Stop having a nuanced opinion.

Police bad. Military good.

As much as I hate The Empire and fetishize communism, I don’t think you can honestly describe the initial Vietnam or Korean conflicts as ‘innocent farmers of peace just planting rice’.

They were Each their own regional and political bloody conflicts, which were vastly improved when America shoved it’s dick in the middle to fix everything.

Luckily America learned a lesson and never hamhandedly tried to pick winners in foreign conflicts ever again.

oh wow another mind-shatteringly naive contrarian take from ashtar whoda thunk it

Some of them died trying to save their friends, which I respect. Some of them died trying to save their own asses, which I also respect.

And sometimes, they died trying to save the world, and some of them actually did,

It doesn't matter anyway because they're dead, young men in their teens and in their twenties rotting in the earth, who were either forced into it, had no other opportunities , or who went voluntarily out of a sense of community, maybe misplaced, young men who couldnt have possibly known what they were getting into. Whatever mistakes they've made, they've paid for them in full, and so has anyone who ever loved them.

I know that "supporting the troops" is sometimes used by politicians to kill dissent and cover a multitude of sins. But honoring the dead isn't supposed to be controversial. Even if I was a communist, I would expect my 70 year old, real estate mogul, casino owning, flag hugging, pornstar fucking, piece of shit president, a man who clutches his pearls in public when football players won't stand for the national anthem, to show some respect, because its his goddamn job. Please, sir, how about a little lip service? Its fucking embarrassing.

And the worst part is that it was because he didn't want the rain to mess up his hair. HIS GODDAMN HAIR, which already looks ridiculous!

Yup, it really is unusual for the brass to opine like this.

This whole thing with the military has me in a weird position personally. I detest the bullshit hero worship that we offer unto the armed services. "Thank you for your service" my ass; they're just doing a job. Sometimes it's an unethical job, a lot of the time it's an honorable, ethical job, but at the end of the day it's just a job. One that involves killing people.

And then Trump comes along and disrespects them to such a degree that I'm actually offended on their behalf. Goddamnit Trump. Leave office so the country can start functioning again & I can go back to being indifferent about the military.

Also, if you could stop being a racist jackass, that would be nice too.

Sincerely,

Random Internet Dude

What both of you said. And I am also troubled by the anonymous nature of the story, it needs somebody to come and call Trump out on saying these horrible things.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8699957/Melania-Trump-joi ns-fights-against-claims-Donald-Trump-called-WWI-Marine-heroes-los ers.html

Much of the Atlantic story was confirmed by Fox News National Security Correspondent, Jennifer Griffin, and relayed by other Fox News Correspondent Jacqui Heinrich:

https://twitter.com/JacquiHeinrich/status/1301972236790886402

Yeah, this will have zero effect on the election as long as it can easily be hand waved away with "anonymous sources == fake news"

I'm not entirely sure about your thesis, roscar. Various red state local news outlets were picking the story up; even some military news outlets. This occurs when a majority of active service military personnel have unfavorable views of Trump.

I would _love_ to be wrong. I've just seen so much shit about this asshole get swept away with the tides and his approval has barely shifted from the start of his presidency.

Being the guy who uses Onion articles to make his point isn't my favourite look, but here I am:
https://politics.theonion.com/this-will-be-the-end-of-trump-s- campaign-says-increa-1819578486

This is one of the few major stories to come out that actually has a chance to put a dent in his base support. Certainly a better chance than his lying, selfishness, callousness, corruption, cruelty, and stupidity. Failing to fetishize the military is the one thing the death cultists can't get away with. This just might be Trump's Swift Boat moment.

So of course shitbag contrarians like Ashtar and Crackersmack are lining up to dismiss it like anything else that disparages Dear Leader.

I honestly don't think it would resonate with someone like John Kelly confirming it, as he'll just get railed as a lying Never Trumper, Deep State Plant. _Maybe_ it would get some traction if there was an audio recording. I'm just super cynical at this point.

On the other hand, ensuring that he loses the election could come down to some super thin margins, so every little bit helps even if it, frustratingly, doesn't tank his chances, as it should.

Anaxagoras, the whole "Suppert THA TRUPES!!!!" Nonsense is tiresome, at the same time he's a Republican and he's supposed to pour it on heavy.

Anonymous sources, for things reportedly said 2-3 years ago, coming out right before the election, from the same side that told us over and over the amazing amount of definite evidence there was about ‘The Russia’....yeah, that’s gonna be questioned.

At the same time if Trump wasn’t such an idiot, such things wouldn’t even be given any credibility. He however can’t stop himself from saying stupid shit regularly, so he has made it more believable due to his own behavior. So it’s the worst of times, and it’s the worst of times.

ez, I'm not sure highlight the timing of the story does quite as much lifting as you want it to.

