Jump to content

John Kelly Refutes That Trump Called Soldiers Losers

Kemp

By Kemp
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Kemp
Kemp

Oh.   He didn't.

US Egg
US Egg

https://sharylattkisson.com/2020/09/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/ Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List DATED: SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 BY SHARYL ATTKISSON

Doc Brown
Doc Brown

Yeah  It seems like a political hit job because of that and nobody going on record.  It looked like they sprinkled in his attacks on McCain in the past to make the disparaging quotes about the militar

Posted Images

Doc Brown Hall of Famer

Doc Brown

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, GG said:

He won't, because Trump has a knack for pissing people off as they walk out the door 

True but that didn't stop Kelly from publicly criticizing Trump about the Ukraine phone call and other disagreements they had during his tenure after he resigned.  It's quite possible Kelly was one of the anonymous sources given Goldberg's connections and that theory will always be out there unless Kelly publicly denies the story.

Edited by Doc Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BullBuchanan Veteran

BullBuchanan

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Golden Goat said:

 

You're judging a whole group based on the actions of a few. I guess it's okay to do that next time an Islamic Terrorist "does something."

No, I'm jugding all of them based on all of their actions. I would judge any associate of a terrorist that did nothing to denounce or intervene the same.

At this point, 100% of all police are either directly guilty of crimes against humanity or indirectly through condoning it. If any such thing as a good cop ever existed, they would have resigned and joined the side of the american people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golden Goat Veteran

Golden Goat

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

No, I'm jugding all of them based on all of their actions. I would judge any associate of a terrorist that did nothing to denounce or intervene the same.

At this point, 100% of all police are either directly guilty of crimes against humanity or indirectly through condoning it. If any such thing as a good cop ever existed, they would have resigned and joined the side of the american people.

 

Something tells me your manifesto will appear in the NYT one day.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Brown Hall of Famer

Doc Brown

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

No, I'm jugding all of them based on all of their actions. I would judge any associate of a terrorist that did nothing to denounce or intervene the same.

At this point, 100% of all police are either directly guilty of crimes against humanity or indirectly through condoning it. If any such thing as a good cop ever existed, they would have resigned and joined the side of the american people.

I feel like this is @DC Tom just screwing with us.

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Yeah it is cowardly if he says nothing given the gravity of the accusations against the president.  He can simply confirm or deny it.

I think that's the point in the no comment. It does give gravity to the probably true accusation. He's a good American and wants this terrible presidency to end. 

1 hour ago, Golden Goat said:

Former national security adviser John Bolton disputed the main thesis of The Atlantic's recent report alleging that President Trump disparaged fallen American soldiers in France, calling the claim "simply false" in an appearance on "The Story" Monday.

LOL, so are all of Bolton's allegations true then? 

 

The weather! 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALF All Pro

ALF

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Golden Goat said:

Former national security adviser John Bolton disputed the main thesis of The Atlantic's recent report alleging that President Trump disparaged fallen American soldiers in France, calling the claim "simply false" in an appearance on "The Story" Monday.

 

John Bolton: Ten biggest claims in his Donald Trump book

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53089609

 

So you are saying these claims are true then

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leh-nerd skin-erd All Pro

leh-nerd skin-erd

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ALF said:

 

John Bolton: Ten biggest claims in his Donald Trump book

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53089609

 

So you are saying these claims are true then

 

Of course, this makes perfect sense.

 

If you believe that someone calling out anonymous rumor mongerers as fraudsters, by extension you accept everything they have ever said on any issue as 100% factual. 

 

Everyone knows that. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SectionC3 Veteran

SectionC3

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Crayola64 said:

this story doesn't really add up or fit trump's character.  he has said some wildly dumb and offensive things about military before (as he has with almost any topic), but this story doesn't pass the smell test.  

Respectfully I disagree.  It fits Trump perfectly.  “I like guys who didn’t get shot down” is fairly consistent with “the guys who died” (this obviously is a paraphrase) are “suckers and losers.”  Whether it’s true or not is in the eye of the beholder; the fact that Kelly hasn’t spiked it says to me that there’s at least some merit to The Atlantic’s reporting.   And the Bolton denial isn’t dispositive until we know whether Trump was within earshot of Bolton at all times relevant to The Atlantic’s reporting.  

