Criticism grows for Trump's assailing of Muslim vet's family

[webfact]

Criticism grows for Trump's assailing of Muslim vet's family

By JULIE PACE

WASHINGTON (AP) — Angry and anxious, Republican lawmakers and veterans groups hastened to disavow Donald Trump's repeated criticism of a bereaved military family Monday, but the GOP presidential nominee refused to back down. He complained anew that he had been "viciously attacked" by the parents of a Muslim U.S. Army captain who was killed in Iraq.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war, led the charge, saying Trump did not have "unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us." The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation's oldest and largest veterans organization, called Trump out of bounds for tangling with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son was killed in 2004.

"Election year or not, the VFW will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression," VFW leader Brian Duffy said.

Democratic President Barack Obama chimed in, too, addressing the Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta. He said of families who have lost family members in the military service: "No one has given more to our freedom and our security than our Gold Star families. ... They represent the very best of our country."

A growing chorus of GOP lawmakers chastised Trump for sparring with the Khans, who appeared at the Democratic convention on behalf of Hillary Clinton. But like McCain, none revoked his support of the GOP nominee in the White House campaign.

In an emotional appearance at last week's convention, Khizr Khan criticized Trump for proposing to temporarily freeze the entry of foreign Muslims into the U.S. and accused him of making no sacrifices for his country. The billionaire businessman challenged that assertion and also implied Ghazala Khan's religion prevented her from speaking. On Monday, he tweeted that "Mr. Khan, who does not know me, viciously attacked me from the stage of the DNC and is now all over T.V. doing the same."

In his first rally after the controversy blew up, Trump spoke at length and took several questions at a town hall rally in Columbus, Ohio, on Monday — never once mentioning the Khans.

For some of Trump's allies, the dispute is just the latest example of a troubling pattern: The real estate mogul hitting back at perceived slights or insults, regardless of the political implications. He has stunned rivals with his ability to survive self-created controversies during the GOP primaries but faces a broader set of voters in the general election.

Indeed, some Republicans said privately that it was the timing of this flare-up that had them on edge— the spectacle of their candidate tangling with a military family just three months before Election Day.

McCain was among several lawmakers — many facing re-election this fall — who distanced themselves from Trump's comments Monday.

Rep. Mike Coffman, a vulnerable Republican in a competitive Colorado district, said he was "deeply offended when Donald Trump fails to honor the sacrifices of all of our brave soldiers who were lost in that war." Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt said the Khans "deserve to be heard and respected."

"My advice to Donald Trump has been and will continue to be to focus on jobs and national security and stop responding to every criticism whether it's from a grieving family or Hillary Clinton," Blunt said in a statement.

Trump advisers have spent months trying to help the political novice do just that. Aides say Trump often professes to understand the risks of fueling a controversy, but he can get drawn back.

"It's just who he is," said Stuart Jolly, a former campaign staffer and current national political director for the pro-Trump Great America PAC.

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who has advised Trump, said the candidate's inability to back away from a political land mine "makes him vulnerable. ... He'll have to learn to grow out of it."

While Trump and his allies often blame the media for keeping controversies alive, the businessman himself often fans the flames. After winning the primary, he spent days criticizing a U.S. district court judge's Mexican heritage. He also refused to disavow a campaign tweet about Clinton that appeared to feature the Star of David.

In spite of those storms, Trump remains in a close race for the White House with Clinton. And few Democrats appear ready to declare Trump's criticism of Khan a turning point.

Democratic pollster Paul Maslin said that while "ninety-nine percent of me says this is devastating for Trump," Clinton backers can't assume that another few days of bad headlines will sink a candidate who "simply defies all natural laws of American politics."

Thursday night, the Pakistan-born Khizr Khan told the story of his son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, and questioned whether Trump had ever read the Constitution. During the speech, Ghazala Khan stood quietly by his side.

Trump responded in an interview with ABC's "This Week," saying: "She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say."

Ghazala Khan wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that she did not speak because talking about her son's death remains difficult. "Every day, whenever I pray, I have to pray for him, and I cry," she wrote.

___

Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Bill Barrow, Lisa Lerer and Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-08-02

[ClutchClark]

Trump was like a speeding locomotive at the Republican Debates laying waste to anyone in his way.

Now he appears to have lept from the locomotive and directly in front of the tracks and is being run over by the very same locomotive.

The GOP machine needs to figure out a way to replace Trump fast.

Too many voters will forget we are voting for the party platform and vision for the future and not for this lunatic.

