Reports about Donald Trump calling veterans interred in cemeteries "suckers" and "losers"

Echo report published in Military Times by James LaPorta (AP)

DELRAY BEACH, FLa. — A new report details multiple instances of President Donald Trump making disparaging remarks about members of the U.S. military who have been captured or killed, including referring to the American war dead at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France in 2018, as “losers” and “suckers.”

Trump's disparaging "suckers and losers" description about veterans were first reported in The Atlantic. 

A senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press, including the 2018, cemetery comments.

Omaha Beach became a bloodbath on 6 June,1944

The defense officials said Trump made the comments as he begged off visiting the cemetery outside Paris during a meeting following his presidential daily briefing on the morning of Nov. 10, 2018.

Staffers from the National Security Council and the Secret Service told Trump that rainy weather made helicopter travel to the cemetery risky, but they could drive there. Trump responded by saying he didn’t want to visit the cemetery because it was “filled with losers,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The Trump White House blamed the canceled visit on poor weather at the time.

In another conversation on the trip, The Atlantic said, Trump referred to the 1,800 Marines who died in the World War I, battle of Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.

Trump also reiterated the White House explanation of why he didn’t visit the cemetery. “The helicopter could not fly,” he said, because of the rain and fog. “The Secret Service told me you can’t do it. ... They would never have been able to get the police and everybody else in line to have a president go through a very crowded, very congested area.”

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, “If the revelations reported in The Atlantic article are true, then they are yet another marker of how deeply President Trump and I disagree about the role of the President of the United States.”

“Duty, honor, country — those are the values that drive our service members,” he said in a statement Thursday night, adding that if he is elected president, “I will ensure that our American heroes know that I will have their back and honor their sacrifice — always.” Biden’s son Beau served in Iraq in 2008-09.

The Defense officials also confirmed to The AP, reporting in The Atlantic that Trump, on Memorial Day 2017, had gone with his chief of staff, John Kelly, to visit the Arlington Cemetery gravesite of Kelly’s son, Robert, who was killed in 2010, in Afghanistan, and said to Kelly: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”

Maine Writer Juliana L'Heureux at Senator John McCain's headstone in the U.S. Naval Acadamy cemetery in Annapolis, Maryland God Bless John McCain (b. 1936- d. 2018).

The senior Marine Corps officer and The Atlantic, citing sources with firsthand knowledge, also reported that Trump said he didn’t want to support the August 2018, funeral of Republican Sen. John McCain, a decorated Navy veteran who spent years as a Vietnam prisoner of war, because he was a “loser.” The Atlantic also reported that Trump was angered that flags were flown at half-staff for McCain, saying: “What the f—- are we doing that for? Guy was a f—-ing loser.”

Trump acknowledged Thursday he was “never a fan” of McCain and disagreed with him,

Salute to Captain Brett Crozier

CommentaryThe U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt episode was no isolated incident, but a portent of worse to come.  Captain Brett Crozier is now, himself, hopefully, recovering from coronavirus.

An echo opinion published in Military News by Andrew Milburn

The recent imbroglio (i.e., a problematic relationship) involving the (outrageous!) firing of the Captain Brett Crozier, of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, and the subsequent resignation by Secretary of the (stupid, unqualified and incompetent!) Navy Thomas Modly*, has provided a spectacle of theater to rival the Tiger King, in capturing the attention of a quarantine weary country.

The incident began when the Roosevelt’s commanding officer, Captain Crozier, concerned about the pace of the Navy’s response to an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard his ship, wrote an e-mail to colleagues that was subsequently leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Now, it appears that Modly misrepresented the dissemination of Crozier’s e mail as being significantly more careless than the distribution list implied. It was addressed to Crozier’s commanding officer, Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. John Aquilino, and Naval Air Forces commander Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, thus invalidating Modly’s claim that Crozier had bypassed his chain of command. 

Nevertheless, Modly (inappropriately ) relieved (the beloved) Crozier of his duties.

Crozier departed the ship in Guam amidst a well-publicized send-off by his crew who evidently held him in high regard. Then, in a bizarre sequel, Modly, apparently angered by this display of loyalty and determined to stay in the good graces of the White House, flew to Guam and addressed the ship’s crew in a terms that were at best intemperate and at times insulting to their former commanding officer. To make matters worse, despite his long trip from the United States at great cost to the taxpayer, Modly spent less than 30 minutes on board (see my postscript), and made no attempt to visit with the crew. After the Secretary’s speech was made public, Modly offered first an apology, then his resignation.

Unfortunately, this astonishing episode was no isolated incident, but rather another disturbing manifestation of the current administration’s drive to politicize the military. The skipper’s relief and the secretary’s self-immolation were interesting grist for the news cycle, but this dismal story points at a darker problem.

