This Memorial Day, these are some of the dead we remember



Memorial Day means different things to different Americans. For some, especially those whose losses remain fresh, no national holiday is required to preserve memory. Grief already structures daily life; the formal rituals of remembrance — flags, ceremonies, cemetery visits — may still offer recognition, but the dead are hardly absent.

For others, the connection is more distant: a grandfather never met, a name on an old photograph, a relative spoken about only occasionally. The holiday can become less an occasion for immediate mourning than a meditation on inheritance and historical continuity.

Memorial Day, like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, exists because modern war produces anonymity at a scale human beings struggle to comprehend.

Still other Americans may have no direct personal connection to war at all. For them, that distance is itself a kind of blessing. Memorial Day may register primarily as a feeling of generalized gratitude — gratitude for the country itself and for those who fought on its behalf.

Yet the holiday’s deeper purpose is more specific and, in some ways, more demanding. Memorial Day asks us to remember individuals whose lives were interrupted by war, individuals with whom we may have nothing in common but our shared nation.

In recent years, debates over immigration, national identity, and social cohesion have forced Americans to ask what citizenship actually means. Memorial Day offers one answer older and less ideological than many offered by contemporary politics: Citizenship implies obligations not only to the living, but to the dead. A nation becomes more than a marketplace or administrative zone when its citizens believe they owe remembrance to those whose lives became bound up with the country’s history.

Memorial Day is one of our few remaining holidays that ask us to remember strangers. Not celebrities or family members or ideological allies, but ordinary people, fellow Americans whose lives were cut short by violence that history inevitably turns abstract.

In an increasingly individualized society, that obligation can feel unfamiliar. Yet to remember our fellow citizens across distance, class, region, and even generations is to affirm that we belong to one another in ways deeper than convenience or self-interest.

These are a few of the many Americans we remember today.

James Robert Montgomery

When Drew Gilpin Faust wrote about the Civil War’s culture of mourning in "This Republic of Suffering," she lingered over a bloodstained letter written by James Robert Montgomery, a 26-year-old Confederate signal corps soldier mortally wounded at Spotsylvania in 1864.

A former law student from Mississippi, Montgomery spent his last moments taking pen to paper and — in labored but still elegant script — composing a farewell message to his father:

“I write to you because I know you would be delighted to read a word from your dying son.”

The word “delighted” now feels shocking. Yet, as Faust observed, Civil War Americans placed immense importance on the final words of the dying. Even in agony, Montgomery worried about consoling those at home.

“I would like to rest in the grave yard with my dear mother and brothers but it’s a matter of minor importance,” he wrote, just before signing off as “your dying son.” “Let us all try to reunite in heaven.”

His final resting place remains in Virginia.

Bert Stiles

Before World War II, Bert Stiles was a Colorado college student obsessed with becoming a writer. The son of a Denver electrician and a music teacher, he spent summers working as a junior forest ranger in Estes Park, experiences that became material for his short stories. While attending Colorado College, he wrote constantly — stories, poetry, newspaper features — and briefly embraced the pacifist sentiments common on American campuses before the war.

In 1941, convinced he could become a serious writer, Stiles hitchhiked repeatedly to New York to meet literary agents who had shown interest in his work. He eventually found mentors willing to support him, and his stories soon began appearing in publications like the Saturday Evening Post.

For many celebrated American writers, war became a harsh but formative education — the crucible from which emerged figures like Ernest Hemingway, Norman Mailer, and James Jones. Looking backward, it can almost seem like a foregone conclusion that their talent would survive long enough to become literature. But for every writer history remembers, there were others swallowed by the machinery of war before their lives had fully begun. History offers no exemption for promise.

Stiles continued writing throughout his combat service, producing articles and journal entries while flying bombing missions over Germany with the Eighth Air Force. He completed a full combat tour in B-17 bombers, volunteered for a second tour flying P-51 Mustangs, and was killed in November 1944 during a dogfight south of Hanover. He was 23 years old.

Henry T. Waskow

War correspondent Ernie Pyle became famous during World War II not for writing about generals or battlefield strategy, but for documenting the emotional lives of ordinary American soldiers. His most enduring dispatch may have been his account of the death of Captain Henry T. Waskow during the Italian campaign in 1944.