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

IT WAS A DEBATE!

 

So the answer is yes?

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

McCain deserved a bit of trash talk. In his later years he’d become part of the problem.

 

Maybe, but not for his military service.  Face it.  Barack Obama showed more respect for the service of John McCain than did Donald Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ALF All Pro

ALF

Posted
Posted


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.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ALF said:


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.

 

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

 

37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I've said for the past four years, the biggest threat Trump posed was to the MiC and their various industries, think tanks, and foreign policy wonks. He ran on gutting their biggest money maker and power source -- and he delivered on his promises to reign them in. 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SectionC3 Veteran

SectionC3

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

It's often about money.

 

Hmmm . . .  So, under your theory, the generals are the ones chasing the money and therefore instigate the war?  Or the civilian leader of the military chases the money and then, without Congressional approval, instigates the war?  I’m confused.  I don’t think we’re in a Rule #2 situation because you’ve expressed an opinion.  I’m simply trying to nail down what exactly that opinion is. 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Same as always.

Misstating what the poster says to fit your own biases.

 

Consistent, I'll give you that.

 

 

 

 

Oh quiet, you post fake news. You follow the biggest liar ever, you think Trump is fit to be president. 

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DFT RFA

DFT

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hmmm . . .  So, under your theory, the generals are the ones chasing the money and therefore instigate the war?  Or the civilian leader of the military chases the money and then, without Congressional approval, instigates the war?  I’m confused.  I don’t think we’re in a Rule #2 situation because you’ve expressed an opinion.  I’m simply trying to nail down what exactly that opinion is. 

By your intentional absence of logic there’s no such thing as war profiteering then.  Just a made up term, right?  Lockheed Martin isn’t a 40+ Billion dollar supplier of all things war for America.  There’s no way they’d be incentivized to facilitate war mongering among politicians and high-ranking military officials who despite earning a streamlined salary, now represent the wealthiest and most powerful in America somehow.  


Let’s lob in a softball, shall we?  One that shows this isn’t a partisan issue but a bi-partisan act of corruption in the swamp...

 

 

Dick Cheney.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chef Jim Hall of Famer

Chef Jim

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hmmm . . .  So, under your theory, the generals are the ones chasing the money and therefore instigate the war?  Or the civilian leader of the military chases the money and then, without Congressional approval, instigates the war?  I’m confused.  I don’t think we’re in a Rule #2 situation because you’ve expressed an opinion.  I’m simply trying to nail down what exactly that opinion is. 


So the Military Industrial Complex is new to you? 
 

The “leaders” of the county have been playing us like a fiddle for a very long time.

 

Coming to a city near you....

 

 The Homeless Industrial Complex?

 

The Covid Industrial Complex?  

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
Posted
On 9/6/2020 at 9:58 AM, DFT said:

Her article:  “Griffin cited two anonymous former “senior” U.S. officials in her reporting, saying they confirmed “key parts” of The Atlantic‘s story. However, she added that the sources could not confirm “the most salacious” part.“
 

the President’s concern:  “Jennifer Griffin of Fox News Did Not Confirm ‘Most Salacious‘ Part of Atlantic Story https://breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/09/04/jennifer-griffin-of-fox-news-did-not-confirm-most-salacious-part-of-atlantic-story/… via @BreitbartNews All refuted by many witnesses. Jennifer Griffin should be fired for this kind of reporting. Never even called us for comment. @FoxNews is gone!”

 

so my question is, why if your sources are unimpeachable, would you not ask the group the story is about?  Why would you not present the facts to the person to hear their side?  Why would anyone have an issue with a sitting president speaking about the dangers of unsubstantiated claims?  You have posts on this very forum where posters have accused you of such that you refer to them as baseless, yet you yourself are firing off at the president for doing what you’ve demonstrably done yourself; Accuse liars who can’t produce evidence, of lying.  
 

help me understand, Kemp.

So you actually think Trump respects the troops? Lol, come on 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

 

 

Okay, we’re calling it — time of death, 17:15pm EST. 

