To the editor:
In a press conference recently, our brave, stalwart president, Donald Trump, was asked about the recent Parkland school shooting where a school resource officer failed to rush into the school but instead waited outside. Trump mused that were it he there, he would have bravely and unhesitatingly rushed in to confront the shooter, insinuating the resource officer was a coward, and Trump would have been a hero. Speaking of cowards, I would remind Mr. Trump he had his chance to prove his bravery and manhood back in the late ’60s, when he was sent a draft notice, as was I.
Back then, such a notice was almost a certain guarantee you would be sent to fight in Vietnam. Trump desperately avoided the draft five times (and Vietnam) by claiming he had “bone spurs.” I got the same notice, was drafted and spent a year, 1968, in Vietnam as a Marine Corps captain. Over 58,000 other American kids died in Vietnam, while Trump went to college and hid behind Daddy’s money.
Now today, Mr. Trump paints himself as a courageous, heroic, fearless leader in his attempt to reinvent his persona, ignore his past behavior, trying to paint himself as the person he wishes he was, but knows inside he isn’t. To me, he is a pathetic, sad excuse of a president … and a man.
There is an old saying, “When someone tells you who they are … believe them!”
Comments
Bob Smith 2 months, 1 week ago
IIRC, only two Presidents elected since 1980 have served in the military. Both were Republicans.
P Allen Macfarlane 2 months, 1 week ago
GW Bush was not a regular in any branch, but rather was in the reserve. His father was though.
Bob Smith 2 months, 1 week ago
You try telling people in the reserve that they aren't in the military. I'll stand by to watch and laugh.
Brandon Devlin 2 months, 1 week ago
Exactly.
Bob Smith 2 months, 1 week ago
I'm suspecting that P. never took the King's shilling.
Ray Mizumura 2 months, 1 week ago
The point of the letter is that the current President avoided the draft and now goes around calling others cowards. Mr. Bennett wasn't making a statement against Presidents who haven't served in the military.
Brock Masters 2 months, 1 week ago
The letter writer is entitled to their opinion of Trump, but lacks credibility in trying to convince us to share it. The letter writer lacks credibility because what they claim Trump said is a lie.
Trump didn’t say he’d rush in bravely, he said you don’t know what you’d do in that situation but he’d like to believed he’d go in. He said nothing about being a hero.
View the video for yourself. https://youtu.be/rw03Qh3VZhc
The deputies that did not go in are cowards and failed in their duty to protect the children. I’d like to think I’d go in if I were there and I suspect many others here would too. Bash Trump all you want but when you lie it impunes your credibility and character.
Geoff Ermlap 2 months, 1 week ago
nice try
Greg Cooper 2 months, 1 week ago
What, then, are the "rules of engagement" set out by the Broward Sheriff's office? Do you know? I don't, but I believe there might just be some reason, besides cowardice, that precluded the guy from going in blindly. Maybe not. But calling the deputy out without complete information is just as reprehensible, in my opinion, as lying about it. Information, Brock, information. It's what makes informed opinions.
Brock Masters 2 months, 1 week ago
Greg, while I do not know exactly what the rules of engagement are, I did listen to Sheriff Israel about the deputy. Sheriff Israel called the deputy´s actions disgusting and said he was moving to fire him.
My opinion was based not only from eyewitness accounts of the deputy´s actions but also from what the Sheriff said. I believe this is good inform by which to form and share an opinion
Here is the video from the world´s most trusted news source. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/02/25/sheriff-israel-broward-deputy-disgusted-sot-sotu.cnn
Greg Cooper 2 months, 1 week ago
Thanks for the link. I was unable to see the entire interview and missed this part. I have to assume that the rules were that he was to intervene. That he did not is, under those rules, awful. Thanks you.
Brock Masters 2 months, 1 week ago
No problem and thanks for the civil challenge.
Greg Cooper 2 months, 1 week ago
Even we genetically challenged "liberals" can do things correctly on occasion.
Bob Summers 2 months, 1 week ago
If only the school and the sheriff dept. had not signed on to Obama's Promise program.
If only.
Geoff Ermlap 2 months, 1 week ago
Trump made every indication that the officer was a coward while the officer makes a pretty compelling claim he was following police protocol. Trump most certainly wanted to suggest that, in retrospect, when he couldn't possibly have to run into the building, to very cowardly suggest that he might have done just that. One fact that is indisputable is that when he did have the opportunity to run into Viet Nam and help his fellow Americans he most certainly was a coward.
