“This is a blatantly disingenuous attack that should be ignored. Most people would agree that Trump can be brash, but he can also be charming, sincere, and heartfelt, and there is little to see in this controversy of the day.”
The curse of a good memory is that I can never forget bad events, but the blessing of a good memory is that as time goes on many debates begin to sound familiar. Like the sage quote from the tv show Battlestar Galactica, all of this has happened before and will happen again.
The repetition in this case is over President Trump not personally signing the condolence letters sent to each individual military family who lost a family member and using an auto signature device instead. I’m sorry, wait, that was a criticism against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
In 2004, democrats complained that Rumsfeld didn’t personally sign the condolence letters sent to each military family. This would be a minor point if it wasn’t for the pompous grandstanding of politicians and media that made it a big deal. I remember thinking at the time about how amazing it was that there were so few casualties that he could personally sign them.
This wasn’t World War II where America needed giant banks of typists to fill out and mail paperwork for deceased soldiers, but something where each individual soldier’s family could get a phone call, I mean personally signed letter.
I mix the two up because we are again seeing pompous grandstanding over the courtesy granted to a dead servicemen’s family. Democratic Representative Frederica Wilson claims that Trump said that a fallen soldier “knew what he signed up for.” Wilson claims that Trump didn’t know his name, and the liberal media has gone crazy trying to find evidence that Trump didn’t call the families of fallen soldiers or send a letter of condolence to them. President Trump strongly denied the charge from the congresswoman, but ultimately, he shouldn’t have had to.
Just like the 2004 attacks on Rumsfeld, these are disingenuous attacks from liberals that are essentially waving the bloody flag. They are using the tragedy of fallen soldiers to make partisan attacks on Trump. They reflexively oppose Republicans in office, they oppose most of the military actions across the world, and they often view military men and women as Dr. Strangelove type crazies in charge of brutal massacres of civilians around the world.
But we are supposed to believe that liberals and Wilson suddenly care about the honor given to the surviving relatives of fallen soldiers.
The only time liberals don’t view the military that way, is when they can be used as victims of (Republican) politicians that don’t spend enough on health care for the veterans because Republicans are too busy passing tax breaks for millionaires. Or when they turn soldiers into PTSD shells of their former selves’ due to the reckless wars of Republican cowboys.
They also view soldiers in a different light when they can use their suffering to score partisan attacks. Cindy Sheehan received lavish praise and coverage when she protested the Iraq War in front of George Bush’s Texas Ranch. But the same press ignored, fact checked, and marginalized Patricia Smith when she wanted answers about the death of her son in Benghazi.
Keep in mind that liberals are the party that literally will not stand for the flag. This charge comes from a politician that already claimed Trump was “on the brink of impeachment.” But we are supposed to believe that liberals and Wilson suddenly care about the honor given to the surviving relatives of fallen soldiers.
This is a blatantly disingenuous attack that should be ignored. Most people would agree that Trump can be brash, but he can also be charming, sincere, and heartfelt, and there is little to see in this controversy of the day.