Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’ President repeatedly disparaged war dead

No it isn't. Those other people are opponents of his. He is going to talk **** about them. Hell, there are lots of veterans I talk **** about too. But to say that means he thinks all veterans are suckers and losers is just ridiculous, and you have to be a sucker to believe that.

Even Bolton says he didn't say that, and Bolton can't stand Trump.

 

Apparently, this hoax article may have actually been lifted from The Godfather.

 

Perhaps because she is Biden's biggest donor and the rag she owns just published some fake news on Trump? Anonymous sources... LMAO. If you don't have video evidence and you are the MSM then your credibility is at absolute zero. Trump's greatest achievement may be exposing the corruption of the MSM. Their credibility has now reached the levels of child molesters and trial lawyers.

 

I double dog dare you to cite anything from my post that is not true.
Go ahead - make my day.

 

That's definitely one of his legacies. For sure. The other is exposing the Deep State that spied on him illegally while he was running for office and after.

 

wow

"Trump launches unprecedented attack on military leadership he appointed"

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/07/politics/trump-attack-military-leadership/index.html

"President Donald Trump launched an unprecedented public attack against the leadership of the US military on Monday, accusing them of waging wars to boost the profits of defense manufacturing companies."

the military is turning on Trump, so now he is going after them, guess Trump forgets he is the commander in chief, is that what he has been doing the last 3.5 years

now military leaders are asking to see Trump financial statements, to see if he profited off war spending as they have to turn in theirs so this does not happen, he should have to as well

 

Are you rooting for a military coup now?

 

That's actually true. The troops in the field go where they're told. Do what they're commanded. Once you're working in the Pentagon, politics come into play. This isn't surprising.
Remember all the anti-Bush nonsense about going to war for oil?

There was some truth to that. Trump's attack isn't on the Americans that risk their lives by serving, it's against the politicians - including generals - who have money to make by going to war.

 

I am not rooting for Trump, Trump is the only one that could profit, as the others have to turn in their financial statements every year, Trump refuses to do that, and Trump has a habit of attacking others for what he does

 

so Trump brags about increasing military spending, then attacks military leaders for military spending?

Trump attacked soldiers, and got called out on it by military leaders, now he is attacking military leaders (which he is the top military leader)

 

So, are you rooting for a military coup to replace Trump?
Or not?

 

It depends on what type of spending. Spending increases exponentially when troops are deployed. Spending on developing new tech is an entirely different category.

 

let's see Trump's tax returns and see if he owned stock in any of their companies profiting from his increased spending

 

where did you get that from? I am hoping Trump is voted out in November, only two months to go

 

Well, that's a bit of ignorance on your part. Tax returns don't show stock holdings unless there is a sale. So you really need to brush up on your knowledge of tax law and tax prep before you make that claim.

 

Turning on him?

Two Iraqi veterans just confronted Biden:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1302984148861308928

 

Biden did not vote for the war, they voted to leave war on the table when negotiating with Iraq, Bush was the decider, Bush and no one else decided

this was to get Iraq to allow inspectors in... it worked, they were allowed in, found nothing, bush told them to get out, he was going to war anyways

to Bush, the inspectors were just a excuse for war, they did not think Iraq would let them in

http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2008/06/un-inspectors-were-right-iraq-was-not.html

"by 2002 the new Bush administration decided on war with Iraq. One of the problems they were faced with was how to justify it. In March 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office suggested to the White House that a new round of U.N. inspectors could be the way to provoke a war. England believed that Iraq would refuse inspections and that could not only provide the legal justification for war, but also help build public support."

 

Except for the vote to authorize force. Biden voted for it in 2002.

 

Let's assume it was said. Do they have any proof he said it? Otherwise, it will always be an ALLEGATION. In fact it is AN UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION.

Good thing this is America, were you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

I have had the honor of serving for 13 years in the Marines. I am also the father of a Marine that is about to retire after 23 years. So, I can tell you that we understand the meaning of Belleau Woods. The French Army was in full retreat. The Marines, who were tasked with digging trenches, refused an order to dig trenches closer to Paris. Instead the used they bayonets to dig shallow emplacements that they could shoot from in a prone position. They waited until the Germans were within a 100ft and then opened fire. They mowed down waves after waves of Germans, and stopped their advancement on France. It was at that battle that the Germans called the US Marine "Teufel Hundens" - Devil Dogs.
(If you are interested in United States Marine Corps History, ask me sometime about the Frozen Chosen.)