First what counts as 'right before the election' especially when campaigning in the US starts in some cases almost two years before voting? Does over a year count as right before the election or is there some finer grained notion at work? But even so, *given* the election know what the President has said about the military to which he commands is very relevant to how voters should assess the President; *after* the election is certainly too late to publish story.

Second, it is quite possible that the timing is coincidental to your presumed measure of close-to-the-election/not-close-to-the-election. Journalists are often working on major stories for months and months, trying to track down corroboration and fill in details. So maybe it *could* have come out a month ago, maybe two, depending on those details. Without evidence of your claim, it is no more a contingent fact that the article came out when it did.

But those issues aside, Trump has publicly spoken badly of McCain and POWs, the gold star family before; so questioning that he has such views (not by you, but those in right-wing media) seems out of place; the 'story' is just how deep and terrible Trump's attitudes towards the military actually are. Certainly members of the military would be interested in using that information in their assessment of who to vote for--they do have a vote after all.

On one hand, it doesn't matter if he said it. On the other hand, OF COURSE he said it.

Lol, it wasn't even just what he said to John Kelly, or about McCain or the Khans.

There was also the scandal where he claimed to have called "virtually all" of the families of soldiers who died in Niger. When the families said he hadn't, he rushed to call them all, even offering one (or more?) 25 grand (but didn't follow through).

Then one of the widows said that his call was uncaring enough to bring her to tears, so naturally he tweeted "just had a great call! very respectful!" or some shit.

A tape even came out where he was being briefed on it and acting cavalier.

IIRC, John Kelly came out in defense of Trump during that scandal, only to have Trump piss him off on memorial day while they stood at his son's grave in Arlington.

So yeah... the best part about Aisne-Marne is the vets pretending that they're just now learning that Trump thinks of the army as losers and cannon fodder. I don't even understand why it was this one, given that the others were public statements made on US soil.

Crackersmack has a shit take? Heaven forfend!

*yawn*

runnin' out of steam, huh? bit's getting old?

If I wanted the left to stay home on election day what I would do is plant a story that makes the Biden campaign spend the last two months fellating the military that will never ever vote for him.

Real American macho assholes will never vote for a male cheerleader who went to Yale it's in the bag guys

Crackersmack is like the old vaudevillian of Right Wing Trolls. Or maybe Left Wing Trolls?

It's not clear to me you understand what anonymous sources are from what you wrote.

The journalists do know who the sources are. The sources are not anonymous to the journalist. The citation of the source, however, is anonymous. Typically, journalists cultivate relationships with *trustworthy* sources over years. And even then they will often find corroborating evidence to back up the claims of a given source.

If a source is making a claim that X happened at Y location, the journalist will find other people who were at Y who attest to the truth of X, and they look for other people who do not have a stake in the initial source being right/wrong.

If the initial source wants to remain anonymous, and the journalist trusts and knows them, then the journalist may cite their comment in print as anonymous. If the corroborating source also wants to remain anonymous and the journalist knows the source and trusts them, then the journalist will cite the secondary source anonymously too.

So the sources are not random anonymous people and the confirmation occurs by corroboration. Often editors will ask to see the evidence or hear the testimony of the anonymous source and require more corroboration if they feel the journalist's story needs more credibility.

Then there is typically another layer of fact-checkers who read through stories and attempt toe corroborate claims, often innocuous ones, to make sure the story is accurate. At The Atlantic, fact-checkers are known to call up small bars to confirm, say, there is a Canadian flag hanging behind the bar, if a story mentions such a small detail about the location.

None of this is to say things don't go wrong, or that some people screw up, others lie, but there is a whole system and set of practices that aim at tracking truth.

If Cheney's referring to "The Unknown", it's hardly "devastating." I read it when it came out. It does look at what can and can't be known about who was connected in the Islamist underground at that point, but it's hardly a slam-dunk case connecting AQ to Hussein or a ringing endorsement for war.

The source is John Kelly. The article all but spells it out. The article cites events Kelly was there for and experienced. It specifies Kelly would not confirm the reports on the record, then proceeds to give an account off the record of what he experiences.

There's a reason that every news organization that's tried to confirm it came back with "yep, it's true" right away. Because their very first call would be to Kelly, who is confirming it as long as it's off the record, because of how he's interpreting military ethics and elections.

This is rather different that citing anonymous sources about a conclusion, like "Iraq is linked to Al Qaeda." That's not something the source was present to observe, it's conclusion based on other evidence. Here, the journalists can confirm this person was present and is giving a first hand account.

Daniel Ellsberg was an anonymous source. Deep Throat was an anonymous source.

Trump is a serial liar, but Goldberg has somehow still managed to be still taken seriously even though...well, I'm just saying he is the last person I'd trust.

Just from that sentence, I would infer that he's the second to the last person you'd trust.



5

I mean, everyone else is the ruling class definitely thinks this. Trump just says it out loud.