Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the Muslim parents of a dead U.S. soldier

I'm listening to Kahn on CNN right this minute.

His theory is that since he had a son killed in the service, that gives him the right to stand before the Democrat National Convention and crucify Donald Trump, to the cheers of the LIberal/Socialist/Progressive Left. And do it with impunity.

The Democrats knew that they would put Trump into a no win situation. If he responds, he is crucified in the Main Stream Meadia. I'd he says nothing, he let's the false, and politically motivated charges stick.

He has now, this very second, turned the interview into a Clinton Campain Commercial.

The Democrats used Kahn as their "useful idiot". But he came along willingly, because in the end, regardless of whether he had a son killed, he is just another Democrat Party Hack.

This is a new low for The Clintons, and the Main Stream News. Using the death of a Son, in a war that their Candidate voted for, to perpetrating a political view by allowing a Familly to stand before a Political Convention and say anything he wanted to disparage Trump with impunity.

The CNN Woman woman interviewer just said that everybody knows you do not say disparaging things about Gold Star Famillies. But, what they leave out is everybody knows, that you do not use grieving Famillies to further your particular political view in a National Convention.

I'm listening to Kahn on CNN right this minute.

His theory is that since he had a son killed in the service, that gives him the right to stand before the Democrat National Convention and crucify Donald Trump, to the cheers of the LIberal/Socialist/Progressive Left. And do it with impunity.

The Democrats knew that they would put Trump into a no win situation. If he responds, he is crucified in the Main Stream Meadia. I'd he says nothing, he let's the false, and politically motivated charges stick.

He has now, this very second, turned the interview into a Clinton Campain Commercial.

The Democrats used Kahn as their "useful idiot". But he came along willingly, because in the end, regardless of whether he had a son killed, he is just another Democrat Party Hack.

This is a new low for The Clintons, and the Main Stream News. Using the death of a Son, in a war that their Candidate voted for, to perpetrating a political view by allowing a Familly to stand before a Political Convention and say anything he wanted to disparage Trump with impunity.

The CNN Woman woman interviewer just said that everybody knows you do not say disparaging things about Gold Star Famillies. But, what they leave out is everybody knows, that you do not use grieving Famillies to further your particular political view in a National Convention. Originally Posted by Jackie S

But using grieving families of ones killed by illegal immigrants at the RNC is ok?

The fact this guy's story has lasted more than 24 hours shows the media's bias.

But using grieving families of ones killed by illegal immigrants at the RNC is ok? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Yes it is OK to use crime victims to advance your cause, when your cause is preventing more of the same crimes.

BTW, you have sacrificed nothing.

Yes it is OK to use crime victims to advance your cause, when your cause is preventing more of the same crimes.

BTW, you have sacrificed nothing. Originally Posted by DSK

Khan was killed in 2004 in Iraq?

That was the war for which Hillary voted "yes" and Trump opposed?

So Hillary sent him to his death, and Trump would not have done so.

LMAO

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ours-sacri...opstories.html

Demand a apology.

Yes it is OK to use crime victims to advance your cause, when your cause is preventing more of the same crimes.

BTW, you have sacrificed nothing. Originally Posted by DSK

Did you take the bet, JL, you bombastic, racist coward?

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ours-sacri...opstories.html

Demand a apology. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I agree. They should demand an apology from The DNC, and the Clintons, for using the death of an American Soldier for their cheap political gains.

And, for using that soldiers parents as cheap political pawns.

Khan is a musbro... http://shoebat.com/2016/07/31/what-t...united-states/

By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat

The Muslim who attacked Donald Trump, Khizr Muazzam Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood agent, working to bring Muslims into the United States. After reading what we discovered so far, it becomes obvious that Khan wanted to ‘trump’ Trump’s Muslim immigration. But not so fast. Trump we have your back.

I agree. They should demand an apology from The DNC, and the Clintons, for using the death of an American Soldier for their cheap political gains.

And, for using that soldiers parents as cheap political pawns. Originally Posted by Jackie S

this would be a good final move from Trump, but the campaign needs to move on.. and stop taking the bait on these matters designed to fuck up their progress. I heard that Khan said on CNN that he wanted to end the public feud, that his family wants to retain their dignity.

well he already gave up his dignity by offering himself as a political pawn.. maybe he understands he's been used, maybe he didn't expect a media avalanche following his statements Thursday in Philadelphia..

the Trump campaign needs to avoid these little media battles.. it doesn't matter that Trump was right.. Hell, I had the same reaction as Khan spoke.. why didn't he acknowledge his wife? he never introduced her, one had to assume it was his wife, she stood veiled and silent.. the way Muslim women do.. and Khan had the audacity to say Trump hates women? I rolled over laughing when he said that, the irony was too much.

Trump got it right saying the son is a hero, then going after Khan Senior's statements. but that was damage control by that point.. he needs to understand the political machine that wants to trip him up at every turn.. Trump is smart, he needs to act smarter.. it's not a question of being right or wrong.

Khan was killed in 2004 in Iraq?

That was the war for which Hillary voted "yes" and Trump opposed?

So Hillary sent him to his death, and Trump would not have done so. Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's a crock of shit- he was for the war than against it: rump supported invading Iraq in 2002
The GOP candidate says he opposed the 2003 invasion, but a year prior he told Howard Stern he supported going in.
By ELIZA COLLINS 02/18/16 10:16 PM EST Updated 02/18/16 10:28 PM EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Donald Trump often touts that he was against the war in Iraq, but in 2002 he expressed support for an invasion.
Trump, who was being interviewed by Howard Stern, said that “yeah, I guess so” when asked if he was for invading the country.
Story Continued Below

“Are you for invading Iraq?” Stern asked.
“Yeah, I guess so,” Trump responded. “I wish the first time it was done correctly.”
At Saturday's GOP debate, Trump claimed he opposed invading Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 war.
"I’m the only one on this stage that said, 'Do not go into Iraq. Do not attack Iraq.' Nobody else on this stage said that," Trump said. "And I said it loud and strong. And I was in the private sector. I wasn’t a politician, fortunately. But I said it, and I said it loud and clear, 'You’ll destabilize the Middle East.' That’s exactly what happened."
Trump on Thursday night again claimed he had opposed the war in 2002-2003, and then he additionally said that George H.W. Bush had handled Iraq correctly in 1992's Operation Desert Storm--statements which are both at odds with his 2002 claims.
Trump was confronted about the audio tape during the Thursday town hall. The candidate said he "may" have made the comments, but said that he was against the war by the time it started, and that he was not "a politician" at the time.
"That was probaly the first time I was asked about the war," he said.
The Stern audio was first reported by BuzzFeed.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz4G698iXLJ
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

I agree. They should demand an apology from The DNC, and the Clintons, for using the death of an American Soldier for their cheap political gains.

And, for using that soldiers parents as cheap political pawns. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Being snarky, or didn't read the link?

Khan was killed in 2004 in Iraq?

That was the war for which Hillary voted "yes" and Trump opposed?

So Hillary sent him to his death, and Trump would not have done so. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Looks like he owes Trump an apology!!!

That's a crock of shit- he was for the war than against it: rump supported invading Iraq in 2002. Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Actually you are the "crock of shit" ....

.... you convoluted nonsensical rant proves it.

Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for the authorization to the President, just like her husband got from Congress while she was "advising" and "helping" him with his decision making upon which she relies as her "Presidential Experience"!!!

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Bill Clinton Dec. 16, 1998

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."

Trump was opposed to the invasion in 2003 based on the information offered.

Don't get him confused with your malingering John Kerry .... who was "for it" before he was "against it" and then was "for it" .... when he started looking chicken shit!