Veterans slam Trump for border 'stunt'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
With his decision to deploy more than 5,000 troops to the US-Mexico border, President Donald Trump has ordered more military personnel to the US southwest than he has serving in some of the world's most contentious combat zones.
Senior military officers have defended the deployment on national security grounds but the mission -- dubbed Operation Faithful Patriot -- raises a slew of questions, with many veterans condemning it as a political stunt by a President eager to fire up his political base just days away from the midterm elections.
"Donald Trump thinks unarmed people who are fleeing horrors and are still 1,000 miles away are a national security threat a week before election day?" said Will Fischer, a former Marine who now works for the VoteVets, a progressive veteran's organization.
"I don't think so," Fischer said. "It's a political ploy to blow upon the embers of racism and nativism, and he is using the military again as a political prop to advance his own agenda"
Fischer and other veterans point to the unknown cost to taxpayers, given that much smaller deployments of National Guard to the border have cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They also question the cost the military will bear, as the operation pulls troops away from training, other missions and their families. And then, they say, there's the murky legality of the mission, its scope and its purpose.
Still, the Pentagon appears ready to move forward with the deployment and military officials said Tuesday that the number of troops is likely to exceed 5,200, a total that will surpass the number of US military personnel currently fighting what remains of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
US troops will join over 2,000 National Guardsmen who are already at the border, meaning upwards of 7,000 American forces will be mobilized to stop Central American migrants that are still some 900 miles away from the border and weeks away from arriving in the US.
Currently, 5,239 troops are scheduled for deployment to the border but that number will likely grow, according to Gen. Terence O'Shaughnessy, the head of Northern Command, who said that the Pentagon does not yet know how many more forces might be added.
Asked if the military was being used as a political tool, O'Shaughnessy said Tuesday that "I firmly believe that border security is national security."
"This caravan is different from what we've seen in the past," he said, referring to the migrant group making its way north to seek asylum and arguing that its size -- approximately 3,500 people as of now -- presented security challenges.
A detachment of US Marines will also participate in the border security operation, according to two defense officials. Planning is still underway as to the exact make-up of the Marine detachment, but it will consist of engineers and offer support to Customs and Border Patrol.
Another US defense official told CNN on Tuesday that there are approximately 2,000 additional US troops that have been identified as a reserve force and could be sent to the border should the need arise.
Political ploy?
Despite Trump's unsubstantiated claim that the group of Central Americans includes "gang members and some very bad people," most of the migrants have reportedly indicated that they plan to apply for asylum once they arrive in the US.
"This is not a national security issue. ... We're seeing women, children and the elderly within this caravan fighting for their lives. We don't need more military there," according to Bishop Garrison, the interim executive director of the Truman National Security Project, a left-leaning organization focused on national security and veterans issues.
"We don't need to make a sensitive issue and situation all the more dramatic," said Garrison, a former Homeland Security and Pentagon official.
Both Fischer and a former military official, interviewed separately, raised the question of the rules of engagement for the troops. The former official, who worked at Central Command while Defense Secretary James Mattis was commander, asked, "what if something does happen and lethal force is deployed and you have the US military firing at unarmed civilians?"
"There are laws, there are regulations about how the military can and should be used," the official said. "As somebody that deployed and said good bye to my wife and kids multiple times, you want to be confident about the mission. Sending military troops to the border to defend against unarmed civilians is just nonsense."
Anger about the deployment and the perception that Mattis is allowing the military to be used for political purposes led one former Pentagon official to call for him to step down.
"This is a craven political stunt by President Trump ahead of the US midterms, and a cynical capitulation by a secretary of defense who has prided himself on improving the readiness, focus and lethality of the US armed forces," Kelly Magsamen, a National Security Council official under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, wrote in Defense One.
"If Mattis does not believe the migrants are a threat that warrants tasking 5,000 active troops to the border, he should say so and resign," Magsamen wrote.
Cost and readiness concerns
Fischer touched on concerns about troop readiness, saying that once these troops are at the border, "they're not going to be training, they're not going to be preparing for the fights that could be on the horizon from legitimate threats."
