Father of dead Navy SEAL refused to meet Trump

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — The father of a Navy SEAL killed during an anti-terrorism raid in Yemen is demanding an investigation into its planning and criticized the Trump administration for its timing.

Bill Owens told The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/2lTYhPB ) in a story published Sunday that he refused to meet with President Donald Trump when both came to Dover Air Force Base to receive the casket carrying his son, Chief Special Warfare Officer William “Ryan” Owens.

“I want an investigation,” said Owens, a retired Fort Lauderdale police detective and veteran. “The government owes my son an investigation.”

The elder Owens told the Herald he refused to meet with the president because the family had requested a private ceremony.

“I’m sorry, I don’t want to see him,” Owens recalled telling the chaplain who informed him that Trump was on his way from Washington. “I told them I don’t want to meet the president.”

He said he was also troubled by the attack Trump leveled at Khizr and Ghazala Kahn, an American Muslim family whose Army officer son died in Iraq in 2004. The couple had criticized him at the Democratic National Convention last summer. He also questioned why the president approved the raid a week after taking office.

“I told them I didn’t want to make a scene about it, but my conscience wouldn’t let me talk to him,” Owens told the Herald. “Why at this time did there have to be this stupid mission when it wasn’t even barely a week into his administration?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:What's this about? Did the dad change his mind?

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:What's this about? Did the dad change his mind?

Come crawling back from the Libby woodwork, Il Professore?
Doesn't suit your libby narrative that his widow was all emotional?

Idéfix wrote:We have a president who actually blamed the generals for an attack that he had authorized, and then cynically used the widow to claim that the mission was a success. Obama, OTOH, said he is ultimately accountable for combat deaths on his watch. That makes him Obummer or Obambi to the racists, but Il Douche is just fine as long as he continues to be orange/white.

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:We have a president who actually blamed the generals for an attack that he had authorized, and then cynically used the widow to claim that the mission was a success. Obama, OTOH, said he is ultimately accountable for combat deaths on his watch. That makes him Obummer or Obambi to the racists, but Il Douche is just fine as long as he continues to be orange/white.

Love this libtard way of reasoning - If you oppose Obambi, you must be a racist.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:We have a president who actually blamed the generals for an attack that he had authorized, and then cynically used the widow to claim that the mission was a success. Obama, OTOH, said he is ultimately accountable for combat deaths on his watch. That makes him Obummer or Obambi to the racists, but Il Douche is just fine as long as he continues to be orange/white.

Love this libtard way of reasoning - If you oppose Obambi, you must be a racist.

Not everyone who opposed Obama was a racist, but pretty much all racists did oppose Obama. There are many ways of opposing a politician without being racist or sexist, but the most common racist way to attack Obama was to mangle his name, and the most common sexist way to attack Clinton was to call her Shrillery.

All that is the past though. Let's talk about the present. We have a so-called president who blames his generals for the death of a soldier. What do you think about that?

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:We have a president who actually blamed the generals for an attack that he had authorized, and then cynically used the widow to claim that the mission was a success. Obama, OTOH, said he is ultimately accountable for combat deaths on his watch. That makes him Obummer or Obambi to the racists, but Il Douche is just fine as long as he continues to be orange/white.

Love this libtard way of reasoning - If you oppose Obambi, you must be a racist.

Not everyone who opposed Obama was a racist, but pretty much all racists did oppose Obama. There are many ways of opposing a politician without being racist or sexist, but the most common racist way to attack Obama was to mangle his name, and the most common sexist way to attack Clinton was to call her Shrillery.

All that is the past though. Let's talk about the present. We have a so-called president who blames his generals for the death of a soldier. What do you think about that?

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:We have a president who actually blamed the generals for an attack that he had authorized, and then cynically used the widow to claim that the mission was a success. Obama, OTOH, said he is ultimately accountable for combat deaths on his watch. That makes him Obummer or Obambi to the racists, but Il Douche is just fine as long as he continues to be orange/white.

Love this libtard way of reasoning - If you oppose Obambi, you must be a racist.

Not everyone who opposed Obama was a racist, but pretty much all racists did oppose Obama. There are many ways of opposing a politician without being racist or sexist, but the most common racist way to attack Obama was to mangle his name, and the most common sexist way to attack Clinton was to call her Shrillery.

All that is the past though. Let's talk about the present. We have a so-called president who blames his generals for the death of a soldier. What do you think about that?

