Posts : 6359 Join date : 2012-06-14 Location : Pensacola Beach, FL
Can only hope you're right, and that the Teflon Donald finally falls, but somehow I doubt it.
Still, was delighted to see Sully Sullenberger lay into Trump. Many, many more such respected figures -- including those who can directly corroborate The Atlantic's story -- need to step up to the plate, and NOW:
Of course his cult will excuse him for it, the way they excuse everything else he does. But, they're digging themselves a hole that they're going to have to live in.
What amazes me is how fucking stupid right-wingers are. First, they don't understand what "anonymous sources" are. They think just anybody said these things. The sources aren't anonymous to the reporters. These are not just random people off the street. Second, they think because a few Trump loyalists say they didn't hear it, then it's been "debunked" and didn't happen. I wasn't there when Hank Aaron hit any of his home runs, so does that mean Hank never hit a home run? I know conservatives tend toward the dumb side, but I thought they'd at least achieved object permanence.
And Trump leaves himself wide open to things like this. He's said -- and continues to say -- so many, let's call them "proctological statements" that it's very believable that he said these things. And worse. I'm waiting for some "n-word" stuff from The Apprentice to show up. Ordinarily I'd be more skeptical, but in Trump's case, I'd be more surprised if he didn't do it.
It's a matter of common sense... which you're willing to suspend for strictly political/ideological purposes. This should be a litmus test for useful idiots. You're happy to take an account with only anonymous "sources". You have no idea who they are or whether they're credible... hell they might not have been there or even be real. On the other hand... there are first person accounts from people known to be there that have responded in public... on the record. Some of them don't even like Trump. But you parrot the unknowns because you're told to... unquestioning. Gawd comrades are easy.
Trump launches unprecedented attack on military leadership he appointed
(CNN)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.
"I'm not saying the military's in love with me -- the soldiers are, the top people in the Pentagon probably aren't because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy," Trump told reporters at a White House news conference.
Trump's extraordinary comments come as several defense officials tell CNN relations between the President and Pentagon leadership are becoming increasingly strained.
They also followed efforts by Trump to convince the public that he had not made a series of reported disparaging remarks about US military personnel and veterans, which were first reported by The Atlantic magazine.
Trump referred to Marines buried at cemetery in France in crude and derogatory terms, a former senior official says
A former senior administration official confirmed to CNN that Trump referred to fallen US service members at the Aisne-Marne cemetery in crude and derogatory terms during a November 2018 trip to France to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. Other outlets, including Fox News, have confirmed much of The Atlantic's reporting, which Trump and the White House vehemently deny.
Some have expressed concern that the President's Monday accusations against the military's top brass could have a corrosive effect. "The President's comments about the motivations of military leaders not only demeans their service and that of those they lead; he lends credence to the very disdain and thoughtlessness he tries to deny," retired US Navy Rear Admiral and CNN analyst John Kirby said.
The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment on Monday's remarks. The Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. James McConville, declined to comment directly on the Trump's statement on Tuesday but rejected the idea that military commanders are influenced by defense firms.
"I can assure the American people that the senior leaders would only recommend sending our troops to combat when it's required in national security and the last resort. We take this very, very seriously in how we make our recommendations and I think that's all I can really say on that, I feel strongly about that," he said at an event hosted by Defense One.
McConville also noted that many of the top military leaders at the Pentagon "have sons and daughters who have gone to combat or may be in combat right now."
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows appeared to attempt to walk back Trump's comments during an interview with Fox Business on Tuesday, saying the President's accusations against the "top people at the Pentagon" were not directed specifically at people like Secretary of Defense Mark Esper or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.
"Those comments are not directed specifically at them as much as it is what we all know happens in Washington, DC," Meadows said, saying "That comment was more directed about the military industrial complex." While Trump has publicly disparaged the service of several high-profile veterans such as the late Sen. John McCain and his former Secretary of Defense, retired Gen. Jim Mattis, Monday's broadside was on a new level targeting leaders he appointed to carry out his orders.
Trump has also repeatedly touted boosting the defense budget as one of his administration's major accomplishments, citing it as evidence of his support for the military, spending that has also benefited defense contractors.
Top commanders exhausted and worried
CNN has previously reported that relations between Trump and Esper are tense, with Trump believed to be on the verge of replacing him. But, less than two months from the presidential election, the Pentagon's top commanders are growing increasingly exhausted and worried about their relationship with the President, several defense officials tell CNN.