Instead, Fischer said, these troops will be tasked with supporting border officials in a way that means "we're going to spend a tremendous amount of money and a tremendous amount of resources to have these troops act as errand runners, act as go-fers, act as camouflage-wearing Uber drivers for [homeland security] and border patrol personnel."
"This is taking away from mission readiness and this is Donald Trump playing politics with our national security," Fischer said.
The former military officer, who logged two decades of experience as an army officer before moving on to become a strategist, said the troops were being sent to "do a mission that could ... be done by another entity" such as the National Guard.
Dave McGinnis, a former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, agreed.
"The big problem that I and many former and active military guys have with this thing is that the Posse Comitatus [law] forbids the army from enforcing domestic laws unless there's no other choice and Trump has lots of choices," McGinnis said.
The President could use federal law enforcement officers such as the US Marshals, or the Army and National Guard. There's also Immigration and Customs Enforcement, McGinnis notes. "We already have an organization that enforces that civil law. It's called ICE."
In 2010, President Obama sent 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security at the border but those levels pale in comparison to number of active duty troops being sent by Trump.
Defenders of this deployment argue Trump is making a sensible short-term decision.
"The President and the administration wants to look like they are acting decisively ... they want to appear strong. ... The military is a quick way to respond to things in many cases," Tom Spoehr, director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for National Defense and a US Army veteran said.
But Spoehr noted that while the military could provide a fast, effective response option, in his view, the President should not lean on those troops for more than two or three months.
The former official pointed out that US laws prohibit the military from detaining people, "so it's not like we're sending down an operational force, it's just people in a largely supportive role. That's why I say it's a stunt, so [Trump] can say, yeah, we're sending the military down to the border."
McGinnis said Trump's move also sets a precedent. "If Congress allows him to do this, you're pushing the envelope on using the military for things this country has never, ever permitted," he said.
"The visual on this for the world is really bad from a military perspective," McGinnis said. "It's using regular military troops for things that democracies really don't do."
Cost also remains a major concern. Congressional sources with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees told CNN that they have not received cost data from the Pentagon.
And while Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood told CNN Tuesday that details related to the final price tag are still being worked out, immigration critics maintain that sending troops to the border to respond to families fleeing violence is fundamentally a waste of money.
"It's not fair to troops," said Garrison of the Truman National Security Project. "This is going to be very costly and just flat-out wrong," he said, arguing that it doesn't make sense to send the military to handle this humanitarian crisis.
Tags
Who is online
220 visitors
Our military being politicized in addition to another unnecessary cost for the tax payers.
Illegal aliens and those trying to join them are another cost to the taxpayers.
Preventing them from crossing the border will be a long term saving to taxpayers
To the tune of $313 BILLION dollars a year - yup - let them Illegals in.
Please. We have been politicized LONG before President Trump. The difference is we are now defending ourselves instead of some other country.
When will Trump actually send the troops to the border?
And when will the "caravan" actually begin to arrive at the border?
The article misinterprets the Posse Comitatus Act. Defense of our borders is the President's decision. The act speaks to enforcing domestic laws against U.S. Citizens.
Yes, they referenced that law as an example of WHAT type of situations the military should not be used for.
Do you disagree with everything in the article or just that citing of the law?
whoever wrote that was misinformed or being deceitful.
as it is their primary duty, nothing can stop the military from protecting our borders... any opinion contrary is simply laughable.
as for posse comitatus?
all restrictions on the military being on our streets goes away with two words from the president "national security"
cheers
Without Congressional approval under the PCA, Army troops can not act as law enforcement in conjunction with local LE. As Trump does not believe in getting approval from anyone, millions of dollars will be spent to have the troops just stand around.
It still takes congressional approval.
And you guys just can't remember when Trump and the military AGREED to send the extra troops to the border to perform CLERICAL and SUPPORT tasks, such as maintenance on vehicles, IT systems, medical support, meals, equipment because they ADMITTED that the military could not/would not be in the position of enforcement.
JJJJEEEEEZZZZZZ - cry me a river.
Yes, I support the administration's assistance to the Border Patrol.
no... the president can declare a national emergency on his own... no problem there.
