Deceased US Navy Seal's Father Refuses to meet Trump

[Stacyrect]

The investigation is still underway, just like that into that military operation. No conclusive remarks are made yet and no criminal charges. So not treating them the same way is disingenuous.

Oh without a doubt. I feel fairly confident the investigation into Trump isn't going to go anywhere. I mean all their communications were being intercepted and so far no charges have been brought which means that the investigation now is just a formality to conclude no wrong doing. Not to say I can't be wrong though.

In regards to the raid, their are already 3 investigations going on it. The father is also calling for an expanded investigation which I support. A lot of shit went bad on that mission and frankly it seems shit seems to go bad on a LOT of missions. From heavier then anticipated resistance to equipment failure, and now enemies actually being tipped off. On top of that former obama administrators are conflicting their stories, some are saying they didn't know anything about the raid and some others saying they did so. We shall see.

[Felya]

Have no idea if they received same intelligence

What do you mean you have no idea? You had no issue blaming Obama for it.

The mission would have happened under Obama admin, but they waited for the next moonless night, which was under the Trump admin

No, Obama did not sign for the mission to happen at next moonless night or have any access to intelligence about that night it self.

So far, the intelligence that suggested something was of worth to be had at the compound has so far shown itself at least publicly to be of little worth. So yes, if you are given inherently bad information suggesting that something is of worth to warrant a raid and that turns out to not be the case, then yes Trump should be blaming others. Shit rolls down hill, not up.

Then why did Trump sign it? Why did Trump sign something, that originated from someone who Trump claimed founded ISIS.

By the way, the shit rolling down the hill isn't a good thing for Trump either. I much prefer Truman's "the buck stops here".

I dunno, I haven't viewed the intelligence, cant say. What is known is that the raid would have happened under the Obama admin, they were just waiting for moonless night.

Bullshit! How is that known? Do you have a visions into alternative reality?

Hillary offered condolences for victims of Benghazi? Where? I've only read reports of her accusing the victims parents of being liars for saying she lied about benghazi, which released emails indicate she did or at the least wasn't entirely truthful about it.

Here you go:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-people-who-/

I wouldn't say it was an 'accomplished mission' given what we publicly know. As a person not intimate to details unknown to the public their is likely a lot I don't know. With what we know publicly, I'd say a drone strike was the better method then sending in a raid.

You mean it would have been better if it was done with what increased drastically under Obama, in drone strike, it would have been better?

What part was imaginary? Do you think our most elite special forces just make a habbit of doing stupid shit like getting surrounded by enemy forces or what? Aside from trying to take a (childish) cheap shot at me, what exactly are you talking about?

If you think pointing out that you are making up a scenario, where Obama would have done the same, is in your imagination is childish... I'm sorry, it's not what I intended... but, I still have no clue how to express it, where you making it up, doesn't seem pejorative. See... even making it up is pejorative... you have no way of knowing, would have meant the same but would have been better?

No, lack of evidence wasn't the reason Obama didn't go through with it, the decision was based on having a moonless night.

According to who exactly? You cannot pretend Obama would have signed it... I am sorry, you cannot... you can assert it until you are blue in the face, but it simply doesn't. What you are actually saying, without realizing... is that for what ever reason, Trump did not reevaluate if anything changed in the weeks leading to a moonless night. If you even have the gull to blame Obama, you need to assert that Obama, just like Trump... would either reviewed the situation and failed to recognize the flaw or didn't bother reviewing... neither means good things for Trump and if you remove something you have absolutely no way of knowing, you are actually blaming Trump for being hasty.

As far as Flynn goes, it did but not in the way you are probably suggesting. The FBI isn't bringing forth criminal charges as nothing was "illegal or improper" and from what I understand the controversy over Flynn and the discussion of russian sanctions was a topic brought up by kislyak which really wasn't anymore then a question and brief answer. As far as I'm aware their wasn't any promises or in depth discussions over russian sanctions. His resignation however is probably attributed to the fact that he stated sanctions were never discussed, when they were, however briefly.

Flynn lied, just a little bit... but, you are sure he wouldn't have lied any other time. You just think Obama would have done the same here, despite firing the guy Trump had as national security advisor years earlier? Your whole defense of Trump by pointing at Obama, just exposes your own bias.

What raised my eyebrows on that was that Flynn, Trump, and others were all private citizens during the campaign and were actively spied upon. So whatever/whenever was discussed with Russia is on tape, so if the campaign had done anything illegal they would have been charged with it.

Yeah, judging by your argument, that does make sense. You do know that when US spies on diplomats, from a country who had spies kicked out just 6 years prior, they don't stop recording when American citizens talk to them... they pay closer attention... Do you think our spies should stop recording when they intercept the conversation between Iran and America civilians? Hint: they were not spying on Flynn...