The incident began when the Roosevelt’s commanding officer, Captain Crozier, concerned about the pace of the Navy’s response to an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard his ship, wrote an e-mail to colleagues that was subsequently leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Now it appears that Modly misrepresented the dissemination of Crozier’s e mail as being significantly more careless than the distribution list implied. It was addressed to Crozier’s commanding officer, Rear Adm. Stuart Baker, U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. John Aquilino, and Naval Air Forces commander Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, thus invalidating Modly’s claim that Crozier had bypassed his chain of command. Nevertheless, Modly relieved Crozier of his duties.

Crozier departed the ship in Guam amidst a well-publicized send-off by his crew who evidently held him in high regard. Then, in a bizarre sequel, Modly, apparently angered by this display of loyalty and determined to stay in the good graces of the White House, flew to Guam and addressed the ship’s crew in a terms that were at best intemperate and at times insulting to their former commanding officer. To make matters worse, despite his long trip from the United States at great cost to the taxpayer, Modly spent less than 30 minutes on board, and made no attempt to visit with the crew. After the Secretary’s speech was made public, Modly offered first an apology, then his resignation.

Unfortunately, this astonishing episode was no isolated incident, but rather another disturbing manifestation of the current administration’s drive to politicize the military. The skipper’s relief and the secretary’s self-immolation were interesting grist for the news cycle, but this dismal story points at a darker problem.

As several commentators have recently observed, the norms of civil military relations have over the last three years have steadily been eroded. When norms are continuously violated without anyone making a stand to defend them, they simply cease to be norms — the exceptions accrete into a new rule. That should be of concern, not just to the US military which has always prided itself on being apolitical, but to the country as a whole, whose democratic values depend in part on a healthy relationship between the military and its civilian leadership.

Imagine a military in which senior ranks are awarded according to political affiliation, in which political proselytization of subordinates becomes commonplace, and in which displays of political allegiance become a regular fixture of professional events. These scenarios may appear to be somewhat far-fetched, but senior uniformed leadership has already tacitly accepted the first steps down the road to a military in which this kind of behavior is the new norm.

From the beginning of this administration, it became clear that this president didn’t necessarily understand or respect the terms of the implicit contract, grounded largely on Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington’s 1957 classic The Soldier and the State, that has, throughout successive administrations, helped maintain what has been mostly a well-balanced civil military relationship, based on mutual respect and trust.

Modly owes taxpayers reimbursement for his stupid trip to Guam, his incompetence could convince the Navy to reinstate a "walk the plank" punishment.

In my opinion post script- Maine Writer calls for the fired and unqualified former Secretary of the Navy to reimburse tax payers for the cost of his totally bogus trip to Guam, a futile act of despereation that amplified his incompetent failed leadership. Furthermore, the idiot Modly brings to mind how the Navy could authorize a reinstatement of a "walk the plank" punishment. 

A national treasure is killed in Afghanistan

Military News reporting death of US Army Sargeant

Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher A. Celiz, 32, was killed in Afghanistan July 12, 2018. Celiz, who was assigned to Company D, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, was the second U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan in a week. (U.S. Army photo)

Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Andrew CelizOne of his commanders called him a "national treasure" 

Army IDs Ranger Killed in Combat in Afghanistan

Sadly, the Army has identified Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Andrew Celiz as the soldier killed during a combat mission in Afghanistan on Thursday.

Celiz, 32, from Summerville, South Carolina, died of wounds from enemy small-arms fire, according to an Army news release. He'd been conducting operations in support of a medical evacuation landing zone in Zurmat district, Paktia province.

An Afghan security force member was also killed in the incident, and several others were wounded. The attack is under investigation.

Celiz was the second U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan in five days. On July 7, Army Cpl. Joseph Maciel, a 20-year-old infantryman from California, was killed in an apparent insider attack in southern Afghanistan.

Celiz was assigned to Company D, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, based out of Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia. One of his commanders called him a "national treasure" who led his Rangers with "passion, competence, and an infectiously positive attitude no matter the situation."

"The 75th Ranger Regiment suffered a tremendous loss with the passing of Sgt. 1st Class Chris Celiz," Col. Brandon Tegtmeier, the 75th Ranger Regiment commander, said in a statement. "The Celiz family has been a critical component of our team and their community in Savannah, Georgia.

"He will be greatly missed," Tegtmeier added.

Celiz was immediately treated for his wounds and medically evacuated to the nearest treatment facility, where he died. He was serving as the battalion mortar platoon sergeant and was in the process of reclassifying to the infantry branch.

He was on his fifth deployment with 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment. Celiz also previously deployed to Iraq in 2008 and Afghanistan in 2009.

Celiz was a "great Ranger leader" who will be sorely missed, Lt. Col. Sean McGee, commander of 1st Ranger Battalion, said in a statement.