Just like the rest of the Population the Military and Veterans are both Republicans and Democrats and it's disingenuous of CNN to put out a story like this as if all Veterans feel the same way. We've had our Troops guarding South Korea's Border for over sixty years but the Left acts like it's a Crime for us to use our Troops to guard our own Border. I'm quite sure if they did a poll asking Veterans how they feel about this the majority would support securing our Border by any means necessary. That wouldn't serve CNN's purpose of putting out a Left Wing Propaganda article though so they find a few seemingly credible People who happen to be Veterans who are willing to espouse CNN's cause and the CNN pretends these few Veterans represent all Veterans.
Hmmmm.....I'll go back and reread the article. I did not see that it had claimed ALL veterans were being represented in this article.
Just to be clear, you're okay with the millions of dollars this political stunt is costing us, correct?
It's implied by the Headline "Veterans slam Trump for border 'stunt' ". It doesn't say some or a few or several Veterans it just says Veterans. I also noticed there were no Veterans mentioned in the article who supported Trumps use of Troops on the border, why is that ? I know for a fact there are plenty who do but CNN didn't bother to include them in the article. It's not a Political stunt, we have 5000+ Invaders heading for our Border who have already Violently Crashed through Mexico's southern border. As far as the Money goes it's about time we start spending our money securing our own Country and it's Borders since we spend Billions to secure other Countries and their Borders.
I pulled this out of the article for you. It shows a different perspective and one that I believe you agree with. So it does look like both positions are represented in the article. Also, please note that our military leaders cite 3,500 NOT 5k. Another discrepancy in your argument.
I do agree that I'd like to see less of American troops and military abroad.
Your desire to spend more money is aligned with other republicans who have now added 1.3 trillion to our deficit. What's several million more for unnecessary border security.......
There may come a time for this expense but its not now.
Was the headline accurate? Yes. Multiple "Veterans" slammed Trump for border stunt. Yes, they are veterans working for VoteVets, a progressive veteran's organization, but they are Veterans just the same. Every headline aspires to give you the short sweet and most open to interpretation description garnering a wider audience. Then they explain what they meant in the headline in the first few paragraphs. This was just a textbook headline, and I've seen far more misleading headlines where you really have to stretch the truth to still claim accuracy, most often from right wing and religious websites whose bread and butter it is to obfuscate truth in order to push particular opinions.
If we allow this Caravan to enter the USA the next Caravan will be even bigger. If we let them in we're rewarding their Criminality and that will embolden Millions more to do the same thing. Actually we should have done this long ago. We're paying these Troops anyway and we need them here securing our own Borders. It costs less to station them at our Border than to station them in Europe or Asia, plus when the Troops spend money it will be spent here in America not somewhere else so it's better for the Economy.
And, what makes you assume that they will enter illegally? Most of these people, even if they make it this far, will be seeking asylum, which means that they will have a reason to be accepted into the country and, that they will go before a court to prove their case, if it is accepted then they will be placed with a sponsor who will work with them to make them legal. To make the assumption that everyone who comes to our southern border is an illegal is simply racist.
Well, gosh 9mm, since I'm not an immigration lawyer and, I'm not in the caravan how the fuck should I know? Whatever their claim is, the court will decide if it is legitimate.
LOL, I'm not "race baiting" here, you state it very well in the quoted comment, "If they are not a citizen, they are an illegal", so, anyone from another country that is here in the U.S. is an illegal, even if they have the proper immigration paperwork and, have gone through or, are going through an immigration asylum hearing. Got it.
Typical strawman. You often lie about what other people have said so that you can refute these artificial statements. [deleted]
Strawman, I'm more likely to have my home broken into by some White Nationalist POS looking for drugs than I am someone who is an illegal, they tend to keep out of trouble.
Personally, I haven't seen any aliens, except on Sci-Fi shows, illegal or, otherwise. What I have seen in my life are people looking for a better life because the one they escaped from was worse than the one you claim you have here because of them. Maybe, a good look in the mirror will help you.
Absolutely OK with this administration utilizing monies for border protection. Absolute DO NOT support the $313 BILLION being spend annually on the Illegal Aliens.
What have you done personally to assist these illegals? Or is it just somebody else's problem.
Did you see the video of then crashing the southern Mexican Border. Mexico closed their Border and these Criminals broke down fences and entered Mexico Illegally ! What makes You think they will act any differently when they reach our Border ?