Pyle wrote:

Capt. Waskow was a company commander in the 36th Division. He had led his company since long before it left the States. He was very young, only in his middle twenties, but he carried in him a sincerity and gentleness that made people want to be guided by him.

“After my own father, he came next,” a sergeant told me.

Pyle described soldiers bringing Waskow’s body down a mountain trail by mule under moonlight alongside other dead men. One by one, exhausted infantrymen approached the body, lingering beside their captain in silence.

One soldier looked down and muttered simply, "God damn it." Another stood over him for a moment before saying, “I sure am sorry, sir.”

Then one man sat beside Waskow’s body, holding the dead captain’s hand silently for several minutes before gently straightening his shirt collar and rearranging the torn edges of his uniform around the wound.

Thomas Joseph Fox Jr.

After he was killed in action in 1970, Thomas Joseph Fox Jr. was remembered by friends as an easygoing Sacramento teenager who loved football, rock music, and cars.

One fellow artilleryman later recalled Fox borrowing his Creedence Clearwater Revival tapes at a fire base near Chu Lai. Fox talked often about home. When his tour ended, he said, he wanted to spend weekends at William Land Park waxing and polishing his car while watching girls drive by.

Another childhood friend remembered playing tackle football with Fox at East Portal Park just before he shipped out to Vietnam. After the game, Fox encouraged him to try out for the high school football team — a small moment the friend said he still carried with him more than 40 years later.

One friend who enlisted alongside him later recalled escorting his body back to Sacramento by train.

“I miss you, old friend,” he wrote decades later. “I think about you all the time.”

Marvin Winston Murray

Marvin Winston Murray had been in Vietnam less than two months when he died at 21.

A high school classmate from New York City remembered practicing relay handoffs with Murray during track practice in New York.

Years later, the memory still lingered with him. After unexpectedly encountering friends dressed for Murray’s funeral while home on military leave himself, he eventually visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to see Murray’s name etched into the black stone wall.

“I’m going to get a rubbing,” he wrote decades later. “So I can frame it.”

Dan Bullock

Dan Bullock was only 15 years old when he was killed in the Vietnam War in 1969, likely the youngest American serviceman to die there. He had enlisted in the Marines at 14 after altering his birth certificate to appear older.

Born in North Carolina and later raised in Brooklyn, Bullock talked about becoming a pilot, then a policeman, and finally a Marine. “Mostly he wanted to make his mark in life,” his father later said. “He wanted to be something.”

Bullock arrived in Vietnam in May 1969 and was dead just 21 days later after an attack on An Hoa Combat Base. The Marines around him did not know his real age, but many sensed something unusual about him. One recalled years later: “He was younger, and he didn’t belong.”

When a reporter visited the family’s home, they searched for his last letter home but couldn’t find it. The line his stepmother remembered poignantly captures a certain youthful bravado.

“He said he was fine,” she recalled. “He said he didn’t have any holes in him.”

Chance Phelps

Chance Phelps was funny, outdoorsy, and always on the move — “the kind of person who had to be in the thick of things,” as his mother later put it.

Raised partly in Wyoming and Colorado, Phelps loved football, hunting, fishing, and making people laugh. A former teammate remembered him as “kind of like a country boy,” always smiling and doing something goofy. Another friend later admitted that before Iraq, “I thought we were both invincible, that nothing could touch us.”

After the attacks of Sept. 11, Phelps told his mother he felt compelled to serve.

“I absolutely have to go,” he said. “I’ve got to do something.”

Phelps was 19 when he was killed near Ramadi in April 2004, barely a month after arriving in Iraq. When Marines came to inform his mother in the middle of the night, she later recalled being struck most by one detail:

“They were crying.”

Unknown

At Arlington National Cemetery, the remains of one unidentified American serviceman from World War I lies buried without a name. The tomb simply reads:

“Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known but to God.”

Memorial Day, like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, exists because modern war produces anonymity at a scale human beings struggle to comprehend. Each grave, each name carved into stone is an attempt to resist that anonymity, to point to an ordinary human life of infinite value.

Today is our humble opportunity to come together as a country and proclaim: These people existed. They belonged to us. They should not disappear.