I guarantee that none of the 1811 Marines that died at Belleau Woods and are buried at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, cared that President Trump called off his trip to that cemetery because of foul weather that grounded his helicopter.

The Gold-Star family Khan. A family becomes a "Gold Star" family by virtue of a family member giving his/her life in combat. They should be honored. Up till the time they do something that abuses that fact. Khan's speech before the DNC in 2016, has been shown to have gone against everything their son stood for. Further, it was factually incorrect. All Khan had was a unfounded hatred of then Candidate Trump, and a love for Hillary Clinton while ignoring her crimes. The minute the walked out on stage and dishonored his son, he lost he "gold star" status.

As far as the rest of the "losers" and "suckers" BS!!! John Kelly is supposed to be one of the two sources behind the false claim, but his aide who was in the room when they decided to call off the trip says the President never said such a thing.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/07/trump-points-to-kelly-aide-who-says-he-never-heard-losers-remarks/

John Bolton also said it never happened:
https://americantruthtoday.com/poli...tlantic-story-i-was-there-i-didn-t-hear-that/

I have already shown that McCain was a traitor who collaborated with the Viet Nemeses in exchange for special medical treatment. You want to call someone a coward, they McCain.

The Associated Press reporter James LaPorta claims that he got confirmation from the Pentagon, but I have to ask, what members of the pentagon was actually present for the discussion of whether to visit the cemetery? We know the Chief of Staff was there. We know the chief aide of the chief of staff, and we know James Bolton was in the room. But who else? We heard from Kelly, who has an axe to grind against the President. We have heard from Zach Fuentes, General Kelly's top aide. We have heard from then National Security Advisor John Bolton. Fuentes and Bolton both say the Atlantic Story is total BS. So, what Pentagon rep was in the room at the time, or are they merely spreading rumors. Right now the Atlantic Story does not have a leg to stand on.

 

the vote to leave war as an option on the table for Bush, no one expected Bush to go to war after investigators found no WMD

the inspectors said no WMD found and bush kicked them out and went to war anyways - crazy

 

Moving the goalposts fallacy.

 

This story has been confirmed from more sources than the one which you claim refutes it. Moreover, the NYPOST is a borderline tabloid, not a reliable source.

Fox news reports on the Atlantic Story


Bolton didn't say that 'it didn't happen', he said that he didn't hear him say what the Atlantic Article accused him of, but also mentioned that he couldn't confirm that the story was untrue, either, as he wasn't privy to all conversations. Moreover, the one person (Gen. Kelly) who can confirm or deny the story insofar as the Altantic Article pertains to him, he is not talking. If a General had the opportunity to refute a story and back up his Commander-In-Chief, you'd at least think he would do the patriotic thing and speak up, but, alas, his silence doesn't leave me with the idea the story is false. It leaves me with the idea he, as a man of honor, will not lie and will not be put in a position to speak disparagingly of his commander-in-chief. That I can understand. It tells me the story is TRUE. Moroever...

AP has confirmed aspects of the story. The story has been run in a number of outlets, and the protocol is not to propagate a story other outlets originated without confirmation of at least three sources, if the 'evidence' is testimony, OR if there is documentation from a single source.

IF you are willing to misrepresent the above fact about Bolten, then that throws into question the objectivity and veracity of your entire comment.

But, moving on:

In the following article about McCain, there are annotations which refer to where the claims written in the article were sourced from.

