Trump & Troops comparison with past presidents.

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
This seems very hypocritical under Trump.

link
Screen Shot 2020-08-19 at 9.53.59 PM.png
The Army is investigating how a pair of soldiers ended up in a Democratic convention delegate video, the service said.
In the announcement for American Samoa on Tuesday, two delegates from the U.S. territory declared their vote for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. They were flanked by two soldiers in camouflage wearing black masks. This may have run afoul of Pentagon guidelines that regulate political activity, drawing a line between the military and appearances of political influence.

The soldiers, assigned to the Army Reserve’s 9th Mission Support Command, are under investigation, an Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Emanuel Ortiz, said Wednesday.

“Wearing a uniform to a partisan political event like this is prohibited,” Ortiz said in a statement. “The Army follows the Department of Defense’s long-standing and well-defined policy regarding political campaigns and elections to avoid the perception of DoD sponsorship, approval or endorsement of any political candidate, campaign or cause.”

The composition of the segment was an “oversight,” Democratic National Committee spokesperson Xochitl Hinojosa said.

“Each state was asked to highlight issues and values that matter most and the American Samoa delegation wanted to highlight their commitment to military service when they filmed their segment,” Hinojosa said.

The Pacific Island territory has for years contributed more U.S. soldiers per capita than any state, according to Army data provided to The Washington Post in January.

Pentagon policies outline how service members can and cannot participate in political events. Typically, the uniform itself is the deciding factor.
“Examples of prohibited political activities include campaigning for a candidate, soliciting contributions, marching in a partisan parade and wearing the uniform to a partisan event,” Ortiz said.

It is unclear whether the soldiers involved understood the ramification of appearing in the video. Both soldiers are specialists, a lower enlisted rank that does not often flirt with the political world, which is dotted with retired senior officers.

The military under the Trump administration has sometimes struggled with navigating political fault lines.

Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was roundly criticized in June for appearing in uniform with President Trump as officials walked to a church near the White House after protesters, demonstrating in reaction to the killing of George Floyd and other Black Americans, were forcibly removed for Trump to have a photo taken there.

Milley later apologized: “I should not have been there. My presence in that moment, and in that environment, created the perception of the military involved in domestic politics.”

The White House last year asked the Navy to minimize the visibility of the USS John S. McCain during Trump’s visit to Japan. The Navy did not meet the request for the ship, named after the father and grandfather of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a political foe of the president who died in 2018.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Not only did Trump do nothing about Putin spreading propaganda about the virus (even though Trump spread more lies about it), but now this.
Screen Shot 2020-10-02 at 12.45.19 PM.png
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/02/trumps-strange-pre-spin-his-coronavirus-diagnosis-it-came-military-police-who-want-hug-kiss-you/

A couple of weeks ago, President Trump was fending off a brutal, anonymously sourced story in the Atlantic about comments he had allegedly made disparaging military veterans and the nation’s war dead. The comments sounded like things Trump had said publicly before, particularly about the late senator John McCain, yet he denied he would ever be so insensitive.

But in the hours after we learned that counselor to the president Hope Hicks had tested positive for the novel coronavirus and before we learned Trump himself had it, he offered some strange comments that seemed to lay the groundwork for how he could explain his impending diagnosis: It might have come from the military or law enforcement.

“You know, it’s very hard, when you’re with soldiers, when you’re with airmen, when you’re with Marines, and I’m with — and the police officers,” Trump said. “I’m with them so much. And when they come over here, it’s very hard to say, stay back, stay back. It’s a tough kind of a situation.”

Trump then turned to his own test and to Hicks. “So, I just went for a test, and we’ll see what happens. I mean, who knows? But you know her very well. She’s fantastic. And she’s done a great job.”

And then he again returned to the alleged potential spreaders.

“But it’s very, very hard when you are with people from the military or … law enforcement, and they come over to you, and they want to hug you, and they want to kiss you, because we really have done a good job for them,” Trump said. “And you get close, and things happen.”

