Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

They say anonymous in the article, and if they aren't cited, they're anonymous, despite the mental gymnastics. 

 

Regardless, the "sources" are entirely what this accusation hinges on, the rest are biases and assumptions, and clearly all this are leaps you're willing to take despite countless smear efforts just like this being completely wrong. 

 

Don't worry though this piece will have zero effect on his presidency and the election. 

The word anonymous does not appear in the article. 

"These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

This is different because the journalist knows the person, can verify the quote and collaborate it with other sources and their ability to even hear remarks. The person is not unknown, just unknown by us. Speaking on background is common with journalists, no news there. 

We do know that Gen Matis has had several interviews with the Atlantic.

 

On the other hand: Sarah Saunders did support the president's version and should have been well placed to know, but couldn't be in the room 24 x7. Pompeo stated he never heard the President use those words. So that does weigh in the side against the article.

 

The credibility factor for me comes with my first hand observation of the man's patterns and lack of depth on the topic of military history, or any history for that matter.

On a personal note:

The comments he made about John McCain about liking those who are not captured still sticks in my throat.  That lack of understanding and support for any veteran, in particular for those who lost limbs or worse, was a deal breaker for me.

I am the first generation in my family that did not serve active duty in a conflict since WWI. That felt personal.

 

If you can impeach the ethics of the Atlantic and staff, bring some proof. For now I am saying it is a credible article.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

The word anonymous does not appear in the article. 

"These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

This is different because the journalist knows the person, can verify the quote and collaborate it with other sources and their ability to even hear remarks. The person is not unknown, just unknown by us. Speaking on background is common with journalists, no news there. 

We do know that Gen Matis has had several interviews with the Atlantic.

 

On the other hand: Sarah Saunders did support the president's version and should have been well placed to know, but couldn't be in the room 24 x7. Pompeo stated he never heard the President use those words. So that does weigh in the side against the article.

 

The credibility factor for me comes with my first hand observation of the man's patterns and lack of depth on the topic of military history, or any history for that matter.

On a personal note:

The comments he made about John McCain about liking those who are not captured still sticks in my throat.  That lack of understanding and support for any veteran, in particular for those who lost limbs or worse, was a deal breaker for me.

I am the first generation in my family that did not serve active duty in a conflict since WWI. That felt personal.

 

If you can impeach the ethics of the Atlantic and staff, bring some proof. For now I am saying it is a credible article.

Even John Bolton denies it happens.

 

"Marine One's crew was saying that bad visibility could make it imprudent to chopper to the cemetery," Bolton wrote. "The ceiling was not too low for Marines to fly in combat, but flying POTUS was obviously something very different. If a motorcade were necessary, it could take between ninety and a hundred and twenty minutes each way, along roads that were not exactly freeways, posing an unacceptable risk that we could not get the President out of France quickly enough in case of an emergency. It was a straightforward decision to cancel the visit..."

 

Both sources also noted that Trump was not worried about how the weather would affect his hair, as The Atlantic reported. Trump the next day stood in the rain for an hour at a different event.

 

Both excerpts  are from NBs link on the previous page.

 

I am but one generation in 4, with multiple people who served throughout my family, and I didn't take it personally because it doesn't sound like something Trump would say.  For now, I rate the "credible article" a Big Fat Lie, particularly because the "sources" don't have the intestinal fortitude to use their real names two years after the event allegedly happened.  Why wasn't it talked about back in 2018?  Why now, just 60 days prior to the election?  It's clearly a smear article by the left-leaning author who dislikes Trump, nothing more.

[Dashinka 24,436]

59 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

The word anonymous does not appear in the article. 

"These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

This is different because the journalist knows the person, can verify the quote and collaborate it with other sources and their ability to even hear remarks. The person is not unknown, just unknown by us. Speaking on background is common with journalists, no news there. 

We do know that Gen Matis has had several interviews with the Atlantic.

 

On the other hand: Sarah Saunders did support the president's version and should have been well placed to know, but couldn't be in the room 24 x7. Pompeo stated he never heard the President use those words. So that does weigh in the side against the article.

 

The credibility factor for me comes with my first hand observation of the man's patterns and lack of depth on the topic of military history, or any history for that matter.

On a personal note:

The comments he made about John McCain about liking those who are not captured still sticks in my throat.  That lack of understanding and support for any veteran, in particular for those who lost limbs or worse, was a deal breaker for me.

I am the first generation in my family that did not serve active duty in a conflict since WWI. That felt personal.

 

If you can impeach the ethics of the Atlantic and staff, bring some proof. For now I am saying it is a credible article.

Again, you are making an assumption the writer did not make this up themselves.  Considering how the Dems had their attack ad out almost immediately after this story, I could certainly see this being a made up narrative.  