If you can refute any of the facts presented, and counter their sources, feel free to do so. But, the article, taken a whole, is not a portrait of a traitor.
It is a portrait of someone, although whose personality flaws do not fit well with the regimented life in the military
but, overall, it's not a portrait of a traitor, it's a portrait of a patriot, though flawed. But, who, among us, is perfect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain


On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying his twenty-third mission, part of a twenty-plane strike force against the Yen Phu thermal power plant in central Hanoi[104][105] that previously had almost always been off-limits to U.S. raids due to the possibility of collateral damage.[102] Arriving just before noon, McCain dove from 9,000 to 4,000 feet on his approach;[106] as he neared the target, warning systems in McCain's A-4E Skyhawk alerted him that he was being tracked by enemy fire-control radar.[107] Like other U.S. pilots in similar situations, he did not break off the bombing run,[63] and he held his dive until he released his bombs at about 3,500 feet (1,000 m).[108] As he started to pull up, the Skyhawk's wing was blown off by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile fired by the North Vietnamese Air Defense Command's 61st Battalion,[102][106] McCain was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for this day,[101]

Two days after McCain's plane went down, that event and his status as a POW made the front pages of The New York Times[93] and The Washington Post.[120] Interrogation and beatings resumed in the hospital; McCain gave the North Vietnamese his ship's name, squadron's name, and the attack's intended target.[121] This information, along with personal details of McCain's life and purported statements by McCain about the war's progress, would appear over the next two weeks in the North Vietnamese official newspaper Nhân Dân[106] as well as in dispatches from outlets such as the Cuban news agency Prensa Latina.[122] Disclosing the military information was in violation of the Code of Conduct, which McCain later wrote he regretted, although he saw the information as being of no practical use to the North Vietnamese.[123] Further coerced to give future targets, he named cities that had already been bombed, and responding to demands for the names of his squadron's members, he supplied instead the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line.[121][124]

The North Vietnamese wanted to score a worldwide propaganda coup by appearing merciful,[136] and also wanted to show other POWs that members of the elite like McCain were willing to be treated preferentially.[138] McCain turned down the offer of release, due to the POWs' "first in, first out" interpretation of the U.S. Code of Conduct:[141] he would only accept the offer if every man captured before him was released as well.[104][142] McCain's refusal to be released was remarked upon by North Vietnamese senior negotiator Lê Đức Thọ to U.S. envoy Averell Harriman, during the ongoing Paris Peace Talks.[143] Enraged by his declining of the offer, Bai and his assistant told McCain that things would get very bad for him.[142]

Altogether, McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years, nearly five of them after his refusal to accept the out-of-sequence repatriation offer. His wartime injuries left him permanently incapable of raising either arm more than 80 degrees.[35][114] For his actions as a POW, McCain was awarded the Silver Star Medal, the Legion of Merit, three Bronze Star Medals, another instance of the Navy Commendation Medal, and the Purple Heart Medal.[60][101] He also gained an appreciation, from experiencing the mutual help and organized resistance of the POWs, that his earlier individualism needed to be tempered by a belief in causes greater than self-interest.[147]

I'm not seeing 'Traitor' here, I'm seeing someone who sacrificed 5 years of his life so that others who were captured before him could go home. Apparently, during those years of confinement, under torture, gave up what apparently was inconsequential information, though technically a violation of the code of conduct. That doesn't make him a traitor given the facts taken, of his conduct, as a whole.

This is inconsistent with your claim of 'Traitor" and 'coward'.

I find the idea that a Naval Officer, the son of an Admiral being a traitor hard to swallow, you will need to provide convincing sourcing for this claim.

 

Just a couple of key points for you. You only quote Fox news when they rarely agree with you, and attack them any other time. Your claim comes from the Atlantic, which is nothing more then a liberal rag, and then call the New York Post "a borderline tabloid"?

For John McCain, two points. One is look up the Vietnam code name "Songbird". McCain agreed to tell the Vietnamese about US Military activities in exchange for special medical treatment. Two weeks later, the Vietnamese started publishing material obtained from McCain under the name Songbird. After his recovery, he started making radio broadcasts for the Vietnamese. McCain's commanding officer during his time as a POW was working up charges for treason, when President Nixon issued a blanket pardon for all POW's. Look it up. I am sure you can find it.

Let's also not forget McCain's hand in the distribution of the Fake Dossier. Sorry, but gold stars have to be earned, and McCain has not earned his.

 

McCain was a traitor to this country. His service, to the extent he provided it, is appreciated. But he did more damage afterwards that cannot simply be swept under the rug.