Questions swirl after IDF claims to have replaced crucifix its soldier destroyed



The Israel Defense Forces may have more explaining to do after one of its soldiers destroyed a crucifix with a sledgehammer in Debel, Lebanon, as more than half a dozen others looked on.

While the IDF tried to resolve the incident with a series of social media posts, more details have emerged in the aftermath of this story, raising more questions about the IDF's account.

'Are they playing us?'

Following the incident, the IDF announced that both the soldier who filmed the incident and the soldier who destroyed the crucifix would be jailed for 30 days, and the onlookers would be questioned. The IDF also posted a still photo of the supposed replacement crucifix that it claimed to have helped provide.

However, a conflicting version of events has emerged.

RELATED: IDF soldier caught smashing Jesus statue with sledgehammer — officials and critics react

Debel Municipality Facebook account

Photos posted to the X account called Hillbilly Catholic on Wednesday afternoon went viral, and the messages accompanying the photos claimed that the Italian forces of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon had replaced the crucifix.

Among those pictured in the photos are several soldiers with Italian flags on their uniforms that seem to match that of U.N. personnel, a few priests, and what appears to be the apostolic nuncio to Lebanon, Bishop Paolo Borgia.

In another post, Hillbilly Catholic included a screenshot of the IDF's post with the crucifix it claimed "replaced" the one its soldiers had destroyed. The crucifixes in the IDF post and the Hillbilly Catholic posts differ in shape, color, detail, and style.

"Are they playing us?" Hillbilly Catholic asked.

The photographs posted by Hillbilly Catholic were part of a larger set of photos and video from what appears to be a local Debel account on Facebook called Debel Alerts.

On Tuesday, Debel Alerts made a post claiming an Italian priest named Father Claudio was coordinating with UNIFIL Commander General Diodato Abagnara to replace the crucifix in its original spot. The post added that Father Claudio revealed that "a gesture of support" was on its way from UNIFIL and expected to arrive within 48 hours.

There is also a video on the Debel Alerts' timeline of the new crucifix statue being transferred.

Debel Municipality

On Wednesday, Debel Alerts posted several photos of the installation of the new crucifix with the help of UNIFIL. The photos show soldiers and priests standing side by side in front of the newly installed crucifix statue.

The new crucifix also appears to have been placed in the exact spot where the old one was destroyed, a comparison of the surroundings revealed.

An official account called Debel Municipality posted more photos confirming Bishop Paolo Borgia's presence during the procession and installation of the new crucifix.

However, this account also revealed something unexpected.

Some online users scoffed at the IDF's post of the new crucifix, claiming that the crucifix looked like a small wall crucifix or that the photo was manipulated.

Yet Debel Municipality posted a photo of what appears to be that crucifix during the procession. A man can be seen standing next to some priests and behind some servers while holding the much smaller crucifix that appeared in the IDF's post.

Debel Municipality

While this photo seems to debunk the claims that the IDF's post was fake or manipulated, other questions remain.

First, neither Debel Alerts nor Debel Municipality make any mention of the IDF's alleged efforts to help replace the crucifix, despite the IDF's claim that "Northern Command worked to coordinate the replacement of the statue from the moment it received the report of the incident."

Similarly, the IDF did not make any mention of UNIFIL's role nor Bishop Paolo Borgia's presence in the town this week, despite their clear roles in the project.

Further, the IDF's "replacement" is not the actual replacement. The crucifix that UNIFIL apparently provided was placed in the same place as the old one and has a similar size and style, while the IDF one, though apparently real, is significantly smaller and not installed in the same place.

Finally, the IDF has not posted any follow-up with a photo of the other crucifix that UNIFIL helped replace, suggesting that the other, smaller crucifix is the only "replacement" they are claiming to have helped with. It is not clear whether the IDF actually provided the smaller crucifix to the community, despite its claim.

Blaze News contacted the IDF, UNIFIL, Debel Municipality, and the Nunciature of Lebanon via the Vatican Press Office but did not immediately receive a response.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Report highlights growing influence of religious soldiers within IDF ranks



The Israel Defense Forces have been painted into a corner recently, as they were forced to acknowledge and respond to an atrocious act of sacrilege committed by those in their ranks.