Bob Smith 2 months, 1 week ago
There was a ripple last week that someone in the BCS command structure had radioed a stand-down order. That seems to have fallen off the radar without being proven true or false.
Glen Stovall 2 months, 1 week ago
It is just amazing what lengths the Trumpsters go to to defend the most despicable human being ever to be POTUS. Oh how I long for the tan suit scandal.
Brock Masters 2 months, 1 week ago
It is interesting to listen to the comments calling Trump a coward because he chose not to go to war in Viet Nam. He avoided going to war legally. Others in that era avoided serving legally and illegally, are they cowards too? Was Muhammad Ali a coward?
I certainly wont call any of those that avoided serving in the Vietnam war cowards. It was a very turbulent time and controversial war.
Let me ask this question. Are those that can serve in the military today and fight in the current wars but choose not to serve also cowards? What is the difference between legally not serving when there was a draft and legally not serving now?
The problem we face today isn’t that we criticize our elected leaders whether it’d be Obama or Trump, but how we do it. We should be focused on their policies and not hurling ad homien attacks. They only serve to distract from the real issues, prevent meaningful discussions to find solutions and make everyone angry.
Greg Cooper 2 months, 1 week ago
Agree, completely and wholly, Brock. Thanks for voicing what becomes lost when ideology trumps factual information. No pun intended, by the way.
Ray Mizumura 2 months, 1 week ago
In the case of Donald Trump, he invites criticism not only for his policies but also ad hominem attacks because he has made himself, his personality, his style, and his behavior inseparable from his policies. He has brought on all of the ad hominem attacks all by himself. That's what you get when you make fun of people with disabilities, denounce entire groups of people with stereotypes, and lash out at individuals via social media. Trump himself and his behavior are the real issues. That is why Mr. Bennett included the last line of his excellent letter.
Brock Masters 2 months, 1 week ago
If Trump is so despicable for his personal attacks then why would anyone want to stoop to that level and respond like he does?
My criticism of the LTE writer was his lies about what Trump said. I posted the video as proof he lied.
Steve Hicks 2 months, 1 week ago
The writer makes an excellent point.
People show who they are. Nobody can really HIDE who they are. Everything a person does, and everything they say, shows what they are.
But clever and well-practiced deceivers bank on the con-man's certainty that there's a sucker born every minute. There are always many people...sometimes very many...who WANT to be deceived, and are willing to believe a lie.
Trump's well-practiced, though not really clever, by anyone's definition But he doesn't have to be, since he's not trying to hide what he is. Trump is always been the main thing Trump is selling. The willfully-conned call that honesty, Most of us call it egomania.
Egomaniacs don't try to deceive us about who they are. Their all-important self is all they want to sell. It's all they have. Egomaniacs' self-contained worlds are extremely tiny, and very shallow. The appearance is all the substance there is, What we all can't help but see is what we all get.
Not clever...self-obsessed...shallow. Trump also can't hide that he's a serial-liar, and a violent hater. Not the kind of personal character the founding fathers envisioned for America's chief executive, or would have believed "the people" would ever choose.
Maybe the founding fathers didn't consult any con-men. A sucker a minute adds up to a substantial voting-bloc.
Brock Masters 2 months, 1 week ago
Agree with what you wrote except the violent hater part.
I voted for Trump with eyes wide opened. I would have gladly voted for Carson, Finoria or Cruz but I didn’t have that option so I voted for Trump and don’t regret it. That said, I admit he is flawed but I prefer his flaws over Clinton’s.
Said our choice was between two very flawed candidates.
Ray Mizumura 2 months, 1 week ago
No, you had the opportunity to write in one of those other candidates. I'm interested--you preferred Trump's flaws to Clinton's. Does Trump, in your view, have any merits that make him preferable to other contenders? Or did you pick him just because he isn't Hillary Clinton? I ask because your take is pretty widespread across social media. Rarely, very rarely, have I seen or heard a Trump voter making a case for him solely on his merits. Obviously that is very difficult for many people to do.
Brock Masters 2 months, 1 week ago
Why would I write in a candidate who had no chance of winning? Yes, Trump has merit beside not being Clinton.
He is shaking up DC and exposing the entrenched establishment politicians of the GOP. He did, as I hoped, appointed a conservative SCOTUS Justice and he is appointing other conservative federal judges.