A critical area of concern is how the Pentagon would respond if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to put US military troops on the streets to deal with civilian protestors as he continues to stoke divisions across the country in the run up to the election. Trump floated the idea last month and, after he first made the threat in June, Esper publicly broke with him by saying he opposed any such move.
At home on Labor Day, Trump wages rambling attack on Biden To avoid a new showdown with the White House, for the last several weeks, top military officials -- including Milley -- have been getting regular briefings on civil unrest in major cities across the country. The idea is to be ready with alternative plans for state-activated National Guard and other federal civilian law enforcement rather than have active duty troops potentially clash with protesters, according to several defense officials.
Another issue that could lead to a clash between Trump and military leadership is the $740 billion defense bill that would strip the names of Confederate generals in the face of vocal opposition from Trump who said he'd veto any move.
The entire Joint Chiefs have made it clear they want to eliminate what they see as the divisive symbols of the Confederacy.
Milley did not hold back on the issue in appearance before Congress in July, stating that "those officers turned their back on their oath," referring to the names on the bases. "It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the US Constitution."
Military leadership have embarked on several initiatives aimed at improving racial inclusion. Officials say it is vital work to ensure that when troops go to war, they are a cohesive fighting force.
There are also very real concerns about the aftermath of November's election, particularly if the result is not immediately clear after election night. Last month Milley told members of Congress that the military will not play a role in the election and won't help settle any disputes if the results are contested.
"In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. Military," Milley wrote in a letter to the House Armed services committee.
Top US general tells Congress the military won't play a role in the 2020 election
"I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military," Milley wrote. Despite what Milley stated, should there be some kind of constitutional crisis if the election result is unclear, the military could well be put in a tricky position especially as Trump's opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, floated the idea they might become involved in an interview in June.
"I promise you, I'm absolutely convinced they will escort him from the White House with great dispatch," Biden said, referring to the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff.
On top of that uncertainty there are concerns Trump may launch military action against an adversary before Inauguration Day, regardless of who wins the White House are also front and center for the top brass.
CNN's Kevin Liptak and Jim Acosta contributed to this report.
That nails it about as well as anything can nail it.
Trump will have Republicans defend him because Republicans are tribal. Even though they're embarrassed by this guy, even though they know he's a scumbag, he's their scumbag. I've seen and heard that a zillion times in my own family. Like I've said before, I have Republican operatives in my extended family. I've got a millionaire cousin who's tight with Trent Lott and Haley Barbour (Trent, especially, has even taken payoffs to get armed robbery off this guy's son's record). I've got other cousins who work with the Pickerings... and that is one seriously sleazy family. And all of 'em know damn well that they're involved in a group that's far more organized crime than it is a political party... and they don't care, because they want to stay in power no matter what. And right now their fate is tied to Trump's.
They're panicked because their bigoty-ass voters finally got so entranced by ol' Donnie HatesMexicansAndBlacksAndMuslimsAndChina that they put somebody in office who was too incompetent to keep facade up over all the corruption. Dumb Donald has been surrounded by nothing but yes-men his whole life and doesn't know you're supposed to put up a front over the criminal activities. And, for the most part, his supporters turn a blind eye to it because "at least he hates liberals and minorities, so what if he's robbing us?!" They're good Germans.
But, yeah, no matter how much they may not like Trump, they're trying to defend themselves. Who the hell wants to admit that they're in a party whose leader would say that shit about veterans? More importantly, who's gonna admit that they heard it and didn't do anything about it? You think Sarah Huckabee and all the rest are gonna say, "Yeah, we heard him say that, but we didn't cuss him out and quit?" Fuck NO they're not gonna admit that! They'd be implicated in it, too, and it's VILE.
Meanwhile, the "anonymous sources" (which, again, are only anonymous to the public, not the reporters) and their accounts have been confirmed by multiple sources, including FOX News.
People can keep defending Trump all the want, mostly because they have too much of their ego tied up in this and don't like admitting liberals were right about the bastard. They'll go down denying everything and make fools of themselves just out of spite... and Trump knows it and takes full advantage of 'em.
Hell, that's why he never bothers to adjust his behavior at all. Why should he? He knows his base are a bunch of immoral posers with no guts and no integrity and no character. Why not drag them down to the bottom, just for shits and giggles? They're letting him do it.