Screen Shot 2020-10-02 at 12.49.24 PM.png

The confluence of circumstances Thursday night led to plenty of speculation. The White House has access to rapid-response tests, so how could Trump not know at that point whether he had tested positive? Hicks reportedly fell ill Wednesday and was quarantined on Air Force One. But by Thursday night, Trump still didn’t have a final word? (Trump’s White House has rarely been forthcoming with his health information.)

It was also an odd way to explain Hicks’s positive test. However much military members and law enforcement appreciate what the Trump White House has done for them, are they really going up to Trump’s low-profile senior counselor, who rarely speaks publicly, to hug her and try to kiss her?

It’s clear Trump was setting the stage for how he would explain either Hicks’s positive test or his own. His and the White House’s cavalier posture toward mask-wearing and continuing to hold large public rallies and events was suddenly looking more foolhardy than ever, and Trump sought to pre-blame it on something else — something that, conveniently, reflected a deep affection for Donald Trump.

His explanation also tracks with his often questionable stories about just how much affection supporters show him in private. Just this week, he cited a construction worker who he said was crying in gratitude when they met. He has told very similar stories about a coal miner, a steelworker, a farmer and a man who looked like a football player, as CNN’s Daniel Dale notedWednesday, often with plenty of “sirs” interspersed. There is no doubt supporters will be in awe and perhaps become emotional when meeting a president, but Trump’s history of fabulismlooms over his descriptions.

Whether there’s some truth to it, here was the president effectively blaming military members and law enforcement for not being more careful when meeting their country’s leaders; there’s no other way to read it. It also didn’t allow for the idea that there should have been precautions to prevent these alleged scenes, which the Secret Service is more than capable of providing.

But Trump has never been interested in all of that, and he clearly set the tone for the coronavirus being allowed to spread — whether it’s in how the White House or his campaign has handled precautions such as masks and social distancing, or in how he has downplayed the severity of the virus, which has led his supporters to eschew such basic precautions, much like Trump has.

This is unquestionably a sad moment in U.S. history; any president coming down with a serious illness can be destabilizing, not just for the country but for the world. But Trump’s effort to pre-spin this one is a thoroughly odd one, and it’s one that glosses over so much of what probably contributed to an outcome that health officials and his critics have long warned about — and has now happened.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 10.03.18 AM.png

A group of lawyers is offering advice to military and National Guard members who worry they may be given unlawful orders if deployed during protests or disputes over next month’s elections.

The Orders Project was formed in response to the use of force against protesters this summer in Lafayette Square, two of the founders said in an interview Friday.

The protests, which followed the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis, prompted confusion among law enforcement and National Guard leaders. Some officials said they had no warning that the U.S. Park Police, which commanded the operation, planned to move against protesters and that the crowd could have been moved out of the area without the use of force.

The legal group anticipates that military personnel might find themselves in the same position this fall, and they may question whether orders they receive are legal.

Some of the scenarios the lawyers have imagined are rooted in recent history with this year’s protests.
But President Trump has also raised the prospect of unprecedented legal challenges. For instance, the lawyers say he could federalize the National Guard and order members to seize disputed ballots. Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that mail-in ballots, expected to be cast in historic numbers, are rife with fraud and could imperil his reelection chances.

“Military personnel don’t have to follow an unlawful order, but they take a risk when deciding not to,” said Eugene R. Fidell, one of the country’s leading experts on military law and an Orders Project co-founder.

Fidell advised concerned personnel to consult first with lawyers in their chain of command and to seek out the group as a kind of backup, if they want another opinion. The volunteer attorneys are all experts on the Uniform Code of Military Justice and will consult with service members on a case-by-case basis.

The group hopes to provide “a guide for the perplexed,” Fidell said, and has compiled a legal sourcebook for military personnel as well as lawyers.

Not only are service members not required to follow illegal orders, they are required not to obey “flagrantly unlawful” ones, said Michel Paradis, a professor of military law at Columbia Law School, who is not involved in the Orders Project.

But in reality, those who refuse take enormous risks.

Military law “makes disobedience to an order itself a criminal offense,” Paradis said. He explained that disputes are typically settled informally within the chain of command. Military lawyers can also help resolve disagreements. In more extreme cases, a service member who believes an order is unlawful can report the matter to an inspector general.