In Oklahoma the gop legislature passed a goddamn law witch Governor Mary Lee Failin happily signed making it illegal to give aid or assistance to a little kid bleeding to death on the side of the road if that kid is undocumented. How are you supposed to even tell? I guess you just shouldn't help a brown skinned person in Oklahoma if y ou don't want to break the law. FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! Immigrants have always been a net positive for this nation and nothing has changed except some have let their primitive ignorant greedy impulses override their good sense and basic human decency. No wonder people have had enough of Trump and the damn gop's hateful lying averitious ungodly xenophobic racist agenda...
We are becoming just like the countries we despise. Those that won't tolerate others, whether it be a different culture or religion.
Freedom isn't cheap, being great isn't as easy as a catchy tag line. It takes sacrifice and selflessness.
Of course they are. They don't mind at all if trump spends 90 million a year on golf either, (after he said he would be too busy to golf).
Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. Just think about the additional damage he could be doing if he wasn't on the golf course.
What makes you think they'll reach our border? They are a month away at the least, women walking with little children and, they are barefoot on top of it.
I'll tell you if you answer the same question for yourself. What are YOU doing PERSONALLY to assist immigrants?
As far as illegals are concerned, I'm doing nothing to help THEM, however, I have help immigrants get started.
The idea the USA should be a "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS" type of dictatorial police state should alarm and motivate all good and decent Americans to vote like their lives depend upon it because they do. Trump and the damned gop have lifted their ragged skirts giving us all a good look at their syphlitic underbelly of racism and xenophobia. If that doesn't motivate folks to get off their butts and vote the damned goppers out of Congress then we might as well all kiss our ancient, beloved and sacred Republic goodbye...
Show me your papers?
A wee bit melodramatic, aren't you?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting our current immigration laws followed and enforced.
Beats the HELL out of open borders!
IMO it's nothing more an attention getter for Trump...The NG could do the exact same thing.
This sets a bad precedent.
I am a veteran.
Thank you for your voice of reason Kavika.
If we must pay for this unnecessary expense perhaps this could be Trump's parade. He can go down to the border and watch all the idle military standing around looking at each other.
Most Excellent!!!!
Troops are always in need of training and something to do
a bad 'president' setting a bad precedent. What else is new?
We must be prepared for the coming caterpillar. Make sure those troops are down there waaayyy before those children walking 1,000 miles get there … before Nov. 6 would be good. Trump supporters are stupid enough to not see what is going on under their noses. To them, this is a good way to spend their taxes.
What ever. So the nation that proudly displays The Statue of Liberty has a president and ( supporters ) that want to make it a criminal act to seek safety, opportunity and freedom in this......great nation?
Jeez. Is the Trump really worth all of this? Honestly?
I know - ain't it a bitch that the U. S. Constitution, the document that guarantees those "privileges" you listed, was written by a bunch of lily white Illegal Aliens???? Now, who would want to follow that shit, ya know????
Yeah - we had poor immigration laws and listened to your pathetically sad stories of oppression, etc..
"My pathetically sad stories of oppression, etc."
Uh. Am white. Born and raised in a small Ohio town. Vietnam Veteran. I have never been oppressed. I wasn't born in that...…….class.
Why is the right wing always so afraid? Where's the juice?
This is an invasion of our sovereignty as a nation. Hordes in the thousands who throw rocks at authorities and tear down border gates while carrying their national flag are not refugees. They are invaders. I support President Trump exercising his Constitutional powers by sending the military to stop this invasion. This is war and sending our military to repel invaders is specifically authorized by the Constitution
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. Article 4 Section 4 US Constitution
Whether a Veteran is for or against sending U.S. troops to our border, has any one of you seen the scope of the mission and rules of engagement? Not allowing these people to cross and providing a mission name tells me zilch!
I have not Lynne and IMO it doesn't matter since this job could and should be handled by the NG.
Defending our nation defending our nation from foreign invasions is precisely the role of the military
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. Article 4 Section 4 US Constitution
Kavika - Totally agree, sending troops is bad policy. If a group of 200 overrun a checkpoint, then what? Not having served myself, I'm trying to imagine what our response will be...I shudder at the possibilities.