[Boon Mee]

Trump might be receiving criticism for his viewpoints on the muslim vet but hold the bus.  There's more to this story than meets the eye:

Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together

"Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm ."

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/

Read the article.  Sounds like this Khizr Khan has more than one dog in this fight. 

[Ulysses G.]

The family attacked Trump and he attacked back. I cannot say that I really blame him. Most politicians would not have done it for political considerations, but he is not most politicians.

[ClutchClark]

@Boon Mee post 3.

Sounds like Hillary planted a "Ringer" in the audience. 

When a soldoer's death becomes a commodity for political gain then it speaks volumes about the candidate who stands to gsin from it.

How many generations back does one have to search before they find military service of the Rodham-Clinton families? 

And I don't count Hillary voting to send young men & women off to war as counting as military service.

[Steely Dan]

Another MSM concocted storm in a tea cup. They still don't get it, Trump's supporters don't give a damn what anyone else thinks, they will act like any of the entitled minorities who think of themselves as Democrats. The punchline is this minority may well turn out to be the majority come election date.

Trump repesents those who are sick of the bullshit, the only way to fight him is to make the bullshit go away. Nobody can or will seeing as they still have not realized the basis of Trumps support.

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

@Boon Mee post 3.

Sounds like Hillary planted a "Ringer" in the audience. 

When a soldoer's death becomes a commodity for political gain then it speaks volumes about the candidate who stands to gsin from it.

How many generations back does one have to search before they find military service of the Rodham-Clinton families? 

And I don't count Hillary voting to send young men & women off to war as counting as military service.

What about that guy whose father was a wealthy New York developer?  This person was by all accounts an excellent athlete yet he managed to avoid the draft on account of bone spurs. He even had a doctor's note and everything.

[Usernames]

29 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

@Boon Mee post 3.

Sounds like Hillary planted a "Ringer" in the audience. 

When a soldoer's death becomes a commodity for political gain then it speaks volumes about the candidate who stands to gsin from it.

How many generations back does one have to search before they find military service of the Rodham-Clinton families? 

And I don't count Hillary voting to send young men & women off to war as counting as military service.

Bill Clinton on "loathing the military."  Meanwhile, the Clintons started no less than five wars while in office. BTW, what is also interesting in regard to that letter and its reproduction on pbs, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html, is how the media stepped in to frame the letter and protect the Clintons. 

[Boon Mee]

In case y'all don't know who Pat Smith is, her boy was one of the ones Crooked Hillary abandoned at Benghazi:

DOUBLE STANDARD: Khizr Khan Receives 50x More Coverage Than Pat Smith on ABC, CBS, NBC

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/08/01/khizr-khans-trump-criticisms-receive-50x-more-time-pat-smith

Doesn't quite seem fair now does it?

Edited August 2, 2016 by Boon Mee
This is a textbook case of bias-by-agenda: One of these stories (the Khan story) matched the Democratic agenda, and the partisan media couldn’t push it hard enough. The other (the Smith story) reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee, so it was barely m

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

In case y'all don't know who Pat Smith is, her boy was one of the ones Crooked Hillary abandoned at Benghazi:

DOUBLE STANDARD: Khizr Khan Receives 50x More Coverage Than Pat Smith on ABC, CBS, NBC

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/08/01/khizr-khans-trump-criticisms-receive-50x-more-time-pat-smith

Doesn't quite seem fair now does it?

Hadn't heard she was running for President. I do know that she received a lot more publicity than did Ambassador Stevens' family who decried the use of the Benghazi incident for political purposes.

[Boon Mee]

^

I can't find it either?

Well, this might be a bit of good news:

"Mainstream media figures from the New York Times to the Huffington Post to CNN are apoplectic Monday as their latest attack on Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has crumbled yet again under the slightest bit of scrutiny "

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

People will see thru the BS eventually we hope...

[Boon Mee]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Hadn't heard she was running for President. I do know that she received a lot more publicity than did Ambassador Stevens' family who decried the use of the Benghazi incident for political purposes.

Didn't realize that Khizar Khan was running for POTUS either?

What's your point?

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

Didn't realize that Khizar Khan was running for POTUS either?

What's your point?

The point is your claim that the media was purposely underreporting the Pat Smith story.  I pointed out the Stevens family got even less traction in the press.  But i don't go about invoking conspiracy theories.  And it wasn't Khan's speech that got the press going full tilt. It was Trump's gratuitously nasty replies that turned it into the issue of the day.

