‘I Was Just Joking’: Media Apoplectic as Khizr Khan Attack on Donald Trump Goes Down in Flames

[Kondor3]

Puhleeze, the firm he works for did Hillary's taxes. He's more than just a Dim. He's an Hillary operative.

How many spoke at the republican convention that weren't tightly bound to the GOP?

Patricia Smith wasn't political in any sense of the word. I don't even know if she's a Republican. I just know she thinks Hillary killed her son.

Bullshit. How many times has she been on fox and right wing radio? She puts out a right wing produced public statement every few days. She is as much a part of the right wing as any politician or pundit you might name.

Did you imagine CNN or ABC was going to have her on every few days? She goes where she is welcome.

I suppose it' important for a political operative like Mrs. Smith to get in the media as often she can

Smith is a political operative? Or just a grieving mother on a mission to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for the death of her son?

 

[JoeB131]

Patricia Smith wasn't political in any sense of the word. I don't even know if she's a Republican. I just know she thinks Hillary killed her son.

Funny, I thought her son locked himself in a room in a burning building and he suffocated. Not seeing how that was Hillary's fault, exactly.

There was nothing "disgusting" about it. Hillary got 4 Americans killed for reasons of pure politics. Americans need to know what a sleazy disgusting douche bag she is.

Um, exactly how was it Hillary's fault that a bunch of Arabs held a riot, exactly?

You guys have NINE Congressional investigations, that spent nearly 100 million dollars looking into this. (About the same amount Congressional Republicans SLASHED from the State Department's security budget, but never mind.)

 

[Kondor3]

Oh, I dunno...

Hillary was directly responsible for the death, and/or the top of the chain-of-command in the department that lost Smith's son?

Smith was a grieving mother accusing the person responsible for her son's death.

except NINE investigations found she wasn't. ...

Hillary Clinton was the head of the affected department.

She had personal knowledge of both the situation on the ground leading up to the massacre and repeated requests for additional security measures.

She failed to act in a manner sufficient to either (1) avoid the storming of the compound or (2) preserve the lives of her staff once the position became untenable.

And then, she stupidly roused the fury of the American People with "What difference does it make?" and similar seemingly cavalier attitudes and positions.

Investigative findings or no, there's enough substance there to infuriate any parent or relative of those dead Americans, even if there's not enough there to press charges.

...

Trump was not directly responsible for the death, nor at the top of the chain-of-command in the department that lost Khan's son?

Khan was a grieving father pimping-out his son's memory in order to make political fodder.

That wasn't the point. No one said Trump was responsible for anything including running his mouth. They merely pointed out that his using Muslims as scapegoats dishonors the memory of their son and a lot of people of color who wore hte uniform, something Trump never did.

Check out the tagline!!!

VVVVVVVV

It is the point of the exchange here; making direct comparisons about personal motivations of both Smith and Khan.

In Smith's case, her motive was to hold Clinton responsible for the death of her son.

In Khan's case, his motive was purely political, and, given his reported ties to the Clintons (again, with the damned Clintons, not known at the time), his message is diluted.

I think it was wrong of the Republicans to trot-out Smith at their convention...

I think it was wrong of the Democrats to trot-out Khan at their convention...

The latter managed to whip-up a very useful controversy, especially in light of the idiotic response(s) of Trump, by way of response...

But, given Khan's (now revealed) connections to the Clintons, Muslim immigration, etc., his message is fast becoming diluted...

Worse, the goddamned fools in the DNC have given the Trump Camp sufficient ammunition to set aside the Khan monologue, and lost the high ground... again.

We already know that the dimwits in the Trump Camp aren't very quick on their feet...

Then again, the dimwits in the Clinton Campaign aren't the brightest crayons in the box, either...

Witness them putting up somebody like Khan, with far too many backroom and Saudi ties to sustain that high ground...

Foolishness...

 

[JoeB131]

He's not using Muslims as scapegoats and it limiting Muslim immigration has absolutely no affect on the Khan's dead son. That's pure douche bag propaganda. What could be more absurd than claiming we can't have an intelligent discussion of our immigration policy just because someone whose son was killed objects to it.

Guy, you can't call for an intelligent discussion and then repost Ann Coulter.

the thing is, other than one lady who came over on a marriage visa, every "Terrorist" was born here... So are you going to put a wall in front of their mother's vajayjays?