Seriously, you are going to pretend they were spying on Flynn and not the Russian embassy? Really?

- - - Updated - - -

now enemies actually being tipped off. On top of that former obama administrators are conflicting their stories, some are saying they didn't know anything about the raid and some others saying they did so. We shall see.

You are making shit up...

[PosPosPos]

So serious. It's going to be a long four years for you. Try to manage.

Umm so, accepting reality is "being serious", and I should not accept reality "to manage"?

Trumpet infallible alternative logic at work here yo.

[Stacyrect]

What do you mean you have no idea? You had no issue blaming Obama for it.



No, Obama did not sign for the mission to happen at next moonless night or have any access to intelligence about that night it self.



Then why did Trump sign it? Why did Trump sign something, that originated from someone who Trump claimed founded ISIS.

By the way, the shit rolling down the hill isn't a good thing for Trump either. I much prefer Truman's "the buck stops here".



Bullshit! How is that known? Do you have a visions into alternative reality?



Here you go:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...s-people-who-/



You mean it would have been better if it was done with what increased drastically under Obama, in drone strike, it would have been better?



If you think pointing out that you are making up a scenario, where Obama would have done the same, is in your imagination is childish... I'm sorry, it's not what I intended... but, I still have no clue how to express it, where you making it up, doesn't seem pejorative. See... even making it up is pejorative... you have no way of knowing, would have meant the same but would have been better?



According to who exactly? You cannot pretend Obama would have signed it... I am sorry, you cannot... you can assert it until you are blue in the face, but it simply doesn't. What you are actually saying, without realizing... is that for what ever reason, Trump did not reevaluate if anything changed in the weeks leading to a moonless night. If you even have the gull to blame Obama, you need to assert that Obama, just like Trump... would either reviewed the situation and failed to recognize the flaw or didn't bother reviewing... neither means good things for Trump and if you remove something you have absolutely no way of knowing, you are actually blaming Trump for being hasty.



Flynn lied, just a little bit... but, you are sure he wouldn't have lied any other time. You just think Obama would have done the same here, despite firing the guy Trump had as national security advisor years earlier? Your whole defense of Trump by pointing at Obama, just exposes your own bias.



Yeah, judging by your argument, that does make sense. You do know that when US spies on diplomats, from a country who had spies kicked out just 6 years prior, they don't stop recording when American citizens talk to them... they pay closer attention... Do you think our spies should stop recording when they intercept the conversation between Iran and America civilians? Hint: they were not spying on Flynn...

Seriously, you are going to pretend they were spying on Flynn and not the Russian embassy? Really?

- - - Updated - - -



You are making shit up...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/w...questions.html

I'm sure that's well within your liberal echo chamber of 'acceptable sources'.

Mr. Obama did not act because the Pentagon wanted to launch the attack on a moonless night and the next one would come after his term had ended.

Apparently you are ill informed, which as of now shouldn't be a surprise to me, but presidents don't organize military raids. The pentagon does that.

Thank you for sharing

My knowledge of when the raid would have happened is common knowledge, as related by virtually every single news source who has covered the events of the raid. plot twist: You are actually in a alternative reality, which is why you don't know what your talking about, seemingly ever.

According to every public main stream source I have read so far. Unless they, the pentagon, and everyone else are in cahoots to fool you. If you are actually referencing something that suggests different, no one is stopping you with providing that information.

That's a shit tastic article you linked me from politico. Where does it say she offered her condolences or even her sympathies for the families? All your article says is that she met with families and talked about how sad it is for the libyan people. Is their a video of it? Has she ever publicly offered her condolences? I'm turning up a negative on everything. The fact that a public offering of condolences isn't available just goes to show how big of a piece of shit she is.

Once again, no one is making anything up. This is common information, readily available. Just because you are to lazy to actually familiarize yourself with the subject at hand doesn't automatically mean people are making things up.

Are you suggesting sources within the liberal echo chamber are printing......fake news? How do you know re-evaluation wasn't done? You have a source on that or is this just more of your rambling conjecture?

Do I think minute conversations, dismissed with a single sentence, constitutes a discussion or lying thus so about sanctions? No. The FBI didn't seem to think so either.

Where have I stated that? Or any thoughts on what Obama would or wouldn't have done? The unstable ramblings emitting from your derriere are as obtuse as they are absurd.

From what these anonymous sources have disclosed, is that Flynn's communications were 'intercepted'. These are entirely different from the routine electronic surveillance done for foreign officials. Which is why lawmakers have stated that their better have been a "damn good reason". So yes, they were spying on Flynn and the Trump campaign, during an election cycle while an opposition political party was in the white house.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/u...ons-trump.html

[Gref]

＠Charge me Doctor　stop using militant for us soldiers. I don't think you know what it means, or you are playing naive to mock with us soldiers. Russians soldiers can be called militants maybe.

really was reading pages peacefully but it is so irritating.