But those who choose to go outside those traditional processes will find little guidance.

“The lack of clarity should be emphasized here — we didn’t find any military case law where the issue of obedience to orders was litigated in a context where personnel were deployed domestically,” said Brenner Fissell, an associate professor of law at Hofstra University and an Orders Group co-founder.

Fidell said this summer’s protests, as well as the president’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose, have convinced the group that military personnel could use extra counsel.

Soldiers might be given orders to open fire at protesters, Fidell said, recalling the killing of four unarmed
Kent State University students by Ohio National Guard members during a Vietnam War protest in 1970. And unprecedented legal questions could arise if the election is still in dispute come Inauguration Day but Trump continues to give orders to the military.

“We hope they’ll never happen,” Fidell said of such nightmare scenarios. “But it’s unrealistic to think these are out of the question.”
http://www.ordersproject.org
Screen Shot 2020-10-10 at 10.05.30 AM.png
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/10/23/medal-of-honor-cashe/Screen Shot 2020-10-23 at 5.59.28 PM.png

A long-awaited Medal of Honor for Sgt. 1st Class Alwyn Cashe, who suffered fatal wounds while pulling six soldiers from a burning vehicle in Iraq, has been delayed in the Senate as lawmakers fight over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, according to congressional officials familiar with the issue.

Cashe, 35, died Nov. 5, 2005, about three weeks after repeatedly entering the vehicle to save colleagues from further harm. His story has been the subject of a multiyear effort by his family and many veterans to award him the nation’s highest award for valor in combat, and received support from Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper in August after lengthy deliberations in the Army.

If awarded, Cashe would be the first African American to receive the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. The president is expected to support the award, said a White House official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing deliberations on Capitol Hill.

The House on Sept. 23 unanimously passed a bill that would waive a restriction that states the Medal of Honor must be awarded within five years of a service member’s heroic actions. A bipartisan version of the bill was immediately introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), with support from Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.).

Advocates for Cashe’s family and some lawmakers initially anticipated that the Senate version of the bill could pass within days with a batch of other noncontroversial legislation through a process known as “hotlining,” officials said.

But it has dragged out, first as the Senate left town for two weeks amid a coronavirus outbreak that afflicted several Senate Republicans, and then as the Senate has wrangled over Barrett’s nomination.

Senators also have clashed this week over attempts to pass more financial stimulus in response to the pandemic. Republicans tried to pass a $500 billion bill, which failed on a 51-44 party line vote as Democrats seek a larger and more comprehensive effort.

Republicans have sought to confirm Barrett quickly, while Democrats have said the issue should be decided after the election. In the meantime, unanimous consent votes have slowed ahead of Barrett’s expected Oct. 26 confirmation vote, and Cashe’s case continues to wait, Senate officials said.

“There are no objections that we’re aware of, but it’s caught up in the political stoppage, if you will,” said one official familiar with the discussions. With the Barrett vote pending, the official said, “The Senate floor is a mess.”

A Senate Republican familiar with the issue said that he has seen no objections from Republicans or Democrats to Cashe’s award, but that it may not get a vote until the lame-duck session of Congress, after the election.

“Something like this is going to get done,” the official said. "It’s just a matter of when, is my prediction.”

The delay has raised concerns among Cashe’s supporters in both parties, especially since the Senate is expected to adjourn until after the election, following the vote on Barrett next week. The lame-duck session may be especially volatile and challenging to approve legislation, given how bruising the presidential election has been, they said.

Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.), who co-sponsored the House legislation, said he is hopeful that the Medal of Honor bill can be passed in the Senate before the election.

“This is on the one-yard line, and the family has been waiting 15 years," Waltz said in a phone interview.
“Everything is aligned right now, and it just takes a procedural move to make it happen. There are just too many unknowns after the election.”

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), who proposed the House version of the bill, said certain issues should transcend politics.

“Since our bill unanimously passed the House, we’ve been working with Senate allies on both sides of the aisle to get it across the finish line,” she said. "Alwyn Cashe’s family, along with the military veterans who’ve have led this grass-roots effort, have waited long enough to see Alwyn properly honored. I remain optimistic we will get this done.”