 

The big story of the past few days from The Atlantic concerning President Trump cancelling a cemetery visitation in France and saying grievously slanderous things about the dead war veterans had suffered some life-threatening injuries rather quickly, but it managed to hang for a few days. A holiday weekend, and the media’s desire to resuscitate in the press ICU, meant this goner lingered for a while. But all attempts to keep this scandal on life support have now failed and we can say this thing has officially flat-lined.

 

Much like I occasionally do with horrible films, I will drop this DOA story on a gurney and roll it into the lab for a post mortem. Learning the cause of death we begin to see the way our contemporary media complex is operating these days on behalf of one party. Cutting into this corpse of a scandal we see three aspects to it: The Facts, The Narrative, and The Delivery.  

 

Starting with the last, what we were witness to was a coordinated hit piece. This is not debatable; more than bearing the earmarks, the choreography behind this hit is quite evident based on how all the players interacted, and the timeline. The only mystery is whether this was intended as a classic October Surprise, and that its deployment needed to be moved up. With Biden’s slipping persona, Trump surging in the polls, and a number of other Democrat foibles last week, it might have been needed to sway the news cycle much earlier than desired.

 

The Atlantic dropped this story initially on Thursday evening, and the first sign of manufacture is that this was not a Breaking news item. On Thursday Jeffery Goldberg’s piece came out detailing the Trump visit in 2018 to honor the 100 year anniversary of the Armistice. He was scheduled to commemorate by attending a ceremony at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris, but Goldberg claimed it was cancelled by the President because the rain would affect his hair. Further Goldberg reported that Trump said the cemetery was ”filled with losers,’’ and then added that 1,800 Marines who lost their lives were ”suckers’’ for getting killed. 

 

This smacks of people placing words in the President’s mouth and having them believed based on confirmation bias. More than just the unreal nature of these quotes, we have years of President Trump paying deference to the military, with regular visits to recently wounded soldiers a prominent feature that eclipses unattributed testimony about 2 year old conversations.

 

Then, in an attempt to bolster the report, in an amazing dose of coincidence James Laporta from the Associated Press also came out Thursday evening with a similar story, with sources reiterating the comments made by the President. He appeared on Rachel Maddow’s show Thursday night to lend his details. And then, in an impressively remarkable production speed, a veterans PAC came out with an opposition commercial spot that featured these quotes attributed to Trump. This commercial made its debut on Morning Joe — the next morning, less than 24 hours after the article was released. The ad even quoted sections of the Goldberg article. 

 

So everything was cemented into place for a long weekend run of damage. A blistering report, a corroboration, and then a veterans group scorching the President; This would basically write itself and then become reflected in the polls by the end of the week. Until the Facts arrived.

 

It took little time for the White House to come out with documents from that French trip in 2018. Those papers showed that it was not a vain President but the Secret Service who had determined that bad weather would preclude a Presidential visit. This was a detail that was known and reported back in 2018. In addition, the military-hating President did attend a cemetery ceremony the following day, on November 11. Yet here was Goldberg delivering a completely different version of events, and presenting it as scandalous. 

 

One detail that is revealing about the media is that in light of this factual error blasting the claims out of the water the other portion of the story was fiercely defended. Very little has been made of the provably wrong details made by Goldberg, and instead of discrediting the rest of his report the press has instead fought desperately to insist the quotes attributed to Trump are ironclad. Goldberg had nothing but anonymous contacts insisting that Trump said these things, but this, as we know, is to be treated as gospel in journalist circles.

 

{snip}

 

This is the level the press has resorted to on the matter. They no longer have facts and witness testimony to rely upon for a proven story, so the fallback is essentially saying, ”Well…none of this completely disproves it might not have happened…’’ So we are now in the age of reporting on rumors, and it is up to others to disprove the negative, as reported in the mainstream press.

 

Hang the toe tag, and slide this stiff into the drawer.

 

https://www.redstate.com/bradslager/2020/09/08/performing-an-autopsy-on-the-atlantic-expose-reveals-the-anatomy-of-a-manufactured-scandal/

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...