We’ve admitted 2 million Muslims just since 9/11 – that’s more than had been admitted before 9/11. If we don’t make it 3 million, we’re monsters? May we ask how many Muslims Khan’s mystery Constitution requires — or is that out of bounds unless we had a child who died in Iraq?

actually, she's being disingenous. Most of the "2 million muslims" were on tourist and student visas, which means they went back when they were done what they were doing.

 

[Toro]

Before the internet the Dims would have gotten away with their attempt to smear Trump, but now the major networks can't stifle embarrassing facts. This episode may just further cement Hillary's reputation for being sleazy and dishonest.

Khizr Khan Attack on Donald Trump Goes Down in Flames​

....Over the weekend and for the past few days since Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan about their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, media-wide reporters, editors, producers, and anchors have tried to lay criticism on Trump over the matter. They thought they had a good one, a specific line of attack that pitted Trump against the military—and supposedly showed him as a big meanie racist in the process.

But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.​

Fox News Poll: Clinton Leads by 10

 

[owebo]

Before the internet the Dims would have gotten away with their attempt to smear Trump, but now the major networks can't stifle embarrassing facts. This episode may just further cement Hillary's reputation for being sleazy and dishonest.

Khizr Khan Attack on Donald Trump Goes Down in Flames​

....Over the weekend and for the past few days since Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan about their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, media-wide reporters, editors, producers, and anchors have tried to lay criticism on Trump over the matter. They thought they had a good one, a specific line of attack that pitted Trump against the military—and supposedly showed him as a big meanie racist in the process.

But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.​

Fox News Poll: Clinton Leads by 10

FOX News is under new management....

 

[JoeB131]

Hillary Clinton was the head of the affected department.

She had personal knowledge of both the situation on the ground leading up to the massacre and repeated requests for additional security measures.

She failed to act in a manner sufficient to either (1) avoid the storming of the compound or (2) preserve the lives of her staff once the position became untenable.

I'm just wondering what "additional security measures" would have stopped a mob of hundreds of people with automatic weapons.

Here's the reality- at the end of the day, HOST countries are responsible for the safety of diplomatic facilities.

 

[Kondor3]

Hillary Clinton was the head of the affected department.

She had personal knowledge of both the situation on the ground leading up to the massacre and repeated requests for additional security measures.

She failed to act in a manner sufficient to either (1) avoid the storming of the compound or (2) preserve the lives of her staff once the position became untenable.

I'm just wondering what "additional security measures" would have stopped a mob of hundreds of people with automatic weapons.

Here's the reality- at the end of the day, HOST countries are responsible for the safety of diplomatic facilities.

Had Clinton and the State Department acceded to the Ambassador's and the Consulate staff's requests in advance, they could quite possibly have bought themselves sufficient time to evacuate the compound, or hardened it sufficiently to survive until help arrived...

Had Obama and his Defense Department sent-in ground troops to the Consulate, either in advance of the assault on the compound or at the time of the assault (under circumstances wherein the compound had already been sufficiently hardened to buy the staff that precious time), those staff would still be alive today...

And that's on the macro level, without specific knowledge of the compound or existing defensive measures or the size of the Enemy assault force (rioting mob, etc.)...

Imagine what a professional could do, given a superior knowledge of such things, and the common sense, and sense of duty and obligation, to say 'Yes' to those requests.

 

[Kondor3]

...Here's the reality- at the end of the day, HOST countries are responsible for the safety of diplomatic facilities.

Under ordinary circumstances, yes, that is correct.

Under circumstances wherein the host country is in a shambles and its population are hostile and its security forces are nonexistent or unreliable... it's on us.

In actuality and practice, if not on paper.

That one was a recital-by-rote cop-out, and you know it.

Although I'm sure that that mindset was responsible in large part for the deaths of our people.

 

[JoeB131]

Had Clinton and the State Department acceded to the Ambassador's and the Consulate staff's requests in advance, they could quite possibly have bought themselves sufficient time to evacuate the compound, or hardened it sufficiently to survive until help arrived...

What do you base that on?

Had Obama and his Defense Department sent-in ground troops to the Consulate, either in advance of the assault on the compound or at the time of the assault (under circumstances wherein the compound had already been sufficiently hardened to buy the staff that precious time), those staff would still be alive today...