Cotton said in a statement that Cashe’s family has “waited too long to see him properly honored for his heroism.” He urged Senate colleagues “to allow this bill to proceed immediately.”

A Democrat in the Senate said nothing is stopping Cashe’s supporters in the Senate from seeking time on the floor to ask for unanimous consent on the bill, circumventing the delay. Such a move would jump-start the process for the bill individually.

But doing so forces the issue in a way that is atypical in the Senate, other Senate officials said.

If the Senate approves the legislation, Esper has said he will approve the package and send it to Trump.
Two Democrats said that the Cashe case has been complicated by Trump’s threats to veto the defense spending bill because of language in it that would change the names of U.S. military installations that recognize Confederate military officers. The bill has a provision that would eliminate the need for legislation to waive the five-year statute of limitation on a valor medal in favor of allowing a service secretary to authorize it after a 60-day congressional review.

Cashe, of Oviedo, Fla., was initially awarded the Silver Star, the nation’s third-highest award for valor, for his actions in Iraq. His battalion commander at the time, now-Lt. Gen. Gary Brito, has said that he did not initially realize the full extent of Cashe’s actions.

According to his Silver Star citation, Cashe was in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle that rolled over an improvised explosive device in Samarra, Iraq. He was slightly injured and drenched in fuel, but made multiple trips into the burning vehicle to recover others anyway. Army officials said he suffered burns over at least 72 percent of his body.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Screen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.14.45 AM.png
The first time President Trump claimed false credit for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act — which President Barack Obama signed into law in 2014 — was on June 6, 2018. That day, as Trump signed the Mission Act, a modest update to the bipartisan VA Choice legislation, he seemed to conflate the two.

“So it’s now my great honor to sign the VA Mission Act, or as we all know it, the Choice Act, and to make Veterans Choice the permanent law of our great country,” the president said, standing in the Rose Garden. “And nobody deserves it more than our veterans.”

In the coming weeks, Trump began systematically erasing from the legislation’s history not just Obama but also the late senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who not only co-sponsored the VA Choice Act but also was so instrumental in passing the Mission Act that he is one of three senators for whom the act is officially named.

That didn’t stop Trump from falsely claiming — as he did at a tank factory in Lima, Ohio, in March 2019 — that McCain, his frequent political rival, failed to make any progress on the VA Choice Act.

“McCain didn’t get the job done for our great vets and the VA, and they knew it,” Trump said.


Screen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.17.57 AM.png

The president’s handling of the VA Choice legislation offers a crystalline window into the anatomy of a Trump lie: the initial false claim, the subsequent embellishment and gilding, the incessant repetition and the clear evidence that he knows the truth but chooses to keep telling the falsehood — all enabled by aides either unwilling or unable to rein him in.

“A lot of the problem with the president is he’s just using the wrong words,” said Jeremy Butler, the CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a nonpartisan veterans advocacy and support group. “He’s calling it ‘Choice,’ when he means the Mission Act, but to the average listener, the Mission Act doesn’t mean anything, but ‘Choice’ does.”

Butler said Trump’s inaccurate language also undermines his efforts on improving veteran care: “The real question is: Is this legislation working? Is it doing what it needs to be doing? But it’s hard not to get sucked into misstatements and mistruths and half-truths, whether it’s intentional or not.”

So it’s now my great honor to sign the VA Mission Act, or as we all know it, the Choice Act, and to make Veterans Choice the permanent law of our great country.
President Trump in June 2018


Trump has used the VA Choice assertion in part to create a false sense of accomplishment and to elevate himself while diminishing McCain and Obama.

As Trump repeated the mistruth, he grew bolder, claiming falsely that the legislation had, as he said at one 2018 event, “eluded us for 40 years? 50 years?” He also downplayed McCain’s role, using the legislation as a cudgel to attack the former Vietnam prisoner of war and diminish his contributions.