Blaze News previously reported on two separate incidents involving IDF soldiers desecrating Christian sites and symbols.

The secular headquarters 'have very little control of the behavior on the ground.'

The first incident involved a uniformed IDF soldier smashing a statue of Jesus Christ in the face with a sledgehammer. The second, which occurred in late November 2024, was a video showing the desecration of an Orthodox church in Deir Mimas, Lebanon.

While the IDF has acknowledged both incidents to some degree, the extent of their response to the recent viral photo of the IDF soldier smashing the Christ statue was a rare step for Israeli leadership.

RELATED: IDF under fire after shocking footage of Lebanese church desecration resurfaces

Nasser Ishtayeh/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he was "shocked and saddened" by the photo, the IDF announced punishments following the conclusion of their investigation.

The IDF announced Tuesday that both the soldier who photographed the smashing of the statue and the one who destroyed it would be removed from combat duty and receive 30 days of military detention.

Six additional soldiers who were present at the scene failed to intervene, stop, or report the incident. They have been "summoned for clarification discussions," and "further command-level measures will be determined" moving forward.

Yet a new article from the Telegraph has suggested that these incidents may be a symptom of changing religious dynamics within the IDF's ranks.

The Telegraph reported that a stricter sense of religious observance has begun to change the IDF culture.

Citing examples such as female soldiers being reprimanded for dressing "immodestly" and other soldiers being jailed for barbecuing on Shabbat, the Telegraph suggested that the IDF's culture would be "almost unrecognizable" to the Israeli soldiers of the first decades of the state's existence.

It is common knowledge that Israel's military has historically been a secular institution within a largely secular government.

However, the author suggested that the IDF's ranks are beginning to fill with Israelis who adhere to a "messianic and ultra-nationalist ideology" that informs the very reason they joined the military service in the first place.

This trend has caused tensions to rise between the religious soldiers and the generally secular leadership.

Chairman of the Secular Forum Dr. Ram Vromen told the Telegraph that the leadership views these changes with hostility.

"For years before October 7, secular people increasingly identified the combat roles with things they were not sympathetic to, like the occupation in the West Bank, so they volunteered for other roles," he said. "But the religious and the religious nationalist recruits volunteer for combat roles enthusiastically."

Vromen added that the secular headquarters "have very little control of the behavior on the ground," likely referring to the recent incidents that have harmed the IDF's public image.

It was later argued that the IDF, even if its leadership remains secular, faces a dilemma.

Between growing personnel shortages during the war and an increasing reliance on these religious soldiers to do the warfighting, the military cannot afford to lose them; however, the religious cultural shift continues to solidify its hold on the institution through an "increasingly muscular military rabbinate" and a takeover of most educational activities in the military.

As a result, the IDF may be forced to deal with increasingly popular ideas such as the expansionist "Greater Israel" project, along with more incidents like those mentioned above.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Exclusive: War Dept. Battles Internal Resistance To Reinstate 86 Soldiers Ejected By Covid Shot Mandate

'I tasked in no uncertain terms to the services that they will treat each of the members with the dignity that they deserve,' War Undersecretary Anthony Tata told The Federalist.

50 Years After Vietnam, Our Troops Remain Demoralized By Defeat

We would do well to consider how our choices in Vietnam affected our military and society in ways still felt today.

Report claims Trump allegedly planning to boot transvestites out of military on day 1



Citing "defense sources," the Times (U.K.) claimed in a report Monday that President-elect Donald Trump plans to issue an executive order booting transvestites out of the military on day one. A spokeswoman for the Trump-Vance transition team told Blaze News that the unnamed sources in the report whose claims have now been repeated by activists and other publications don't know what they're talking about.

The Times' sources alleged that Trump is not only planning to oust those transvestic service members presently enlisted with medical discharges, stating they are unfit to serve, but is planning on altogether banning transvestites from joining the military.

"These people will be forced out at a time when the military can't recruit enough people," said an unnamed source supposedly familiar with Trump's plans. "Only the Marine Corps is hitting its numbers for recruitment, and some people who will be affected are in very senior positions."

'These unnamed sources are speculating.'

According to the Times, several sources said that Trump's order will be "wider-ranging" than actions taken in his first term and that even troops in the military for decades could be removed from their posts.

Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to Blaze News, "These unnamed sources are speculating and have no idea what they are actually talking about."

"No decisions on this issue have been made," continued Leavitt. "No policy should ever be deemed official unless it comes directly from President Trump or his authorized spokespeople."

While the unnamed sources in the Times report might be of the unreliable variety cited by the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Trump has taken similar actions in the past and promised on the campaign trail to do as much upon taking office.

In July 2017, Trump announced that "the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." Trump added, "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail."

Trump's concerns were reinforced in a Feb. 22, 2018, Pentagon memo from then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis, which stated that in "the Department's best military judgment, the Department of Defense concludes that there are substantial risks associated with allowing the accession and retention of individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria and require or have already undertaken a course of treatment to change their gender."

In 2019, the Trump Department of Defense established a policy permitting "transgender" troops to serve so long as they didn't attempt to masquerade as members of the opposite sex or invade their spaces. Accordingly, the could claim to be "transgender" but would have to use the pronouns, uniforms, barracks, and restroom facilities corresponding with their sex.

After taking office, President Joe Biden reversed the Trump policy, stating, "America's strength is found in its diversity."

In the years since, medical transvestites in the military have been provided with sex-change and cosmetic surgeries at taxpayers' expense, the opportunity to sit out deployments, and exemptions from uniform and fitness standards.

Feb. 1, 2023, documents obtained last year by independent journalist Jordan Schachtel of the Dossier, entitled "Care of Service Members Who Identify as Transgender," revealed that the Pentagon funds transvestites' so-called care, including "speech/voice therapy, cross-sex hormone therapy, laser hair removal, voice feminization surgery, facial contouring, body contouring, breast/chest surgery (colloquially referred to as 'upper' surgery), and genital reassignment/confirmation surgery ('lower' surgery)."

'[The DOD] committed a Bud Light.'

Blaze News previously reported that whereas mentally ill recruits, individuals found to be on medications, women with abnormal uterine bleeding, men with deformed genitals, those with chronic anxiety, those who have committed self-harm, and those who have met in the past with psychiatrists are routinely barred from joining the armed forces, similar prohibitions appear to have been relaxed under the current administration for those claiming to be "transgender."

Trump pledged to a crowd in New Hampshire in August 2023 that he would "restore the Trump ban on transgenders in the military" and promised to "ban the Department of Veteran Affairs from wasting a single cent to fund transgender surgeries or sex-change procedures."

Rachel Branaman, an LGBT activist who heads the Modern Military Association of America, told the Times, "Should a trans ban be implemented from day one of the Trump administration, it would undermine the readiness of the military and create an even greater recruitment and retention crisis, not to mention signaling vulnerability to America's adversaries."

"Abruptly discharging 15,000-plus service members, especially given that the military's recruiting targets fell short by 41,000 recruits last year, adds administrative burdens to war fighting units, harms unit cohesion, and aggravates critical skill gaps," continued Branaman. "There would be a significant financial cost, as well as a loss of experience and leadership that will take possibly 20 years and billions of dollars to replace."

If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick to run the DOD, appears open to making quality, not diversity, the top priority at the Pentagon.

"I think we're at a 's*** or get off the pot' moment. We are at a tipping point for total institutional corruption, and Trump has a chance to reverse that," Hegseth recently told the "Shawn Ryan Show." "[The DOD] committed a Bud Light. In search of a non-traditional constituency, they offended their core constituency."

Hegseth added, "The Army that I enlisted in, that I swore an oath in 2001 and was commissioned in 2003, looks a lot different than the Army of today because we're focused on a lot of the wrong things."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Massachusetts Governor Healey comes up short when asked to defend one of Harris' bigger falsehoods



Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) appears to be auditioning for a job in a possible Harris administration. Things aren't going too well.

In a Sunday interview on ABC News, Healey was asked to explain one of the various falsehoods that the network initially let Kamala Harris get away with in last week's presidential debate. It quickly became clear that while Healey was heavy on rhetoric, she was short on answers.

During the debate, Harris dodged the question of whether she bore any responsibility for the botched Afghanistan withdrawal during which 13 American service members were slain and many more were left behind.

Before attempting to shift blame onto President Donald, Harris said:

I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America's taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.

