Sherman Gillums Jr., contributor and retired U.S. Marine

You know America’s quadrennial battle royale, or what we commonly refer to as a presidential election, is nearing its final rounds when reputational body blows landed on candidates no longer become a means to an end—they are the ends themselves. The latest flurry has President Donald Trump now defending against allegations from anonymous sources that attribute some pretty damning comments to him. Specifically, the president’s purported use of the word “suckers” and “losers” to characterize the Marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood in France, the heralded site of one of the deadliest battles of WWI. As if that weren’t bad enough, he’s also accused of later expressing similar sentiments within earshot of John Kelly, a retired 4-star Marine general whose son was killed in combat, while visiting graves at Arlington National Cemetery.

Before I offer my take on the situation, I’m compelled to put forth a couple disclaimers. One, I publicly expressed my disappointment over the manner in which Senator John McCain’s passing was initially handled by the White House. I had a chance speak with Senator McCain shortly after the president made inexcusable comments about his capture during the Vietnam War, and told the senator how I felt about the whole matter. I have no problem calling out President Trump when it’s warranted and backed up by independently verifiable facts. Two, perhaps more importantly, I’d directly engaged President Trump, both before and after he took office in moments both public and private. I’ve heard him say things that made two things abundantly clear to me: he doesn’t always have his facts straight when discussing military or veteran-related issues; but he holds veterans in general, as well as their families, in extremely high, personal regard.

What’s troubling is I can list these facts and direct observances yet they’re rivaled by the anonymous sources who believe now is the appropriate time to drop two-year old news onto the public regarding comments about dead troops allegedly made by the president. Further troubling is the manner in which I’ve watched stories like these unfold over the years, with absolutely no basis in fact but taken as the gospel. Examples include an allegation the president was awarding an unusually high number of Medals of Honor for partisan purposes. I had to educate the reporter who’d contacted me on a couple facts: the Congress decides who receives the medal, and President Obama had awarded many more than Trump at that same point during his term. What bothered me wasn’t the fact the reporter posed the question itself; it was that truth and context didn’t seem to matter when the story ran as a hit piece against the president.

I don’t know for certain whether President Trump disparaged dead veterans or not. John Kelly offered no comment to The Atlantic because he knows what many find out the hard way — silence can never be misquoted. I do care that the allegation sits out there and understand why some find it credible. Sometimes, the president, like most politicians, has a sense of his own that opinions that shaming in media cannot cure. If he indeed said those words within the context alleged, and it can be sufficiently verified, he deserves to be castigated to no end. But I suffer the problem of believing “veterans” always make for great political hand grenades in Washington DC, even when facts are lacking, and we’re seeing yet another example.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the contributor and not of the PW Perspective.