Screen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.19.17 AM.pngScreen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.20.13 AM.png
The newer legislation makes it easier for veterans to seek private care and offers improvements such as allowing veterans to see non-VA doctors for primary care if their drive to a VA facility is more than 30 minutes, rather than 40 miles, or if their wait for an appointment is more than 20 days, rather than 30. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, an additional 640,000 veterans each year will seek care outside the VA system, and the legislation requires VA to negotiate a contract for veterans to seek care at private walk-in clinics.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement that Trump’s improvements to the VA system go well beyond what Obama accomplished during his two terms.
Screen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.20.47 AM.pngScreen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.21.19 AM.pngScreen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.21.36 AM.pngScreen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.21.49 AM.png

“Delivering for veterans requires constant attention from the White House on both the legislative front and how the department operates, and if the president can’t even remember the name of the largest VA legislation to pass in the last decade, how can he possibly be a competent administrator of the VA?” Goodwin said. “That’s kind of the crux of the problem with this.”

Dan Pfeiffer, who served as a senior adviser to Obama when the VA Choice law was passed, said the sheer pointlessness of the false claim makes it all the more galling. “He could just as easily say, ‘I passed the Mission Act,’ and that would be just as politically beneficial,” he said. “Either he likes lying too much to stop lying, or his staff is too afraid to tell him he’s wrong so he keeps on perpetuating this falsehood.”

Dan Caldwell, a senior adviser for Concerned Veterans for America — a veterans advocacy group that is part of the conservative Koch political network — offered a different perspective, saying that one of Trump’s key 2016 campaign promises was giving veterans more choice, which Trump ultimately delivered.

“As implemented, the Obama administration law didn’t give veterans true choice,” Caldwell said. “The president deserves a lot of credit for making progress on this issue.”

Screen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.23.24 AM.pngScreen Shot 2020-10-24 at 6.35.02 AM.png
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/as-election-day-arrives-a-fight-about-military-ballots-takes-center-stage/2020/11/02/73257ff6-1d37-11eb-9ec3-3a81e23c4b5e_story.htmlScreen Shot 2020-11-03 at 6.59.33 AM.png
Voting by U.S. troops has been thrust into the spotlight as a bitter election campaign comes to a close, with opponents of President Trump alleging that his efforts to limit mail-in voting could disenfranchise military families.
Follow the latest on Election 2020

Democrats have raised the issue repeatedly after the president said last week that it would be “very proper and very nice” if a winner was declared on Election Day. Trump added that it was “totally inappropriate” for ballots that arrive later to be included, even though the votes of hundreds of thousands of service members that are sent by mail have been counted afterward for years.

Trump’s opponents have pounced on the comments, suggesting that they show the president is willing to win at all costs, even if doing so hurts military families.

“I don’t know what Donald Trump has against military members and their families, but right now his allies are doing everything they can to make it harder for those serving overseas to have their votes counted,” former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg, a supporter of Joe Biden who served in the Navy in Afghanistan, tweeted Sunday night.

The Lincoln Project, a political activist group formed by Republican operatives who oppose the president, released an online ad Monday narrated by actor Mark Hamill saying Trump has called for the election to be decided based only on ballots that arrive by Nov. 3.


“If he gets his way, many who cast absentee ballots will not have their vote counted,” Hamill said in the ad. “This will deny thousands of troops serving overseas of their most sacred right. Stripping the men and women in our military of the very freedoms they served and sacrificed to defend — it cannot be allowed to happen.”

A Trump campaign spokeswoman, Thea McDonald, sought to clarify the president’s comments on Monday, drawing a distinction between military ballots and others.

“President Trump believes that military ballots should be accepted according to the law, as always, and that the law should be applied as written to everyone else,” McDonald said. “There are and should be exceptions for our military members serving our country overseas. There should not be exceptions for the Democrats in Philadelphia who attempt to vote after Election Day.”

But questions remain about how many votes cast by service members and their families will be counted, amid a slowing of the mail caused in part by the coronavirus pandemic and in part by changes made by the Trump administration to the U.S. Postal Service.


States begin readying National Guard for potential election unrest

Trump and his allies have continued to signal that they could challenge any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day. During a rally on Sunday, Trump warned that as soon as the polls close, “we’re going in with our lawyers.”

The courts have issued mixed rulings on the matter. The Supreme Court rejected Wisconsin’s request to extend the deadline for counting mail-in ballots but permitted extended periods for receiving mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

In Minnesota, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled late last week that a Republican lawmaker and a GOP activist could challenge the state’s plans to continue counting votes received within seven days of the election.