Unlikely... but you guys went into the region of conspiracy theories a long time ago.

 

[JoeB131]

Under ordinary circumstances, yes, that is correct.

Under circumstances wherein the host country is in a shambles and its population are hostile and its security forces are nonexistent or unreliable... it's on us.

In actuality and practice, if not on paper.

That one was a recital-by-rote cop-out, and you know it.

Reality is, putting more people on the ground just means setting up more targets...

again, you guys have had nine congressional committees investigating this... and come up with nothing.

 

[Kondor3]

Had Clinton and the State Department acceded to the Ambassador's and the Consulate staff's requests in advance, they could quite possibly have bought themselves sufficient time to evacuate the compound, or hardened it sufficiently to survive until help arrived...

What do you base that on? [/QUOTE[
Common sense. If you harden the target, the target is harder to overwhelm; it takes longer, and buys the occupants time.

Had Obama and his Defense Department sent-in ground troops to the Consulate, either in advance of the assault on the compound or at the time of the assault (under circumstances wherein the compound had already been sufficiently hardened to buy the staff that precious time), those staff would still be alive today...

Unlikely... but you guys went into the region of conspiracy theories a long time ago.

Unlikely? If you have a tough Final Redoubt and can hold-out there for longer, then the odds improve, dramatically, that the (air) cavalry will get there in time, once dispatched.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Unlikely? If you have a tough Final Redoubt and can hold-out there for longer, then the odds improve, dramatically, that the (air) cavalry will get there in time, once dispatched.

[

here's the problem with that. Stevens and Smith weren't killed directly by Libyans. They locked themselves into a room and suffocated from smoke inhalation. The two CIA Mercenaries died because they openly got into a firefight with the mob.

So I'm not seeing how your fantasies could really have prevented any of that.

 

[Kondor3]

Under ordinary circumstances, yes, that is correct.

Under circumstances wherein the host country is in a shambles and its population are hostile and its security forces are nonexistent or unreliable... it's on us.

In actuality and practice, if not on paper.

That one was a recital-by-rote cop-out, and you know it.

Reality is, putting more people on the ground just means setting up more targets...

If a position is untenable, you then close the facility and evacuate the staff; not keep it open.

But that wasn't the salient point in this segment; rather, the point was, that we must assume responsibility for security ourselves, when the host country cannot.

...again, you guys have had nine congressional committees investigating this... and come up with nothing.

All that happened in any of that is that Clinton was cleared of wrongdoing; according to the letter of the law.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with failure to engage in rightdoing; according to the spirit of her responsibility to care for the lives of her people.

 

[Kondor3]

[
Unlikely? If you have a tough Final Redoubt and can hold-out there for longer, then the odds improve, dramatically, that the (air) cavalry will get there in time, once dispatched.

[

here's the problem with that. Stevens and Smith weren't killed directly by Libyans. They locked themselves into a room and suffocated from smoke inhalation. The two CIA Mercenaries died because they openly got into a firefight with the mob.

So I'm not seeing how your fantasies could really have prevented any of that.

There were insufficient security measures and staffing to provide the Consulate staff with timely notice that an assault was underway on the compound.

There were insufficient security measures and staffing to buy Consulate staff the time to evacuate to an on-the-premises Final Redoubt.

There was no substantive Final Redoubt, or, in what passes for one in this context, it was woefully inadequate to the task at hand, and was quickly overrun.

Had security (staff, equipment, systems, procedures) been better, Consulate staff would not have been obliged to bolt into a store-room, and other staff would not have been caught out in the open.

Had the Consulate been equipped with a Final Redoubt suitable to the task at hand, it is far more likely that they could have held out until help arrived; once dispatched.

Nothing whatsoever to do with fantasy... merely common sense.

 

[JoeB131]

If a position is untenable, you then close the facility and evacuate the staff; not keep it open.

But that wasn't the salient point in this segment; rather, the point was, that we must assume responsibility for security ourselves, when the host country cannot.

The question is, was the position "untenable" in an obvious way? Hindsight is always 20/20.

All that happened in any of that is that Clinton was cleared of wrongdoing; according to the letter of the law.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with failure to engage in rightdoing; according to the spirit of her responsibility to care for the lives of her people.

So you spent 100 million dollars in more investigations to prove, "Yeah, you could have done that better!"

Gee, I could have told you that for a lot less.