"He had an incredibly positive attitude that inspired Rangers throughout the formation," McGee said. "Sgt. 1st Class Celiz led from the front and always put himself at the decisive point on the battlefield. He was a loving husband and father, and he and his family have been an important part of the fabric that represents 1st Ranger Battalion and the Savannah community."

In 2013, Celiz was selected to serve with the 75th Ranger Regiment as a combat engineer. He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, where he served as the battalion master breacher and engineer.

In March 2017, he was assigned to Company D, where he served as the mortar platoon sergeant.

Celiz joined the Army in September 2007. He completed Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training as a combat engineer at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

His first assignment was as a combat engineer and team leader with Company E, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, out of Fort Hood, Texas. He was transferred to be a team leader with Company C, 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, also at Fort Hood, and then to Fort Stewart in Georgia, where he served as a Sapper squad leader and platoon sergeant with the 530th Engineer Clearance Company, 92nd Engineer Battalion.

Celiz has been posthumously awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart, the Army release states.

His other awards and decorations include the Joint Service Commendation Medal; Army Achievement Medal with four oak-leaf clusters; the Meritorious Unit Citation Medal; the Army Service Ribbon; the Ranger Tab; the Sapper Tab; Combat Action Badge; Parachutist Badge; and the Marksmanship Qualification Badge Expert-Rifle.

-- Gina Harkins can be reached at gina.harkins@military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @ginaaharkins.

How will we know when ISIS is defeated?

The routine of life aboard the carrier is perhaps the most conventional element of the unconventional war against ISIS.

I'm not sure how allied defensive operations will know when ISIS, the evil self declared califate, is finally defeated. Yet, allied operations are now sending out propaganda messages with indications that victory is just around the corner. (Similar to how Bagdhad Bob proclaimed victory over Americans during Operation Desert Storm.)

America has been formally engaged with fighting terrorism and, subsequently ISIS, ever since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the New York City Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in Washington DC. During these attacks, another airliner United flight 93, destined to attack Washington DC, was deliberately downed by brave passengers, and crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

Unlike conventional wars, how will allied forces know when ISIS and terrorist groups are defeated? There are no surrender ceremonies with signed documents, because the enemy is not organized.

Nevertheless, this is what MilitaryTimes is reporting:

'Noose Around the Neck of ISIS' as Carrier Airstrikes Move South

Flight deck of the George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf

Article by Hope Hodge Seck

ABOARD THE USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH, Persian Gulf -- The hiss and scream of F/A-18 Super Hornets launching from the flight deck is business as usual on this city at sea, where sorties on Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria have been launched a dozen or more times a day since early February.

When aircraft loaded with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles and 1,000-pound bombs aren't being catapulted into flight, training and qualification flights commence.

Constant through the action is a sort of deck ballet of positioning, as the 74 aircraft based on the ship are guided onto elevators for maintenance and storage, or moved to make room for the daily C-2 Greyhound delivery of people and Amazon packages.

The routine of life aboard the carrier is perhaps the most conventional element of the unconventional war against ISIS.

American troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria, mostly special operations and advisory elements, operate in relative secrecy, with few opportunities for journalists to observe them up close.

On the carrier, by contrast, public affairs officers host three or four media visits per month, boarding them in comparatively luxurious "distinguished visitor" berthing, complete with monogrammed bathrobes, and offering them interviews with pilots and unit commanding officers.

Aboard the carrier, multiple sailors said they are on their second deployment in support of Operation Inherent Resolve -- the coalition anti-ISIS fight -- and compared the consistency of operations today favorably to the frenetic nature of the campaign when it first began in 2014.

With OIR (Operation Inherent Resolve) about to enter its third year next month, the commander of the Bush carrier strike group said he is seeing progress in the fight.

While many strikes continue to target enemy positions in Raqqa, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq, where assaults on ISIS's urban strongholds continue, the carrier's fighter pilots are seeing more missions to the south, along the Euphrates River Valley. The strikes follow the path of retreating ISIS leaders, Rear Adm. Ken Whitesell said.

"Their vision of a geographic caliphate is coming to an end," Whitesell told Military.com. "As they move and that unblinking eye stays on top of them, they will be targeted as they move down the valley."

The number of fighter sorties launched from the carrier daily ranges from 12 to more than 20, plus several EA-18G Growler electronic warfare sorties, said Capt. Will Pennington, commanding officer of the Bush.

Pilots fly punishing eight-hour missions one to three times a week, in addition to daily training and currency flights. But the mission tempo has stayed largely steady since the carrier deployed, and the air wing has yet to be pushed to its limits, he said.

"We're not surging to make this happen; this is a comfortable pace. We could up it and still get comfortable," Pennington said.
The fight is proceeding carefully and deliberately from the air in large part because of the complexity of the urban ground battle. In Iraq, where a little more than half of the air wing's sorties are tasked, the strike mission was simpler before coalition forces arrived in Mosul, he said.