Ah yes and if you oppose Shrillery, you must be sexist - kind of like GWB's line which the libtards so opposed then.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:My greatest fear is that he has so diluted the standards of behavior and performance as president that when he does something very modest that can be viewed in a positive light, the media is going to go nuts and try to normalize him. They have done this time and again with other politicians and did it over and over again during the primaries and during the main campaign. I fear they'll soon fall into the same trap again.

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

Idéfix wrote:We have a president who actually blamed the generals for an attack that he had authorized, and then cynically used the widow to claim that the mission was a success. Obama, OTOH, said he is ultimately accountable for combat deaths on his watch. That makes him Obummer or Obambi to the racists, but Il Douche is just fine as long as he continues to be orange/white.

Love this libtard way of reasoning - If you oppose Obambi, you must be a racist.

Not everyone who opposed Obama was a racist, but pretty much all racists did oppose Obama. There are many ways of opposing a politician without being racist or sexist, but the most common racist way to attack Obama was to mangle his name, and the most common sexist way to attack Clinton was to call her Shrillery.

All that is the past though. Let's talk about the present. We have a so-called president who blames his generals for the death of a soldier. What do you think about that?

Ah yes and if you oppose Shrillery, you must be sexist - kind of like GWB's line which the libtards so opposed then.

No, you are not necessarily sexist if you oppose Clinton. You are sexist if you call her Shrillery. Shrillness in voice being one of those tiresome stereotypes for women aspiring to leadership positions.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't like Hillary's voice, but have never found it shrill. If anything it has a slightly annoying gravely raspy tone to it. So the appellation "shrillery" is definitely sexist because it doesn't fit the actual voice. You want shrill? Try Sarah Palin. Or the Mangeshkar woman.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:I don't like Hillary's voice, but have never found it shrill. If anything it has a slightly annoying gravely raspy tone to it. So the appellation "shrillery" is definitely sexist because it doesn't fit the actual voice. You want shrill? Try Sarah Palin. Or the Mangeshkar woman.

pravalika nanda wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:My greatest fear is that he has so diluted the standards of behavior and performance as president that when he does something very modest that can be viewed in a positive light, the media is going to go nuts and try to normalize him. They have done this time and again with other politicians and did it over and over again during the primaries and during the main campaign. I fear they'll soon fall into the same trap again.

i have no doubt the media will begin to fawn over him before the end of summer. i mean we're looking at GW now we're all so impressed by him.

and you know why that is? it is because the media does not value facts, they care about perspectives, opinions and image. they're not scientists, they imagine there is no need for accuracy, there is plenty of room to be dishonest  when reporting a socio-political story, they're not held responsible for poor reporting or the approximate truth. they don't read a story like a physician reads an EKG. they can just interpret it whatever way they like and the reader in turn does the same. there's no gold standard.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:My greatest fear is that he has so diluted the standards of behavior and performance as president that when he does something very modest that can be viewed in a positive light, the media is going to go nuts and try to normalize him. They have done this time and again with other politicians and did it over and over again during the primaries and during the main campaign. I fear they'll soon fall into the same trap again.

i have no doubt the media will begin to fawn over him before the end of summer. i mean we're looking at GW now we're all so impressed by him.

and you know why that is? it is because the media does not value facts, they care about perspectives, opinions and image. they're not scientists, they imagine there is no need for accuracy, there is plenty of room to be dishonest  when reporting a socio-political story, they're not held responsible for poor reporting or the approximate truth. they don't read a story like a physician reads an EKG. they can just interpret it whatever way they like and the reader in turn does the same. there's no gold standard.

"media" have ppl of varying competence, ethical standards and biases, like any other field. that's why comrade orange is having such a fit over CNN, NYT, ABC, WSJ, BBC etc. he knew how to manipulate the sort of low end entertainment reporters that covered him in his former life as a fat combover pussy grabbing reality TV star/real estate mogul with penchant for overinflating his assets. but now he's facing the best of the best that are going behind his distracting antics to get at the real story and it makes him mad that he cant control the narrative anymore. fox could be one of those questioning him but fox and msnbc were always partisan mouthpieces that'll lob softballs to their respective wings and are watched mostly by wingnuts predisposed to seeing things a certain way. media will take him down sooner or later. if I were to guess, that'll be after 2018 elections if something momentous doesnt happen in mean time that republicans are forced to act.

* and I think the press is getting a lot of help from the intelligence community which is scared shitless of this idiot