Tag Archives: The Atlantic

military news

I am not a ‘sucker’ or a ‘loser’

Donald Trump went too far long ago. He’s done it once again if what we understand is being reported is true … and I believe what I have read about the current president of the United States.

He has labeled those who were injured or killed in battle as “losers,” and has denigrated those who were captured by the enemy as incompetent warriors.

Trump infamously avoided service during the Vietnam War by finding a doc who would sign off on a medical deferment proclaiming young Donald suffered from bone spurs.

I’ve set the table a bit for what I want to say next.

I happen to be one of those “suckers” and “losers” who sought duty during the Vietnam War. I, of course, do not believe I fit either of those descriptions. Indeed, if there is a sucker and a loser among us, it would be Donald Trump and those like him who parlayed their family wealth and connections into avoidance of public service.

My U.S. Army training class finished its work in early 1969. All of those in our training battalion who learned how to service OV-1 Mohawk airplanes received orders for Korea. But then I developed a medical problem that forced cancellation of my orders.

I stayed behind to be treated for a training injury I suffered. While recovering from a minor surgical procedure, I volunteered for duty in ‘Nam. Why? Because I wanted to see for myself what returning servicemen had experienced during their tours.

The Army granted me my wish. Off I went and I reported for duty at Marble Mountain, Da Nang in March 1969.

Do I consider that an act of a sucker or a loser? No. I sought to serve my country. That’s what I did.

As for Donald Trump and other like-minded draft evaders, they chose another course for their lives. Trump, of course, is the one in the news these days, owing to The Atlantic article that details his loathing and disrespect of those of us who answered the call to duty.

I didn’t receive any medals for valor during my time in a war zone. I did my job to the best of my ability and then came home. At some level, though, the experience enriched me and helped me find my way through the life that awaited me.

That life hasn’t marked me as a sucker or a loser.

It damn sure enrages me when I hear a real sucker and loser like Trump portray my duty as something other than honorable.

military news

Who’s the ‘loser’?

7 Comments

I went to sleep last night after having just read a horrifying tale detailing Donald Trump’s profound disrespect for men and women who have paid the price of defending our freedom against our enemies.

I awoke this morning still believing what I had read.

The Atlantic has reported a litany of examples of Trump disparaging the service that our military personnel have performed. Not to mention the price some of paid with their very lives.

The reporting by Jeffrey Goldberg appears to be well-sourced … and it is credible.

What gives the story its credibility, at least to me, are the words that Trump blurted out in public in 2015 when he was asked to comment on the service performed by the late Sen. John McCain. Someone asked Trump if he considered McCain to be a war hero. Trump’s answer spoke volumes.

McCain is a “hero only because he was captured” by the North Vietnamese after being shot down during the Vietnam War, Trump said. Then he said, “I like those who aren’t captured, OK?”

Can there be any more validation of what Jeffrey Goldberg reported than Trump’s own words? Of course, Trump denies disparaging those who served and died in defense of the nation. The White House has issued a denial as well. You would expect that from both the president and those who work for him.

However, the ring of truth to what has been reported is clanging in my ear. I happen to believe that the man with no public service in his pre-presidency background, the guy who sought bogus medical deferments from serving in the Vietnam War is fully capable of saying what has been reported.

I believe we have been handed a graphic and hideous example of this individual’s unfitness for the job he is trying to keep.

If you read the entire story that I have attached here, I trust you’ll be as horrified as I am. The real “loser” in this episode is the individual who has thrown the term around about our nation’s heroes.

media news, national news

Trump, as POTUS, has nowhere to hide

The Atlantic magazine has published a lengthy article detailing the difficulties facing Donald John Trump.

It goes through a lot of what many of us know already: his missteps, his hiring decisions, his carelessness with classified information and, of course, his international relationships.

Here’s the article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/all-the-kings-men/526980/

It paints a grim picture and suggests that Trump’s presidency is collapsing before our eyes.

Maybe it is. Maybe not.

The most interesting analysis in my mind, though, comes near the end. The Atlantic notes that as a private business executive, Trump could fire people at will; he was the CEO and no one would dare question his authority. As a candidate for the only public office he ever sought, the presidency, he could change the subject when he misspoke or — more likely — revealed some dark spot in his heart.

As president, though, he has nowhere to hide. He must stand front and center for every single thing he does or says.

And, yes, the media are there to watch, to listen and to report his dealings to the world. It’s what the media do.

The president no longer can get away with blaming “fake news” media reports. Every wound from which he suffers has been self-inflicted by someone whose business acumen simply doesn’t translate to political knowledge.

media news, national news, political news

‘Atlantic’ makes history with endorsement

96b/33/fott/4810/10

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s pile of media endorsements has added a significant new voice.

While I have conceded that endorsements from elite media organs don’t pack the wallop they once did, this one has gotten some traction.

“The Atlantic” has issued its third presidential endorsement in its 159-year history. The first one went to the nation’s first Republican presidential candidate, a guy named Abraham Lincoln, in 1860.

Five score and four years later, in 1964, “The Atlantic” weighed in with an endorsement of President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Now it has backed Hillary Clinton.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-case-for-hillary-clinton-and-against-donald-trump/501161/?utm_source=atlfb

Here’s a snippet from the editorial: “Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”

This is a fascinating development as the campaign heads for its final month. I’m so glad it’s almost over. I am running out of stamina listening to the candidates trashing each other.

“The Atlantic” concludes its editorial endorsement with this: “We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.”

Ouch, man!

To be candid, the endorsement doesn’t convey unbridled confidence in Clinton’s standing. It’s more of a non-endorsement of  Donald J. Trump. I suppose that sums up what has shaped up to be the theme of this campaign: The candidates cannot stand on their own record exclusively, so they pound away at their opponents’ weaknesses.

Trump is the most profoundly unqualified and unfit candidate for the presidency most of us ever have seen.

Will this endorsement matter? Will it be the difference between winning and losing? I doubt it. Still, it’s worth your time to read and to digest what the editors of a distinguished publication have to say about the next election for the presidency of the United States.

Oh, I am so glad it’s about to be over.