 

But let's take your assumption at face value that the "journalist" knows these sources on some level, why aren't these sources willing to actually come forward now that at least five or six others have refuting the story along with one of Trump's biggest detractors John Bolton?  The sources refuting the story aren't afraid to hide their identities even though the Left is so militant at the moment.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

The word anonymous does not appear in the article. 

"These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity."

This is different because the journalist knows the person, can verify the quote and collaborate it with other sources and their ability to even hear remarks. The person is not unknown, just unknown by us. Speaking on background is common with journalists, no news there. 

We do know that Gen Matis has had several interviews with the Atlantic.

 

On the other hand: Sarah Saunders did support the president's version and should have been well placed to know, but couldn't be in the room 24 x7. Pompeo stated he never heard the President use those words. So that does weigh in the side against the article.

 

The credibility factor for me comes with my first hand observation of the man's patterns and lack of depth on the topic of military history, or any history for that matter.

On a personal note:

The comments he made about John McCain about liking those who are not captured still sticks in my throat.  That lack of understanding and support for any veteran, in particular for those who lost limbs or worse, was a deal breaker for me.

I am the first generation in my family that did not serve active duty in a conflict since WWI. That felt personal.

 

If you can impeach the ethics of the Atlantic and staff, bring some proof. For now I am saying it is a credible article.

Anonymity means anonymous. 

 

There's no question of the credibility of it anymore than Yovanovich and everyone else talking to others about their feelings of an event. Doesn't speak to facts just someone's opinion of them. Hence, trash. 

 

The Atlantic has writers that insist Saddam had ties to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, those writers love instigating international conflicts, and one of them happens to be who you cited. There's no question the source has an affinity for fiction and of the tabloid variety, which is why the guy still works there and lead their organization to peddle this very fiction. I mean.. orange man bad! 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Anyone else checking the posts and likes just to get an even bigger laugh?

 

Orange man baaaaaaad. 

 

It really doesn't get old. I'll reiterate though.. it suffers serious diminishing returns on the end goal of hurting Trump. 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

I read 500 ways someone wants to believe its true, people just need to be more honest about the fact that they don't care if something is true or not they just want their daily dose of orange man bad stories (which is solely what this garbage delivers on). Their only hope is that all the hammering of fiction demoralizes Trump supporters into following along or not opposing them. That's where I say it suffers diminishing returns. Time to abandon this failing strategy and look for another methodological red button to lazily hit over and over and over. This one is worn out and busted. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

The Bee is in trouble:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,436]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The Bee is in trouble:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Angry tweets!  Really?  There is an easy solution for that, get off Twitter.  

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Anonymity means anonymous. 

 

WHAT?!?  WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?  Did covid-19 cause it?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

and cbs had no problem with this absurdity being the lead story, really playing it up as true. Then have the balls to talk about integrity and Walter Cronkite. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

and cbs had no problem with this absurdity being the lead story, really playing it up as true. Then have the balls to talk about integrity and Walter Cronkite. 

Aaaaaannnnddddd.... millions of TDS sufferers fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.  It really is a shame that people have become such lambs being led to the slaughter.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

23 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

It is clear that the main source is Mattis, others where identified as currently inside DOD

Mattis wouldn't do "anonymous sources" he would come straight for you. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

5 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Angry tweets!  Really?  There is an easy solution for that, get off Twitter.  

 

 

That would be great but the media elite literally live on it. So it's good to get a read of the room so to speak

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

38 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Aaaaaannnnddddd.... millions of TDS sufferers fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.  It really is a shame that people have become such lambs being led to the slaughter.

Dude, the same usual people are all over this like it is true. It is so sickening that people just believe this hook line and sinker. 


Someone had the gall to say to me and someone else I know that "we are despicable for not believing this, and we don't love our people in uniform at all, and hate this country". I quickly fired back that how dare she call me that because I served overseas and the other woman she is responding to her husband is currently deployed as we speak. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

As I said, Trump upsetting the right people:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/27/alexandra-chalupas-mission-to-take-down-candidate-and-president-donald-trump/amp/

 

Quote

 

Chalupa’s Mission to Take Down Candidate and President Donald Trump

27 Nov 2019

 

Quote

it is in another Politico investigative piece in January 2017 that reveals — despite media and Democrat denials — Ukraine’s efforts to influence the 2016 election and that Chalupa lent them a hand.

Quote

 

In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.

The Politico report also said Chalupa shared her research with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, including the narrative about Russia/Trump collusion.

 

Quote

 

In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.

The Politico report also said Chalupa shared her research with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, including the narrative about Russia/Trump collusion.

 

 

 

Remember all that outrage about foreign interference and seeking dirt on Clinton? Yeah.. totally absent here.