The appeals court ordered Minnesota to set aside any ballots received after 8 p.m. on Nov. 3, meaning those votes could be discarded depending on future court rulings. The ruling came after election authorities in the state had already informed voters in the mail-in instructions that their ballots would be counted so long as they were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within a week after the vote.


Maj. Scott Hawks, a spokesman for the Minnesota National Guard, said the state has more than 900 soldiers and airmen deployed worldwide.
Others on the rolls as Minnesota residents and deployed with active-duty units also could be affected.

The effort to count votes from the military has long been flawed and varied state to state.

More than 252,000 uniformed service members stationed away from home and their families voted in the 2016 general election, according to Count Every Hero, an initiative established by RepresentUs, a nonpartisan anti-corruption group, that promotes the right of service members to vote.

Twenty-eight states and D.C. accept and count ballots from overseas service members that arrive after Election Day, according to a recent report by Count Every Hero. More than 70 percent of the available votes in the electoral college will come from states that count overseas military votes after Election Day, the report said.


The deadlines vary: South Carolina, for example, will count mailed absentee ballots from service members abroad if they are sent before the close of the polls and received within two days of the election, while Washington state will count ballots that arrive by Nov. 23, according to the report.

Steve Abbot, a retired Navy admiral who is now a co-chair of Count Every Hero, called Trump’s comments about not counting ballots after Election Day a “torpedo in the water.”

“Elections don’t end on the specified day of the election because the results can’t possibly all be tallied on time,” said Abbot, who served in the administration of President George W. Bush after retiring from the military. “We would counsel patience by every single citizen, including the president, to wait for a proper tally on all of the votes.”

Several active-duty service members, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said they watched closely this year after casting ballots from overseas and were concerned.

A Marine Corps gunnery sergeant in Japan said that he has voted by absentee ballot before but did not trust the mail to send it back to his home state of Florida in time this year. Instead, he said, his wife filled out the ballot in the United States for him during a video call.

“Last election, my absentee ballot didn’t arrive until Election Day,” he said. “So that wasn’t ideal.”

An Army officer in Europe said he voted in North Carolina by sending a ballot online — an option that does not exist in every state. His biggest concern, he said, was signing his name with a computer mouse the same way that he does with a pen.

The challenges apply to service members and their families in the United States, too.

Margaret Smith said she and her husband, a member of the Air Force, live on Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. She said she mailed a form requesting a ballot to her jurisdiction of Bell County, Tex., on Oct. 14 and called repeatedly afterward knowing that her request for a ballot was due Oct. 23, according to state law. She never got the help she needed, she said.

“It’s not going to count because we didn’t get to vote,” she said Monday. “We can’t just get up and go to Texas tomorrow.”
Matthew O. Dutton, the Bell County interim elections administrator, said in an email that his office never received her request.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/congress-trump-military-republicans/2020/12/09/ab08285e-3a3a-11eb-bc68-96af0daae728_story.htmlScreen Shot 2020-12-10 at 9.01.44 AM.png
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) formally announced Tuesday evening that he was for the annual Pentagon policy bill, before he will turn against the measure that provides pay raises for troops and a list of critical new provisions with overwhelming bipartisan support.

As he entered the House floor for that vote, McCarthy told reporters that he would absolutely vote for the National Defense Authorization Act, a yearly exercise deemed so key to basic functions of the military that it has passed for 59 straight years.

However, the GOP leader said, he absolutely would not vote to override President Trump’s threatened veto out of his anger toward social media laws that have no place in a debate about the military.

Furthermore, McCarthy said his official position is to always support Trump’s veto.

“My point has always been, when I became a leader, I would not vote against the president’s veto. I will hold up the president’s veto,” McCarthy told reporters, adding: “We’ve always worked together to make bills better.”

So one final norm could come crashing into the new political world order of Trump mandates, halting a regular bipartisan accomplishment in its tracks so that the outgoing president can chase one other grievance that has little to do with the underlying policy imperative.