He ended DACA and put it back in Congress where it belongs.
He is standing up to NK instead of caving to their threats.
He was the impetus for the tax cuts and is giving land back to the states previously taken by the federal government.
I could go on, but this is enough.
Steve Hicks 2 months, 1 week ago
Sad that two or more very flawed candidates is what the choice always comes down to; and that that's yet the best governmental system human beings are able to come up with. But so it is.
But don't you think Trump is fundamentally, continually, an "anti-people" person ? That his default mindset is being AGAINST someone ?
More than any ideology or principle, that's been Trump's entire operative worldview. It goes with egomania. If the egomaniac is (his own) measure of all that's "good," everything "bad" is also on that criteria. Nations, religions, institutions, laws: it's all personal. Everything always comes down to who pleases him and who doesn't. And who doesn't, he attacks.
Tell me Trump hasn't shown a propensity for violent hatred (albeit manifested in juvenile tweets) of people (nations as well as individuals) who displease him...even his own obsequious servants ?
Is "flawed" a good characterization of a false god ? I don't think so. Were your eyes "wide opened" that you choosing for America to be ruled by a self-appointed deity ? That's what you get with an absolute egomaniac.
Gary Stussie 2 months, 1 week ago
"propensity for violent hatred" much like most of liberal friends, on this platform, when anyone suggests something that does not map to liberal talking points! Perhaps we should be more tolerant?
Ray Mizumura 2 months, 1 week ago
Amen to what you say, Steve. And then there's the case that some people make for Trumper--he's a businessman. That might make sense if he weren't a businessman whose way of doing business stinks on ice. Of all the distinguished, ethical, decent business leaders this country has produced, the electorate goes right down to the very bottom of the barrel to valorize someone who's going to do nothing but give them the business.
Bob Smith 2 months, 1 week ago
Had Trump been running against anyone other than the worst major-party candidate in 100 years, he wouldn't have won.
Greg Cooper 2 months, 1 week ago
Hillary is not, again, an item in this discussion. Drop it. We are talking about the man who won and his (despicable) demeanor. Thank you.
Steve Hicks 2 months, 1 week ago
"Flawed" is such a cop-out, Brock. It puts things on a human scale, and reminds us that we are all flawed. Your man would be offended on both counts.
It's also part of the sophistry that Trump's election was Clinton's fault. If both were measured on the normative human scale and both were "flawed," and hers were greater than his...it's Clinton's fault that Trump is president..
But that's a lie. Trump-voters made Trump president.
But "flawed" is also cover for Trump-voters, isn't it ? Makes it sound as if those who voted for Trump weighed the candidates equally, on the same impartial criteria, and made a rational decision one was "the lesser of two evils."
Putting it that way is always more flattering that admitting (especially to themselves) that they were conned. Weighing "flaws" wrong is a misdemeanor: pleading guilty to a misdemeanor is just a way to avoid felony charges of aiding and abetting America's destruction.
Trump-voters elected Trump. Trump-voters were conned. When they start being honest (especially to themselves) on those basic points, maybe we can start to get America back on the right track. As long as Trump-followers keep lying (especially to themselves) on those basic points, America will continue to suffer immense harm.
Brock Masters 2 months, 1 week ago
I can’t speak for all Trump voters, only myself and I assure you I was not conned. I knew who I was voting for. I wrote this in a blog during our caucus.
The crowd came to see Trump and he did not disappoint. Trump, unlike the GOP establishment, has his finger on the pulse of many Americans. He knows many Americans are angry and why they are angry. He is giving the American people what they want to hear from a candidate.
In the end, that is why I voted for Cruz. I listened to Cruz and he said much the same thing Trump did sans insults. I liked he did not insult people. I liked that I felt that Cruz was not telling people what they wanted to hear; he was telling us what he believed and it came from his heart and his soul.
In the end, I found Trump to be entertaining, but I found Cruz to be inspirational. Substance trumps (excuse the pun) style for me. Cruz earned my vote.
Steve Hicks 2 months, 1 week ago
"...I assure you I was not conned. I knew who I was voting for."
So you knew you were voting for a braggart schoolyard-bully ?
But you only voted for him because your faction didn't nominate the smarmy sleazeball you really wanted to vote for ?
The LTE-writer is right-on: people show what they ARE, by what they think and what they do.
Wake up, Brock. You horribly demean yourself, by choosing to define your personal character and perception by people like these.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.