[Usernames]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point is your claim that the media was purposely underreporting the Pat Smith story.  I pointed out the Stevens family got even less traction in the press.  But i don't go about invoking conspiracy theories.  And it wasn't Khan's speech that got the press going full tilt. It was Trump's gratuitously nasty replies that turned it into the issue of the day.

It's not a "theory," wikileaks proved that the mainstream press submits its articles and stories to the DNC for approval and "improvement" before publishing them.

[Boon Mee]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point is your claim that the media was purposely underreporting the Pat Smith story.  I pointed out the Stevens family got even less traction in the press.  But i don't go about invoking conspiracy theories.  And it wasn't Khan's speech that got the press going full tilt. It was Trump's gratuitously nasty replies that turned it into the issue of the day.

Of course the media is under reporting the Pat Smith story as it doesn't fit their narrative.  Let's not be naive here.

The reason Steven's family didn't want publicity is probably for several reasons aside from their political view points but that's off-topic.  What's on-topic is this Khan guy claims he wants out of the spotlight then goes ahead and gives more television interviews.  Publicity hound for his law firm.

[Ulysses G.]

28 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You probably wouldn't criticize Trump for attacking a New York Times reporter on the grounds that he was handicapped. It's not that right to respond that being criticized, it's what actually said.  I can't believe you don't understand the difference.

I DID criticize Trump for his gimp impression. Stop trying to put words in other poster's mouths.

[NeverSure]

Trump had nothing at all to do with Khan's son's death. Hillary did as she voted for the war. Trump was against the war, said so at the time, and if up to him Khan's son would probably still be alive.

Yet who does the press attack? Wikileaks has already proven that the press and Clinton work together on their talking points, but they got this one wrong. Khan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and makes his living selling visas to Islamists. He used to be Clinton's lawyer.

This was a setup that's backfiring.

Cheers.

[simple1]

9 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

Trump had nothing at all to do with Khan's son's death. Hillary did as she voted for the war. Trump was against the war, said so at the time, and if up to him Khan's son would probably still be alive.

Yet who does the press attack? Wikileaks has already proven that the press and Clinton work together on their talking points, but they got this one wrong. Khan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and makes his living selling visas to Islamists. He used to be Clinton's lawyer.

This was a setup that's backfiring.

Cheers.

Yet another false/unproven statement by supporters of Trump.

http://www.snopes.com/khizr-khan-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent/

In any case how does this claim have any relevance to Trump's vicious personal attack on the integrity of a man's relationship with his wife? Trump proves time and again in his current incarnation he is unworthy to represent USA as President.

Edited August 2, 2016 by simple1

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I DID criticize Trump for his gimp impression. Stop trying to put words in other poster's mouths.

Sorry that I'm not familiar with the collected oeuvre of your comments.  The point was that Trump's first response was simply an irrelevant attack referring to the fact that these people were Muslims. He then followed up by saying that he, too, had made "sacrifices." Apparently being a developer wasn't something he wanted to do but felt obliged to do for the sake of America.

[mtls2005]

"Apparently being a developer wasn't something he wanted to do but felt obliged to do for the sake of America."

Keeping Manhattan safe for white people since 1973, oh, the sacrifices one makes.

 

Trump’s Employees Marked “C” for “Colored”

Donald Trump, the man who regularly boasts about “never settling” lawsuits settled a 1973 suit brought by the Justice Department for racial discrimination at Trump properties. The suit was the result of undercover “testers” sent from organizations such as the Urban League to uncover housing discrimination. In one instance, a black woman seeking to rent in a Brooklyn complex was told nothing was available. Later, a white woman seeking similar accommodations was given her choice of two available units.

Such discrimination wasn’t accidental or the result of individual employees personal biases. Federal investigators found that Trump employees marked the applications of prospective minority tenants with racial codes–such as “No. 9” or “C” for “colored” applicants. Apparently Mr. Trump preferred to rent his properties to “Jews and Executives,” according to two former Trump employees.

“Donald Trump’s company embraced discriminatory practices while he was in the boardroom and his present rhetoric shows he wants to take the same attitude to the Oval Office,” said American Bridge 21st Century President Jessica Mackler. 

https://americanbridgepac.org/trumps-employees-marked-c-for-colored/

Edited August 2, 2016 by mtls2005

[Usernames]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Sorry that I'm not familiar with the collected oeuvre of your comments.  The point was that Trump's first response was simply an irrelevant attack referring to the fact that these people were Muslims. He then followed up by saying that he, too, had made "sacrifices." Apparently being a developer wasn't something he wanted to do but felt obliged to do for the sake of America.

