Dem
51
GOP
49
If you do not like "boy, this sure makes Trumpy Republicans look bad" items, then this just isn't your day, blog-wise. On the other hand, if you are a fan of such items, it's gonna be pretty much wall-to-wall schadenfreude from here on out. We note this in order to make clear that we are mindful when any particular day tilts aggressively in one direction or another. That said, we follow where the news leads us. We're not going to dig up some additional item in service of some vague performance of "balance." And because we ran so long today, we actually held yet another item that makes Trumpublicans look bad. We'll have that one next week; it's about the shenanigans in Texas and elsewhere.
Anyhow, earlier this week, we wrote about Donald Trump's visit to Arlington National Cemetery on the third anniversary of the Abbey Gate attacks in Afghanistan. It is not legal to hold campaign events at military cemeteries, and it's even more problematic when the graves of recently deceased soldiers get involved. If the former president had just stuck with the Tomb of the Unknowns, it probably would have been tolerated. But when he headed over to Section 60, he crossed a line, and park personnel endeavored to put a stop to it.
Yesterday, two things became very clear. The first is that it was most certainly a campaign event, and had nothing to do with any sort of desire to honor America's servicemen and women. The Trump campaign posted a TikTok video in which Trump contrasts his "record" (nobody killed in Afghanistan) with "their record" (Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not named, but are clearly being blamed for the 13 deaths at Abbey Gate). The campaign also circulated this icky photo on social media:
How has nobody impressed upon him, at this point, that there are some contexts where thumbs up is not appropriate?
Incidentally, Trump is justifying his visit based on the fact that he had "permission" from the families of some of the soldiers in Section 60. This line of argument is 100% pure, unadulterated B.S. First of all, private citizens do not have the right to waive federal law, even if they are relatives of the deceased. The issue here is plain; when Trump shows up for a photo-op like that, he's using all of the graves and all of the soldiers as political props, not just the soldiers/graves he has "permission" for. If Trump had been in Section 19A of Riverside National Cemetery, the location of (Z)'s maternal grandparents' graves, (Z) would be furious. His grandparents were liberal Democrats who both gave 4 years to the service of their country in World War II and, if they still lived, would hate Trump and everything he stands for. (Z) is their remaining representative on Earth, and has a responsibility to honor their memory and their wishes as best as possible.
That reminds us that, in our previous item, we said that if we were veterans, Trump's actions at Arlington (e.g., using dead soldiers as props) would make our blood boil. Here is a piece from at least one veteran who feels that way. Will Selber writes:
I don't know what part of this story makes me the saddest. It could be the fact that one of the two major parties, the one I've always been predisposed toward, has nominated—for the third straight time—a man who has consistently demonstrated an inability to understand honor and dignity.
It could be Trump's persistent (and undisciplined) flouting of the rules.
It could be that all of this is a distraction from the real issues facing veterans and the military: the moral injury that's eating our veterans from the inside out and hampering recruitment; the utter lack of accountability for two lost wars; the imbalance of having the smallest military since World War II even as the world gets more dangerous; the serious doubt about whether the American military or the United States as a country is prepared to win a major war.
But I think most of all it's this: The rules against using images or video of Section 60 in political campaigns are there for a reason. The people who gave their lives didn't swear an oath and give all to a party or a candidate. They swore to protect the Constitution and they sacrificed to protect this country. Their sacrifice is one of the last reminders we have that there exists an American project that is bigger than parties and tribes and campaigns, and that it's worth fighting, dying, and even killing for. All that's asked in return is that we don't subject them to our politics, that we keep them in an elevated, venerated place where they belong.
If we can't do that—if we let Section 60 become just another political weapon to use against each other—then what was all that sacrifice for?
We'll also have some letters from readers on this subject on Sunday.
Moving along, the second thing that has now become very clear is that the Trump campaign was lying when it claimed that nobody from the campaign assaulted an employee of the cemetery. Recall, for example, that Trump spokesman Steven Cheung decreed that not only was there no altercation, but to the extent there was an incident, it was the responsibility of someone "clearly suffering from a mental health episode." We actually had some e-mail questions about Cheung. The best way to think about him is that he's the "Baghdad Bob" of the Trump campaign. He not only lies constantly, he does so outlandishly to the point of being comical. Sometimes the truth might emerge from his lips, in the same way that even a broken clock is sometimes right. But the signal-to-noise ratio is so poor, you just can't take anything Cheung says even slightly seriously. Maybe he could run for governor of Arkansas some day.
Anyhow, the Trump campaign's lies about this were so egregious, and were doing enough harm to the reputation of Arlington personnel, that the U.S. Army took the very unusual step of issuing a statement that: (1) reiterates that what Trump did is against the law, (2) advises that Trump was told not to photograph his visit despite having "permission" from some soldiers' family members, and (3) confirms that a cemetery employee was indeed assaulted by a Trump staffer. She considered pressing charges, but ultimately declined because she feared recrimination from one or more angry Trump supporters.
And so it is, once again, that Trump showed disregard for America's veterans, that he and his staff lied, and that he is basically going to get away with multiple crimes. Not only was it illegal to film at Arlington, it was also illegal to post the images to social media. Oh, and it's also a felony to assault a federal employee (specifically, a violation of 18 U.S. Code 111). However, none of the law enforcement officers who were there for the original act, including the Secret Service, were willing to hold Trump and his staff accountable. The woman who was attacked is too afraid to do it. And anyone in the hierarchy who might make an issue of this either has the same fears as the victim, or doesn't want to be accused of engaging in political gamesmanship. Never let it be said that Trump's use of his base's fanatical loyalty, of lawyers and appeals, and of his victimhood complex is not very, very effective in allowing him to escape the consequences of most of his actions.
Politically, Trump is trying to get as much mileage as he can out of what happened in Afghanistan. The visit to Arlington appears to have done more harm than good, but J.D. Vance is trying to salvage the situation by angrily blaming Kamala Harris for the 13 deaths. At a campaign event on Wednesday, he declared:
And there hasn't been a single investigation or a single firing. I don't know. I don't, look, sometimes mistakes happen. That's just the nature of government, the nature of military service. But to have those 13 Americans lose their lives and not fire a single person is disgraceful. Kamala Harris is disgraceful. We're going to talk about a story out of those 13 brave, innocent Americans who lost their lives. It's that Kamala Harris is so asleep at the wheel that she won't even do an investigation into what happened. And she wants to yell at Donald Trump because he showed up. She can. She can go to hell!
Obviously, Harris is going to try to take credit for all the good things the Biden administration has done, while Trump and Vance are going to try to blame her for any and all failures. In this case, however, we think Vance is stretching things to the limit, and beyond. We checked our copy of the Constitution, and we see nothing that empowers the VP to initiate investigations. There is also the small problem that the hasty withdrawal was occasioned by an agreement with a hard deadline negotiated by... Donald Trump. (Z)