And it’s another destruction of what it means to be a conservative in the Trump era, as support for a strong national security has been a bedrock of party orthodoxy for decades and decades. Republicans have long considered this bill to be a religious act, protesting any time Democrats try to use this must-pass bill to include extraneous policy measures.

Now, in his last days in office, a Republican president has threatened passage of the legislation because he wants to change the laws regarding social media companies like Twitter.

In his final days in office, Sen. Lamar Alexander waxes nostalgic

Veteran Republicans are just baffled by how this has all transpired.

“It’s the most important bill of the year. We’re talking about the equipment we’re gonna have, we’re talking about the number of F-35s, we’re talking about, anyway, it’s all the things that our kids could get,” Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters before Tuesday’s House vote.

Inhofe, 86, won his first Senate race in 1994, after eight years in the House, coming of political age in the Reagan-Bush years. He rattled off a list of other things in the legislation, including hazard pay for troops on the battlefield, before repeating himself one last time.

“It’s the most important bill of the year,” he said.

Last year’s final Pentagon bill passed the Senate 86-8, with a similar sweeping vote, 377-48, in the House.

Inhofe has spent many hours on the phone with Trump trying to explain to him that the telecommunication laws he is concerned about, Section 230 of the relevant 1996 law, has no place in a Pentagon policy bill.

“He is wrapped up in the — on the 230 language, which is not anything that — it’s very simple that there’s no way we could have a defense authorization bill with that language in it,” Inhofe said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), fully aware of how Trump feels that he was treated poorly by social media companies, simply ducked the issue at his weekly news conference, stating that the Pentagon bill would come to a vote later this week.

“It’s my intention to vote for it,” McConnell told reporters, making no mention of whether he would round up support to override the president’s veto.

But the House is now the biggest obstacle, because McCarthy is promising to throw his full support behind Trump.
To be sure, McCarthy joined 139 other House Republicans in voting for the Pentagon bill Tuesday, with just 40 of their GOP colleagues in opposition, providing a final tally of support — 335 — that is well above the two-thirds majority threshold required to override Trump’s veto.

And McCarthy is confident that he has plenty of Republicans who, just like he is doing, will be for the legislation until they are against it, unwilling to cross Trump on a veto override vote.

“I think they would stand with the president,” McCarthy told reporters Tuesday outside the House chamber.

This legislation is so bipartisan that House Democrats agreed to name this year’s bill after retiring Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), a close McCarthy friend who served as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee before Democrats won back the majority two years ago.

The measure’s importance has only grown as the rest of Congress turned into a legislative graveyard, meaning it was one of the few bills that other, smaller bills can hitch a ride on as a way to get signed into law.

“We have to move forward,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who won reelection last month largely on Trump’s coattails.
“A part of it is the vehicles are left in this Congress. In my opinion, it’s a must-pass bill.”

Indeed, Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, desperately wanted to pass a similar policy bill for the State Department, something that has not been approved in more than 15 years. Engel, who lost his primary last summer and is retiring, voted present Tuesday as a protest because he thought he had a deal to include the State Department’s authorization bill as a rider to the NDAA.

Before Tuesday’s vote, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) held out hope that Republicans would convince Trump to sign the bill, citing Inhofe’s public statements of how critical the legislation is.

“You don’t want to put the defense bill at risk. And I think, hopefully, that view will prevail in the Republican Party,” Hoyer said.

Awaiting Georgia runoffs, U.S. Senate and its committees have been plunged into uncertainty

Opposition to the bill traditionally comes from the far left flank of Democrats who oppose too much military spending and several dozen libertarian-leaning Republicans.

Now, Trump’s hostage-holding move will expand the number of Republicans opposing the $741 billion bill, possibly providing enough leverage to block it from overcoming his expected veto.

His social media fight has nothing to do with the military’s annual funding, troop pay or weapons procurement, but Trump knows that lawmakers really like to pass the NDAA — so he will just hold it hostage as leverage for action on Section 230 changes.

And as part of Trump’s gambit, McCarthy is happy to help block legislation that he otherwise supports.