BTW, to all who have served, Thank You.
E.A Hmmm, interesting,, so it is feasibly that " some would over run … " But one can not see how a " Body of Citizens " can assist to control that " over run " interesting … but …..
LiveFree - Is violence on your 'defend' table? Anything not on your defense scenario regarding this migration of people?
Are you aware of what the NG mission is? Seems that you aren't.
should I send pictures from the border when I go and stand behind our troops?
there will be a body of citizens standing there with me, count on it.
E.A Get Quality Video with Sound, Have a Friend with a Drone and Permission to use in that Locale, then Make sure you download the Video to a Number of Secure places, that also means a number of memory sticks shared by Friends, Make sure what ever you do is Legal and Proper!
well, that is probably not going to happen.
my cell phone is a potato phone at best.
I've had this phone since before obama was elected and it only cost about 20bucks... LOL
it still works and the best part is it fits inside a small wallet.
cheers
E.A LOL :-)
Well the Old Adage comes to mind " when in NEED Find a Friend " Cheers!
violence is not mandatory, but putting up military deterrence to prevent an invasion is the minimum
I realize it isn't mandatory, I'm asking if you'd support it.
Better than a big dumb worthless wall or sending thousands of our troops to fire upon poor refugees fleeing cartels and drug lords would be to fight the goddamn cartels and drug lords or perhaps actually honor our commitments to our own veterans. Something is wrong with our priorities when we must for some unknown reason spend more than the whole rest of the world put together defending ourselves butt somehow we cannot afford to keep our own citizens healthy with the basic healthcare that even poor "Shithole" nations enjoy...
meaning, the military cannot run around the country rounding up illegals...
however, nothing can stop the military from defending our borders.
btw the 14th amendment has nothing to do with illegals or illegal entries.
the intent of a law is everything... feelings about that mean nothing.
cheers
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Emma Lazarus
November 2, 1883
As a vet, I cannot support a draft dodger like Coward Trump.
All of this is nothing but political theater. These people, 2,000 of them, are WALKING and they are 1000 miles from the border. So why do we need 15,000 troops there...TODAY? Oh that's right, the mid-terms, gotta get that base riled up, even if he has to use tax payer dollars to do it. I cannot even imagine the outrage from the right had President Obama done something like that. Holy crap, there would have been investigations for the next 500 years.
This crowd of immigrants, (which fox news says have small pox...(no, they really said that...)), totaling 2-5,000 people, cannot be stopped by the border patrol agents we already have? But trump said none were getting through???? So why 15,000 troops???? All they can do is support the BP anyway, they cannot enforce immigration laws.
2-5,000 people... Not sure what the big deal is, American citizens will murder far more than 5,000 American Citizens before Christmas anyway.
E.A Question::
Are these Troops already is service?
Are they sent from one location to another?
Will they be performing a " Defence Roll "?
What is the Extra Cost, can you please break that down?
Here some information about the cost.
E.A Thank you see key words " might cost "
So can you please break the cost down,, to the EXTRA cost in having those troops serving in ONE Locale Vs Another, and DO they not Train by moving from one Location to Another?
If the Move is done using Military Equipment, is that not " Part Training " as they have to train to do that anyhow?
Please Inform!
Nope. I don't play those silly games. You're an intelligent man. The video reports what it "may" cost based on previous costs. I believe the Secretary of Homeland Security talked about what could be involved.
Happy Halloween!
E.A Ahh Ok Getting to the TRUTH is " Silly Games " ok many thanks!
No, pretending like you can't comprehend information is silly. You're a bright dude. I've seen your discussions. I'm not sure what has changed lately that you've decided to be this way but with me I'd prefer the old you back. Then we can chat.
E.A Ahhh don't know maybe its all those " No Value " tickets I been getting for MY thoughts?
Yeah - I got 6 and I'm itching to add to them. hahahahaha
Don't sweat it. It happens to the best of us.
E.A That, repeat THAT is not the Issue is it, as with searching for TRUTH if one is denied " Voice " what have WE left?
Our sense of humor?
E.A Is it do I recall a Movie " Laughing ALL the way to the Gallows " or " Silent Sheep for Slaughter " is that the Goal?