"There were more targets and less complicated aerials," Pennington said. "Now that the effort is moving forward and being successful ... that operation, both from the ground and the air, needs to be carried out with much more prudence, given civilian entanglement."

In both Mosul and Raqqa, the ground fights have been slow-moving. Coalition troops began their first assault on Mosul in October, and began a campaign to retake Raqqa the following month. Whitesell pointed optimistically to the words of Iraqi Army Chief of Staff Othman Al-Ghanmi, who predicted earlier this month that the fall of ISIS in Mosul would be complete in just three weeks.

It's not the first time a top official has predicted victory close at hand. But the changing nature of strike targets also gives Whitesell reason to believe the end is near.

In addition to targets including enemy personnel, vehicles and improvised explosive devices, Whitesell said pilots are being tasked with destroying a key source of the militant group's economic survival: oil wells.

While previously aircraft would target vehicles used to transport the oil, most of those are gone, thanks to the air mission, he said. "Now we get it before it comes out of the ground."
Whitesell contrasts today's operational picture to that of 2014, when the Bush became the first aircraft carrier to launch airstrikes on ISIS.

"ISIS had made the push out of Syria and Raqqa, way down, so they had incredible geography. So this carrier was the first striking on the Iraqi assets to stop ISIS at the gates of Baghdad and start moving them back," he said. "Fast-forward three years to where we are. We've got, essentially, a noose tied around the neck of ISIS."

On a given day, a pilot might be tasked with engaging a specific target over Iraq or Syria, or with flying to a region and remaining "on call," to be assigned a future target, sometimes with scant notice, by a controller on the ground.

While pilots' assignments can change at any time during the mission, they generally know the day's mission set by the time they're walking to their aircraft on the flight deck, said Lt. Cmdr. "Butters" Welles, a pilot with Strike Fighter Squadron 37, the "Ragin' Bulls." The squadron flies the F/A-18C Hornet.

Multiple pilots who spoke with Military.com asked that their full first and last names not be used, a subtle acknowledgment of online threats ISIS militants have made on various occasions against U.S. troops and their families.
Welles, who is on his fourth combat deployment, said he still feels the power of the moment when dropping ordnance on a ground target.

It's a sense similar to other high-stress moments, whether it's landing on the ship at night or doing something that requires intense attention," he said. "There's a sense of time compression, where everything sort of slows down, but you feel like it's still moving very quickly ... it's definitely a very intense moment."

At that point, a pilot's day is far from done. Still ahead are a series of tanker refueling operations, a flight back to the ship, and hours of debriefs. The workday of a pilot with a strike mission can easily stretch to 12 hours or more, the work continuing long after exiting the cockpit.

But after a day in the fight, they return to the ship, where four meals are served daily, gyms and movie channels are available for free time, and routine keeps chaos at bay.

And pilots are well aware of the contrast between the reality of the island-like carrier and that of coalition troops in the gritty, drawn-out ground battles.

"It's a very different perspective and involvement for us to be up and somewhat detached from what's going on down on the ground," Welles said. "So I would say it's a sense of pride, knowing that we contributed in some way to a very difficult effort on the ground. Because once we're complete, and we either leave to airborne refuel, or need to go home, then the people we're talking with are still there in the fight."

Military strategy on the Internet- time to declare war on ISIS

Posting a war strategy to defeat evil ISIS- the declared Islamic State terrorist group- on the Internet is an unfamiliar warfare tactic Yet, the Military Times news explains, in plain English, how to win the war against ISIS, describing operations like a strategic "Dungeons and Dragons" game. Hopefully, the strategy will work. A cliff notes edition of the detailed article is easily summarized in one sentence: Defeating ISIS is going to take American military leadership a long time.

It seems to me, however, that the US Congress must support the ISIS military initiative with a declared Act of War.

Military Times provides the strategy for defeating ISIS it's as clear as the rules of a Dungeons and Dragons game- but the world as we know it order is at stake.

The War Powers Resolution is a law and the US Congress must act. By keeping US military in the Middle East rrequires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clintonin 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.

In other words, by not declaring war against ISIS, the US Congress is breaking the law it passed, in spite of a presidential veto.

It's time for the US Congress to start reading the Military Times, Surely, the job of Congress is to figure out what the American tax payers are paying for and how much treasure our military is putting at risk to defeat evil ISIS. It's a goal in need of affirmation because, otherwise, the Congress is breaking it's own law passed in the War Powers Resolution.

(By the way - the important information reported in Military Times is as close to classified intelligence as I've ever seen made public and makes what's in the  stupid email controversy aka "Hillarymail", seem like gossip in comparisom.)