S.E. Cupp: Trump defenders going after U.S. war hero is new low | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

S.E. Cupp: Trump defenders going after U.S. war hero is new low

S.E. Cupp
1880626_web1_1873962-72763a8aaa954fd39796843623038b35
AP
Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, center, arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington Oct. 29.

Trying to keep up with the ever-changing positions of President Trump’s loyalists is hard work.

Last week, Fox News hosts Laura Ingraham and Brian Kilmeade, Fox News guest John Yoo, CNN contributor Sean Duffy and others suggested that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukrainian-born American, war hero and Purple Heart recipient, was loyal to Ukraine because of his testimony before Congress.

Ingraham actually used the odious words “dual loyalty,” while Yoo offered that Vindman’s damning testimony about Trump’s call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was akin to “espionage.” Duffy decided that Vindman had put his “affinity for Ukraine” above his love of America — whom he has literally bled for — and Kilmeade more colorfully offered that he was “simpatico with Ukraine.”

In some surprising and good news, many Republicans stepped forward to rebuke these disgusting smears.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “I’m not going to question the patriotism of any of the people who are coming forward.”

Sen. Mitt Romney described the attacks as “absurd, disgusting and way off the mark.” Sen. Liz Cheney said, “Questioning the patriotism, questioning the dedication to the country of people like Mr. Vindman … I think that we need to show that we are better than that as a nation.”

Of course, these same Republicans helped elect a president who did just that routinely while running for office. Remember, Trump smeared Sen. John McCain, a Trump critic, for his military service, saying, “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

He belittled a Gold Star family, whose son’s death he said he could have prevented had he been president. He questioned the loyalty of American Jews who voted for Democrats. And since getting elected, Trump has questioned the patriotism of four women of color in Congress and has regularly attacked his own generals, law enforcement and intelligence community.

So, it should be no surprise that his acolytes have taken up the disgusting practice in service of their master.

Except, that is, when they’re outraged that someone else is questioning an American’s patriotism.

Recently, Fox News hosts rushed to the defense of Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, after Hillary Clinton suggested the Russians might be “grooming” her for a third-party run.

Kilmeade praised Gabbard, saying, “She’s been an absolute standout during this whole election campaign.” His co-host, Ainsley Earhardt, said of Clinton’s accusations, “it shows how dirty politics is.”

Fox News host Tucker Carlson was also dismayed by the charge of disloyalty, calling it “lunacy,” “reckless” and “silly.” “That’s such a serious thing to say,” he insisted.

Or ask Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who’s been accused by many Republicans and even some Democrats — rightly, in my opinion — of smearing American Jews for their supposed “dual loyalty” to Israel.

Kilmeade’s now insisting that questioning Vindman’s relationship with Ukraine isn’t questioning his patriotism. Just like he insisted Trump wasn’t questioning Jewish voters’ loyalty to America when the president said, “I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or a great disloyalty.”

Trump supporters chant patriotic-sounding slogans like “America First” and “Make America Great Again,” while defending a president who continually puts his own interests ahead of his country’s. Their attempt at besmirching a decorated war hero to prop up their dear leader is phonier than their phony outrage.

S.E. Cupp is the host of “S.E. Cupp Unfiltered” on CNN.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.