What always amazes me is you guys harp and harp about the deaths of these two Americans and two MERCENARIES, but you seem to not care about the 6000 Americans who died in Iraq because of one fuckup after another.

 

[BULLDOG]

Before the internet the Dims would have gotten away with their attempt to smear Trump, but now the major networks can't stifle embarrassing facts. This episode may just further cement Hillary's reputation for being sleazy and dishonest.

Khizr Khan Attack on Donald Trump Goes Down in Flames​

....Over the weekend and for the past few days since Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan about their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, media-wide reporters, editors, producers, and anchors have tried to lay criticism on Trump over the matter. They thought they had a good one, a specific line of attack that pitted Trump against the military—and supposedly showed him as a big meanie racist in the process.

But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.​

Before the internet, Trump would have never been nominated. It takes mass communication where every fruitcake can make any claim that pops into their silly head to stir up that many crazies. Trump knows that, and it's the only way he got nominated.

Without Obama being black and Hillary having a vagina, neither one would have been nominated.

Nope. I know some right wingers think that, but the problem with that is they were too misogynistic and racist to believe a black man or a woman could have anything to offer, so they focused on the main attribute that scared them. Pathetic little right wing minds can't deal with anything more complex.

You're confused. I have no problem with a black or female holding office. However, unlike you and many like you, I won't vote for one solely BECAUSE they are black or female.

And I didn't either. Why do you think I vote based on race or gender? Because that's what Hannity told you?

 

[Conservative65]

Before the internet the Dims would have gotten away with their attempt to smear Trump, but now the major networks can't stifle embarrassing facts. This episode may just further cement Hillary's reputation for being sleazy and dishonest.

Khizr Khan Attack on Donald Trump Goes Down in Flames​

....Over the weekend and for the past few days since Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan about their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, media-wide reporters, editors, producers, and anchors have tried to lay criticism on Trump over the matter. They thought they had a good one, a specific line of attack that pitted Trump against the military—and supposedly showed him as a big meanie racist in the process.

But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.​

Before the internet, Trump would have never been nominated. It takes mass communication where every fruitcake can make any claim that pops into their silly head to stir up that many crazies. Trump knows that, and it's the only way he got nominated.

Without Obama being black and Hillary having a vagina, neither one would have been nominated.

Nope. I know some right wingers think that, but the problem with that is they were too misogynistic and racist to believe a black man or a woman could have anything to offer, so they focused on the main attribute that scared them. Pathetic little right wing minds can't deal with anything more complex.

You're confused. I have no problem with a black or female holding office. However, unlike you and many like you, I won't vote for one solely BECAUSE they are black or female.

And I didn't either. Why do you think I vote based on race or gender? Because that's what Hannity told you?

Neither are qualified. That leaves only one thing.

 

[BULLDOG]

How many spoke at the republican convention that weren't tightly bound to the GOP?

Patricia Smith wasn't political in any sense of the word. I don't even know if she's a Republican. I just know she thinks Hillary killed her son.

Bullshit. How many times has she been on fox and right wing radio? She puts out a right wing produced public statement every few days. She is as much a part of the right wing as any politician or pundit you might name.

Did you imagine CNN or ABC was going to have her on every few days? She goes where she is welcome.

I suppose it' important for a political operative like Mrs. Smith to get in the media as often she can

Smith is a political operative? Or just a grieving mother on a mission to hold Hillary Clinton responsible for the death of her son?

A political operative. She went past the grieving mother stage about the 20th time she appeared on fox or right wing radio.

 

[BULLDOG]

Before the internet, Trump would have never been nominated. It takes mass communication where every fruitcake can make any claim that pops into their silly head to stir up that many crazies. Trump knows that, and it's the only way he got nominated.

Without Obama being black and Hillary having a vagina, neither one would have been nominated.

Nope. I know some right wingers think that, but the problem with that is they were too misogynistic and racist to believe a black man or a woman could have anything to offer, so they focused on the main attribute that scared them. Pathetic little right wing minds can't deal with anything more complex.

You're confused. I have no problem with a black or female holding office. However, unlike you and many like you, I won't vote for one solely BECAUSE they are black or female.

And I didn't either. Why do you think I vote based on race or gender? Because that's what Hannity told you?

Neither are qualified. That leaves only one thing.

Got it. You don't think blacks or women are capable of high office. How very republican of you.