They could save some money by just having the soldiers walk there from wherever they live. No doubt they would still get there before the caravan.
But I'll bet you practically worship at the feet of Bill Clinton. You know, the one who not only avoided the draft, but also stated that he loathed the military.
If he was the POTUS I might. But he left office nearly 20 years ago. Did you not know that?
So 20 years ago you thought it was OK to adore a POTUS that skipped out on go is military service and stated he loathed the military. What changed?
So you want to vilify Clinton, and give 5 deferment donny a pass? Again, why can you not focus on the CURRENT FUCKING PRESIDENT?
Just like you did to Reagan and both Bushes during the Obama years but that was different wasn't it?
I voted for both bush's. HW was a phenomenal president. Jr......not a great president, but a damn good man.
Reagan was before my voting years, so I don't have an opinion, all I remember about Reagan was Iran Contra.
Who else you going to bring up so you can deflect away from the CURRENT president? Hey, I get it, he is a POS and you cannot defend him without running down the list of democrats and dropping names.
I always liked Barbara Bush.
I thought Bush JR was an idiot.
Barbara was a very classy lady. GWB...yea, he is an idiot. I voted for his first term but not the second term.
Like I said above...GWB is a good man....just not a good president.
Can You start a seed on Medical Research, so that I can post some articles?
I'll look for something later. I'm on a road trip and am getting ready to set out on the next leg of my trip.
I have a couple ideas.
E.A OK Have FUN!!~
Be Safe/Stay Safe!!!
All veterans are to Trump and Republicans are political props. Bush and Cheney sent them to a useless war that was unpaid for and then cut their pay, had to deal with the Walter Reed hospital scandal and the scandal of the wasted time and money on a new hospital that they spent years on which didn't get finished until Bush was out of office.
Trump makes a display of supporting veterans but little noticed was the removal of dental benefits for qualifying veterans and other cuts that the media did not follow.
Republicans want to send them to war, use then in photo ops, and lie about how they "support our troops".
Many veterans cannot find work or are disabled, so those veterans who are poor use Medicaid and food stamps. Veterans may have coordinated benefits through ACA using whatever is available to cover their healthcare.
But Republicans care nothing about the number of homeless veterans, poor veterans, disabled veterans because they want to cut any program that may help these veterans.
Not every veteran served during a time of an actual declared war. So their benefit levels vary, depending on their dates of service and how long they served.
Using them for silly military parades so Trump can pretend to be a dictator or pretend to be a "commander in chief" when he won't even visit our troops in a war zone.
At least Bush and many in his crew made visits to war zones and even surprise visits to our troops.
Trump will fly to Paris for Veterans Day to meet Putin,but will not even schedule a visit to our troops anywhere while he is over there.
Demoncrat Presidents like Obama and Clinton despised the military. there is good reason why Bush2 and Trump have had high support from both active military and Veterans and neither Obama or Clinton had such support
How is it that they despised the military pastor(?)?
Bill Clinton loathe military letter
“And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes and the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is dis-service, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.”
Military disapproves of Obama
Military Members Hold Negative View of Obama
Survey finds majority disapproved of president's job as commander in chief.
3 former Obama Defense Secretaries criticize his view of military
How Obama (and Biden) mistreated America’s Generals
Does this mean you won't be voting for him 2 years ago when he wasn't running for president? I'm sure he will be disappointed. /s
Straw poll at our MCL meeting last night, all Vets.
35-4 on using the military to secure our borders if required
90% for 10% against ..... pretty typical of Vets in my experience on topic of this nature.
Who doesn't want to get paid for doing nothing?
E.A I do NOT!
What's that got to do with the post you're responding to?
The warrior monk sez it's not a stunt ..... that's good enough for me
Easier ribbon than the GWOT lol.
Trump is just using them as props, he won't visit them in any war zone as past Presidents have done.
Just a travesty at all levels.
Just look at how Trump is cutting their benefits to pay for the tax cuts to the wealthy. So veterans get reduced benefits, increased Tricare expenses and poor and disabled veterans will be denied food stamps or other needed benefits so they will suffer.
Trump doesn't support the troops, he wants the troops to "support" him without any reason to do so.