"Sorry that I'm not familiar with the collected oeuvre of your comments." --

That's why it's usually a better idea to engage with the ideas under discussion, instead of launching personal attacks on other posters. Try it. 

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

The family attacked Trump and he attacked back. I cannot say that I really blame him. Most politicians would not have done it for political considerations, but he is not most politicians.

 

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

In case y'all don't know who Pat Smith is, her boy was one of the ones Crooked Hillary abandoned at Benghazi:

DOUBLE STANDARD: Khizr Khan Receives 50x More Coverage Than Pat Smith on ABC, CBS, NBC

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/08/01/khizr-khans-trump-criticisms-receive-50x-more-time-pat-smith

Doesn't quite seem fair now does it?

You can partly blame Trump for this.  Just when the headlines could have been about the DNC rigging the primaries and Bernie supporters making noise at the Convention, Donald created a new headline to replace it.  Sometimes it's best to shut up or at least not say anything even remotely close to being controversial.  And this guy thinks he can handle world diplomacy?  He's a clown!

 

PS, maybe Donald should learn to be a politician now and again.  Being a pol is not all bad.

Edited August 2, 2016 by helpisgood

[Skywalker69]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

The family attacked Trump and he attacked back. I cannot say that I really blame him. Most politicians would not have done it for political considerations, but he is not most politicians.

Trump is a thinskinned "whining little bitch"

[Usernames]

1 minute ago, helpisgood said:

 

You can partly blame Trump for this.  Just when the headlines could have been about the DNC rigging the primaries and Bernie supporters making noise at the Convention, Donald created a new headline to replace it.  Sometimes it's best to shut up or at least not say anything even remotely close to being controversial.  And this guy thinks he can handle world diplomacy?  He's a clown!

 

PS, maybe Donald should learn to be a politician now and again.  Being a pol is not all bad.

You have forgotten already how the media was spinning the news last week.  In the wake of Wikileaks' revelation about the mainstream media's collusion with the Clinton campaign, the reaction was to claim Trump was being directed by the Kremlin.  Ironic in that it has now emerged that the Clinton Foundation has direct ties and money from Putin and Russian energy companies.  The topic is now back on moslems.  And while the Democrats may swoon over the Khans, I think the majority of Americans see yet another angry, disjointed moslem fanatic who thinks he and his family deserve special attention because they are moslems.  The one thing I know is that there will be many more moslem terror attacks between now and the election.  And with each one of them, the connection between the Clintons and the Democrats as the party of the Muslim Brotherhood and Terror will get stronger and stronger.  This isn't checkers; it's chess.  The Dems and Hillary are looking good because of their media allies right now, but they will be branded as the Party of Jihad as the terror deaths mount and will be seen that way at the time of the election.

[helpisgood]

1 minute ago, Usernames said:

You have forgotten already how the media was spinning the news last week.  In the wake of Wikileaks' revelation about the mainstream media's collusion with the Clinton campaign, the reaction was to claim Trump was being directed by the Kremlin.  Ironic in that it has now emerged that the Clinton Foundation has direct ties and money from Putin and Russian energy companies.  The topic is now back on moslems.  And while the Democrats may swoon over the Khans, I think the majority of Americans see yet another angry, disjointed moslem fanatic who thinks he and his family deserve special attention because they are moslems.  The one thing I know is that there will be many more moslem terror attacks between now and the election.  And with each one of them, the connection between the Clintons and the Democrats as the party of the Muslim Brotherhood and Terror will get stronger and stronger.  This isn't checkers; it's chess.  The Dems and Hillary are looking good because of their media allies right now, but they will be branded as the Party of Jihad as the terror deaths mount and will be seen that way at the time of the election.

Right!  The DNC was trying to spin the story that way, but the full story was eclipsed by Donald's thin skin.  Shut up about the Gold Star family and go after the DNC email story. 

[Emster23]

" How many generations back does one have to search before they find military service of the Rodham-Clinton families?" Her father: " Hugh Rodham enlisted in the United States Navy, where he became a Chief Petty Officer stationed at the Great Lakes Naval Station, performing training duties for sailors headed for the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II " Donald's father made money during WWII " During World War II, Trump built barracks and garden apartments for U.S. Navy personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast " Don't know why he didn't enlist. Donald got 5 military deferments, 4 student and medical for heel bone spurs (probably from playing sports), unsure if army doctors or private doctor examined. It was very common for those who didn't want to go to get letters from sympathetic doctors. Some of my friends did that.

