny of the $85 billion dollars in cost," former president Donald Trump said in a statement Aug. 30. The cost estimate is not made up of whole cloth, although Trump seems to have added on an extra $2 billion to a spending figure calculated by a Defense Department watchdog office. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) estimated in a July 30 quarterly report that the United States had spent $83 billion — technically, $82.9 billion — on the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund since the U.S. invasion in 2001. This total reflects all the money spent to train, equip and house the Afghan military and police; weapons are just one component. At this point, no one really knows the value of the equipment that was seized by the Taliban. (A rough estimate would be one-quarter to one-third of the $83 billion total.) In addition, U.S. forces "demilitarized," or rendered useless, much of the equipment before leaving. And without maintenance crews, trained pilots, or unity among its several factions, the Taliban cannot really be said to have acquired a usable "air force." Trump earned Three Pinocchios. Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this email was forwarded to you, sign up here. Did you hear something fact-checkable? Send it here; we'll check it out. A false claim on vaccine liability Stephen K. Bannon, the onetime Trump strategist who was indicted for fraud and accepted a presidential pardon, has a podcast called "Bannon's War Room." Last week, he hosted a physician, Robert Malone, who often takes skeptical claims about coronavirus vaccines to right-wing media. Malone claimed the FDA's full authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, Comirnaty, was actually a bait-and-switch game, allowing the manufacturer to skirt the usual legal liability. (A similar claim was made by Robert F. Kennedy, a leading anti-vaccine campaigner.) "The little trick that they have done here: They have issued two separate letters for two separate vaccines," Malone, who bills himself as having had a role in the creation of mRNA technology, said on the Aug. 24 edition of Bannon's podcast. "The Pfizer vaccine which is currently available is still under emergency use authorization and it still has the liability shield … The product that's licensed … it's called Comirnaty … that's the one that liability waiver will no longer apply to." Not so. The liability protection for Comirnaty and the vaccine previously approved under emergency authorization are the same. That's because of a law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). On Bannon's podcast, Malone was especially swaggering with this false claim. "Once again the mainstream media has lied to you," he said. "Sorry to say that. I know it's a shock to this viewership." But he quickly backed off his claim, which would have earned Four Pinocchios, after we sent questions. Malone said he had relied on a flawed reading from a lawyer and was doing "rapid analysis on the fly." We're always looking for fact-check suggestions. You can reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP, @rizzoTK, @AdriUsero) or Facebook. Read about our process and rating scale here, and sign up for the newsletter here. Scroll down for this week's Pinocchio roundup. | 
Email 