Martha Raddatz, co-anchor of "This Week," asked Healey about Harris' remarks, particularly her suggestion that there are no active-duty service members in a combat zone anywhere around the world.

"Our fact-checkers found that to be false," said Raddatz. "And I have a lot of experience in that area."

Raddatz was likely referring to her time reporting from Iraq as a national security correspondent and her extensive sources inside the Pentagon.

"There are currently 900 U.S. military personnel in Syria, 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. All have been under regular threat from drones and missiles for months," said Raddatz. "We also have action in the Red Sea. We also — every single day the Navy SEALs, Delta Forces, special operators can be part of any sort of deadly raid."

'Did she not know about these people in Syria and in Iraq?'

"So why would she make that claim?" asked Raddatz, undoubtedly aware that Harris' remarks came just days after seven American troops were wounded in a deadly raid in Western Iraq.

Healey desperately tried to evade the question, saying, "What I think what's important here, Martha, is that Kamala Harris, in contrast to Donald Trump, demonstrated herself to be commander in chief."

"We are in a world where there are all sorts of conflicts," Healey continued, apparently referring to the Russia-Ukraine war and the latest Hamas-Israel war that kicked off while Harris was vice president. "It's all the more reason we need somebody who's serious and who supports the military."

Raddatz prevented Healey from retreating to the comfort of well-worn talking points, saying, "Governor, excuse me, but she said, 'There is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone.' That is not true."

"You say she demonstrated her ability to be commander in chief, but did she not know about these people in Syria and in Iraq? Why would she say that?" added Raddatz.

Healey tried passing off the falsehood as a "comment in a debate" and an attempt to make a "broader point," which the Massachusetts governor proved unwilling to share or unable to make up.

'She doesn't even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt.'

Growing visibly flustered, the governor desperately returned to well-worn albeit debunked talking points. Extra to claiming that "Donald Trump stands with Vladimir Putin," Healey repeated the baseless "suckers and losers" smear first advanced by the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.

Healey continued her verbal flailing until Raddatz abandoned the effort.

Service members currently in war zones and veterans' families have criticized Harris over her false claim.

Brad Illerbrunner, whose son, Chief Warrant Officer Garrent Illerbrunner of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division, was critically injured on Christmas Day, told the New York Post that Harris' lie "really [hit] below the belt. ... She doesn't even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt."

"We're still in war zones," said Illerbrunner, adding that the vice president was "trying to snow the public."

"If you're in Jordan in the middle of nowhere to fight ISIS, and you're getting attacked by Iranian drones and rockets on a daily basis, you're in a war zone," added Illerbrunner.

Three American soldiers were killed in Jordan by an Iranian proxy in January.

Footage has also appeared online of service members reacting to Harris' remarks while stationed abroad.

The Biden-Harris Pentagon has attempted to give Harris cover, noting in a statement obtained by the Wall Street Journal that "just because a service member is in one of these locations does not mean they are engaged in war. The U.S. is not currently engaged in a war and does not have troops fighting in active war zones anywhere in the world."

This, however, is a deception.

Although Congress hasn't declared a war since 1942, hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members have been killed in war zones in the years since. The technical wording appealed to here by the Pentagon and Harris would mean those who perished in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam don't count.

Mark Montgomery, a retired rear admiral, recently told Fox News Digital that despite the government quietly shutting down designations of war zones, one need only "ask: 'Is anyone getting combat-related hazardous duty pay?'"

"The answer is yes," added Montgomery.

Robert Greenway, a U.S. Special Forces combat veteran and former senior director for the National Security Council, said that the comment "is especially egregious, as she is the current VP and should know that we recently conducted a raid in Syria, killing a senior ISIS commander. Several U.S. troops had to be medically evacuated after another raid against ISIS in Syria."

"Several service members were wounded in Iraq when Al Asad Airbase was attacked by Iranian-sponsored terrorists less than a month ago, and our ships are under near-daily attack in the Red Sea," he told Fox News Digital.

Harris did not limit herself to falsehoods about the military during the debate.