 Crux is that Trump somehow equates making business deals as "sacrifice" equal to losing son. In classic economic terms, yes an investor "sacrifices" current consumption for investing in future returns. So if there was a "sacrifice" it was to make money for himself, nothing to do with "serving his country". There is a reason we call military deaths "The ultimate sacrifice for one's country".

[mtls2005]

Broad array of military luminaries condemn Trump over attacks on Khan family

 

A bipartisan constellation of decorated combat veterans, members of Congress and family members of slain soldiers admonished Donald Trump on Monday for criticizing the Muslim American parents of an Army officer killed in Iraq, threatening to undermine Trump’s support among core Republican voters.

The condemnations by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and dozens of veterans and family members of those killed in the line of duty served as the most forceful rebuke yet of the mogul’s comments and his anti-Muslim rhetoric.

The critiques lobbed at Trump on Monday were the latest turns in a bitter exchange that has dominated the presidential race since the close of the Democratic National Convention on Thursday in Philadelphia. It threatens to hurt Trump’s standing among voters he has been aggressively pursuing: those who aren’t fans of Democrat Hillary Clinton and who hold doubts about her record on national security. The standoff has also frayed Trump’s already delicate alliance with GOP leaders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mccain-adds-latest-salvo-in-gop-dismay-over-trump-clash-with-khan-family/2016/08/01/10ca7e10-57e8-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, Emster23 said:

" How many generations back does one have to search before they find military service of the Rodham-Clinton families?" Her father: " Hugh Rodham enlisted in the United States Navy, where he became a Chief Petty Officer stationed at the Great Lakes Naval Station, performing training duties for sailors headed for the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II " Donald's father made money during WWII " During World War II, Trump built barracks and garden apartments for U.S. Navy personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast " Don't know why he didn't enlist. Donald got 5 military deferments, 4 student and medical for heel bone spurs (probably from playing sports), unsure if army doctors or private doctor examined. It was very common for those who didn't want to go to get letters from sympathetic doctors. Some of my friends did that.

 Crux is that Trump somehow equates making business deals as "sacrifice" equal to losing son. In classic economic terms, yes an investor "sacrifices" current consumption for investing in future returns. So if there was a "sacrifice" it was to make money for himself, nothing to do with "serving his country". There is a reason we call military deaths "The ultimate sacrifice for one's country".

The point I was making is that I give Trump no more free pass for avoiding the Draft than I do Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney or GWB.

Trump was actually doing more than any of these other draft dodgers in that his business dealings could have in some small way helped out the War Effort for the reason you mention above. Unlike Clinton and Cheney and GWB who were pursuing purely their own self-interest. 

I do not defend Trump. I realize that its necessary for Hillary supporters to accuse anyone that criticizes her of being a Trump supporter but I do not support Trump. I consider him to be almost as bad as Hillary. 

[ClutchClark]

14 minutes ago, Emster23 said:

" How many generations back does one have to search before they find military service of the Rodham-Clinton families?" Her father: " Hugh Rodham enlisted in the United States Navy, where he became a Chief Petty Officer stationed at the Great Lakes Naval Station, performing training duties for sailors headed for the Pacific Ocean theater of World War II " Donald's father made money during WWII " During World War II, Trump built barracks and garden apartments for U.S. Navy personnel near major shipyards along the East Coast " Don't know why he didn't enlist. Donald got 5 military deferments, 4 student and medical for heel bone spurs (probably from playing sports), unsure if army doctors or private doctor examined. It was very common for those who didn't want to go to get letters from sympathetic doctors. Some of my friends did that.

 Crux is that Trump somehow equates making business deals as "sacrifice" equal to losing son. In classic economic terms, yes an investor "sacrifices" current consumption for investing in future returns. So if there was a "sacrifice" it was to make money for himself, nothing to do with "serving his country". There is a reason we call military deaths "The ultimate sacrifice for one's country".

Interesting that her father was a Chief Petty Officer and stationed Stateside during the entire War. 

Just lucky I guess.

I am sure his not being assigned duty that would see "action" had nothing to do with the influence of his wealthy family. 

Thanks for the info you have provided. 

[Berkshire]

30 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

Trump is a thinskinned "whining little bitch"

Yeap, he's a whining little bitch who can dish it out, but can't take it.  He wants the freedom to say what he wants (non-PC), but can't handle the consequences of doing just that.

Now the little bitch is taking it from all sides.  From Warren Buffett, to John McCain, to Mark Cuban, to Gold Star families and the whole military community.  I hope Trump keeps running his mouth (especially about world affairs, like Russia) so he can demonstrate how incredibly stupid he is.  It won't matter to the dim core Trump supporters, but it will matter to the rest of America.