“I’m hopeful that people will come to a wiser position, solve the problems that the president has and be able to have this bill signed,” he said Tuesday.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/world/middleeast/iraq-iran-brain-injuries.htmlScreen Shot 2021-11-11 at 8.55.05 AM.png
More than 100 American service members have traumatic brain injuries from Iranian airstrikes on Al Asad Air Base in Iraq in January, the Defense Department said, a number that was more than 50 percent higher than previously disclosed.

Of the 109 troops who have been diagnosed with brain injuries, 76 had returned to duty, officials said Monday.

“We are grateful to the efforts of our medical professionals who have worked diligently to ensure the appropriate level of care for our service members, which has enabled nearly 70 percent of those diagnosed to return to duty,” said Alyssa Farah, the Pentagon press secretary.

The latest tally, which has steadily grown since the Jan. 8 strike, drew a sharp contrast with the assertion by the Trump administration in the hours after the attack that no Americans were hurt. The number also underscored the unseen effects of traumatic brain injuries, which sometimes do not manifest symptoms for days or weeks but can have long-term physical or mental effects.

And as the injury toll has mounted, veterans groups and others have levied criticism at the White House, in part because, in January, President Trump dismissed the injuries as “not very serious.”

“I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things,” Mr. Trump said at a news conference Jan. 22 in Davos, Switzerland. “I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries I have seen.”

At least a dozen missiles were fired during the attack, which was a retaliation for the killing of a top Iranian general, Qassim Suleimani, by an American drone strike in Baghdad on Jan. 3. The Trump administration at first said there were no injuries, but a week later said several service members were evaluated for possible concussions.

Then, days after Mr. Trump’s statements in Davos, the Defense Department said that 34 people had suffered brain injuries. The number was later increased to 50 and then to 64, with military officials saying that the symptoms of traumatic brain injuries could take weeks to appear.

The repeated revisions have drawn outrage from some veterans and senators.

“The number just keeps going up,” Paul Rieckhoff, the founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said on Twitter on Monday.
“It’s time for Congress to demand a full investigation. The public and our military families deserve the truth.”

Frank Luntz, a longtime Republican strategist, said on Twitter on Monday that a traumatic brain injury “can have debilitating lifelong effects.”

“We shouldn’t hide our veterans’ injuries just to pretend like we’re invincible,” he said.

Traumatic brain injuries can result from the powerful changes in atmospheric pressure that accompany an explosion like that from a missile warhead. Only in the last several years has the Pentagon made a considerable effort to understand the injuries.

Mr. Trump’s statements appeared to echo sentiments common in the early years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where troops rattled by explosions were visibly uninjured and ushered back to duty, only to have long-term effects from the blasts manifest weeks and months later.

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper said at a news conference in January that the Pentagon took those types of injuries “very seriously.”
The White House did not immediately respond to questions on Monday afternoon.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
https://www.rawstory.com/mark-milley-trump-2659056853/
Screen Shot 2023-01-02 at 2.23.43 PM.png
Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifies before the House Armed Services Committee / photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II.

Donald Trump wanted to recall and then punish retired military leaders who had criticized him, according to new witness testimony from the House select committee.

Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, told the panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection that Trump and other administration officials discussed the possibility of bringing retired officers back to active duty so they could then be court-martialed for criticizing him in public, reported Politico.

"Now there were a couple of editorials written by retired flag officers that -- you would recognize their names -- that were very critical of then-President Trump, highly critical of President Trump," Milley said. "And there were actually discussions with me: Bring him back to active duty, court martial him, you know, make him walk the plank sort of thing, right?"

Milley said he advised the former president not to do that, but he suggested that retired U.S. Army general Mike Flynn might deserve that punishment.

"Mike Flynn is saying things and doing things that I absolutely fundamentally disagree with on so many levels," Milley said. "Bringing him back on active duty to court martial him and subject him to crimes based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a giant step."

Milley could recall only two times in U.S. history that had been done to punish a retired military service member.

"What Mike Flynn is saying out there is, first of all, he has a right to say it," Milley said. "He's an American citizen and all that. But, arguably, it's inflammatory. It is certainly counter to, you know, many of the values of our country and so on and so forth. He would argue that's the exact opposite, by the way."
 
Top