The Democratic candidate also repeated the "fine people" hoax; claimed that Trump would be implementing the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025; claimed that Trump would ratify a national abortion ban; recycled the "bloodbath" smear; and claimed law enforcement officers died on Jan. 6, 2021, in reference to the Capitol riot.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

John Kirby mistakenly exposes the White House's disdain for veterans' concerns over botched Afghanistan withdrawal



American military veterans continue to seek accountability and answers regarding the Biden-Harris administration's disastrous and deadly withdrawal from Afghanistan.

While some veterans may have previously suspected the Democratic administration was doing its best to ignore their concerns, John Kirby, the White House National Security Council communications adviser, appears to have accidentally confirmed on Wednesday that that's the case.

Kirby reportedly sent a message intended for White House staffers to a Fox News Digital reporter, stating there was "no use in responding" to veterans' concerns about the Afghan withdrawal and its portrayal by the White House.

Background

The House Foreign Affairs Committee released a report Monday titled "Willful Blindness: An Assessment of the Biden-Harris Administration's Withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Chaos that Followed."

Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said in a statement:

Our investigation reveals the Biden-Harris administration had the information and opportunity to take necessary steps to plan for the inevitable collapse of the Afghan government, so we could safely evacuate U.S. personnel, American citizens, green card holders, and our brave Afghan allies. At each step of the way, however, the administration picked optics over security.

According to McCaul, the report makes clear that the Biden-Harris administration's botch job "placed U.S. servicemembers and U.S. State Department personnel in mortal danger" and led to the American and Afghan deaths and injuries at Abbey Gate.

During Monday's White House press briefing, Kirby responded to the report, saying it "comes, of course, two years after their first report, and this one says little or nothing new."

'Absolutely despicable.'

Kirby further characterized the report as "one-sided," then defended the Biden-Harris administration's actions, going so far as to suggest "there was no handover of U.S. equipment to the Taliban."

Kirby also alleged "there was no deception, lying, or lack of transparency by this administration either during or after the withdrawal."

Lack of transparency

The White House's apparent unwillingness to accept responsibility or to at the very least take the report seriously enraged Florida Republican Rep. Cory Mills and other veterans.

Mills, for instance, emphasized on X, "It’s time the Biden-Harris administration takes responsibility for abandoning thousands of Americans and allies, for handing over billions in U.S. military weapons and cash to the Taliban, for leaving women and children to suffer under Taliban rule, and for the 13 brave heroes who sacrificed two lives, the one they were living and the life they could have lived."

Fox News Digital indicated that it contacted the White House, referencing several veterans' critiques of Kirby's remarks — including the suggestions that he was merely providing "cover" for or "deflecting" from the administration's ruinous withdrawal.

The email chain was reportedly forwarded to White House staffers on the National Security Council. Then, thinking he was only responding to White House staffers on the chain, Kirby replied, "Obviously no use in responding. A 'handful' of vets indeed and all of one stripe."

Having later realized what he had done, Kirby wrote back to the reporter, stating, "Clearly, I didn't realize you were on the chain."

Republican backlash

"This is how the Biden-Harris administration talks about the well-founded concerns of our nation’s veterans?" Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) asked on X. "Just days after the anniversary of the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal. On the anniversary of 9/11. Our Gold Star families deserve better."

Senior Trump adviser Jason Miller wrote, "Shame!"

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) stressed, "Nobody at the White House should ever speak this way about our veterans seeking accountability for the Gold Star families the Biden-Harris Administration created with their reckless decisions. Absolutely despicable."

Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson (R) suggested Kirby "is a DISGRACE!!" and should immediately resign.

California Rep. Darrell Issa (R) wrote, "This White House has nothing but contempt for veterans who call them out."

Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman McCaul said in a statement obtained by the New York Post that Kirby's comments were "appalling, but sadly not surprising."

"The Biden-Harris administration has consistently disregarded our veterans, servicemembers, and Gold Star families over their botched withdrawal from Afghanistan," added McCaul.

The Post indicated that the White House had not responded to its request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Report: U.S. Military Hides Push For Sex Changes, Queer Exploration Among Soldiers’ Kids

Congressional hearings have not checked Pentagon policies that include giving soldiers' kids transgender meds without their parents' knowledge.

Toby Keith Paid Tribute To The American Soldier In Word And Deed

This is my small story of a thoughtful and patriotic gesture by one of our greatest entertainers, Toby Keith.