Actuallly, The Atlantic is highly respected for their journalistic rigor.
And by the linked article they do not name all their sources.
And undertandably in most cases. It is usually 'insiders' that dish the dirt.
And as we've seen time and time again 'whistle-blowers' pay a price once they are identified.
So, for me, I've got confidence that The Atlantic has got it right.
If Breitbart, or Hannity, or Gateway Pundit reported something with 'anonymous sources'.....well.........
Here's another bit about the fired guy's loyalty to our military. This one is from Vox on September 4th, 2020.
The Atlantic reports that during a trip to France two years ago, Trump didn’t want to visit a cemetery where American military service members were buried, during the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.
His reasons? Among them, the bad weather might mess up his hair. He also felt the cemetery was, in his estimation, “filled with losers,” and that the nearly 2,000 Marines buried there were “suckers” for getting killed in a storied World War I battle.
The Atlantic story also details other disturbing incidents: that Trump railed against lowering American flags after Sen. John McCain’s death because McCain “was a ******* loser,” and that during a Memorial Day visit in 2017 to the grave of then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly’s son, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2010, Trump asked why anyone would volunteer to serve in the military. “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” he asked the fallen Marine’s father.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, if you would good poster Godboy, what is a "woke military"?
How do you define it?
How do you know?
Are you active duty military now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who did it?
Well, I would argue that if it was being done it was by young folks adamantly opposed to that unfortunate war. The good poster LeftofLeft says it wasn't Conservatives?
OK, so?
How does he know?
50+ years is a long time ago.
And for any of those who dissed returning soldiers from Viet Nam.......what is their political affiliation now?
I know plenty of folks....men and women who were very 'anti-war' at that time. Today they are solid citizens who love America and support whatever Administration is in power, and they support the military. But, they still think Viet Nam was not America's shining moment in the sun.
If returning troops got dissed, and I'm not doubting some, a few, may have been.....of course that is unfortunate. But in my opinion, America ain't like that now. And hasn't been shortly after 1973, '74.
We all saw some news coverage at the time of the alleged 'spitting'. But the question arises.....just how frequent and widespread was this unfortunate activity? I'm pretty skeptical that it was a big nationwide activity. It would only take a mere handful to be 'news'.....and shock America.
Which I think the reportage did.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The poster says he "saw the attitude towards troops following Iraq".
Really?
Tell us about it.
I ask because I had never heard that.
It seems to me that since Viet Nam our nation has been very very pro-military.
With much support for the boots-on-the-ground guys.
Count me as skeptical.