[soulzek]

So? People have refused to meet Obama and Bush ... this is nothing newsworthy.

but that happened in the past. thats not how sheepology works

[Barnabas]

Can we say Trump is responsible for these murders in the same way people said Clinton was responsible for Benghazi?

Not even the same galaxy

[Felya]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/w...questions.html

I'm sure that's well within your liberal echo chamber of 'acceptable sources'.

Mr. Obama did not act because the Pentagon wanted to launch the attack on a moonless night and the next one would come after his term had ended.

Apparently you are ill informed, which as of now shouldn't be a surprise to me, but presidents don't organize military raids. The pentagon does that.

Again, the above only confirms your bias, not the peeking into an alternative reality, where Obama would have signed off... regardless of what changed in those weeks... the above does not say what you claim, just what your misinformation is based on. The article isn't lying to you, because you come to conclusions it doesn't.

Thank you for sharing

No, thank you for sharing what you consider as the reason for your conclusion. A better link would be a Cable comic and saying you are Nathan Summers...

My knowledge of when the raid would have happened is common knowledge, as related by virtually every single news source who has covered the events of the raid. plot twist: You are actually in a alternative reality, which is why you don't know what your talking about, seemingly ever.

Show me in the link where it shows that Obama had no choice, but to sign the order, just like Trump. Show me a single piece of evidence, that if not in the same position, there would be no way that Obama would say... "too risky, let's wait until the next one"... until you can prove that it's impossible... you can continue making shit up, while beating your chest... >.<

According to every public main stream source I have read so far. Unless they, the pentagon, and everyone else are in cahoots to fool you. If you are actually referencing something that suggests different, no one is stopping you with providing that information.

I'm presenting you with reality... I don't have evidence of an alternative reality, where Obama signs the same thing Trump did. I'm not the one making such a claim... all I have to do, to show you I'm right, is that Trump signed it and Obama didn't... the onus is on you to prove Obama had no choice, but to sign it. You have yet to do so... all you have presented is that this was a moonless might, not that another wouldn't occur within a month nor that Obama was forced to sign it. Until you do, your assertion that he would have signed it, is equally credible to me saying he wouldn't.

You stating an unknown to convince your self to defend Trump from fault, isn't my problem. I cannot prove to you that Obama wouldn't sign it, because unlike you... I cannot see into alternative reality... you have powers, Nathan Summers, that us mortals do not possess...

That's a shit tastic article you linked me from politico. Where does it say she offered her condolences or even her sympathies for the families? All your article says is that she met with families and talked about how sad it is for the libyan people. Is their a video of it? Has she ever publicly offered her condolences? I'm turning up a negative on everything. The fact that a public offering of condolences isn't available just goes to show how big of a piece of shit she is.

You have got to be kidding me... I link you an article discussing how one of the family's was not happy with their meeting with Clinton and you reply it never happened? I guess Trump was lying when he invited her to the 3rd debate:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ential-debate/

Oh... is Breitbart too liberal for you? So sad...

Once again, no one is making anything up. This is common information, readily available. Just because you are to lazy to actually familiarize yourself with the subject at hand doesn't automatically mean people are making things up.

Nope, making shit up. The link you posted said nothing about Obama having no choice, but to sign the order for that night. You are only pointing that a moonless night happened and one was the reason to not have the raid last time. What you have yet to present, is evidence that Obama couldn't have reviewed the same thing as Trump did, and wouldn't say... next month... too many kids... nothing...

Are you suggesting sources within the liberal echo chamber are printing......fake news? How do you know re-evaluation wasn't done? You have a source on that or is this just more of your rambling conjecture?

No, I'm saying your interpretation doesn't exist. It cannot be fake, when it's not there.

Do I think minute conversations, dismissed with a single sentence, constitutes a discussion or lying thus so about sanctions? No. The FBI didn't seem to think so either.

Trump did... which is why he claimed the resignation was due to lying... that damn Trump contradicted you! How dare he!

Where have I stated that? Or any thoughts on what Obama would or wouldn't have done? The unstable ramblings emitting from your derriere are as obtuse as they are absurd.

Uhm... you are now not saying that Obama would have signed it as Trump did? You are saying this has nothing to do with Obama, because you have no clue what he would have done? That this is all Trump's fault for signing it? Twist!!!

Try reading your own replies amigo...

From what these anonymous sources have disclosed, is that Flynn's communications were 'intercepted'. These are entirely different from the routine electronic surveillance done for foreign officials. Which is why lawmakers have stated that their better have been a "damn good reason". So yes, they were spying on Flynn and the Trump campaign, during an election cycle while an opposition political party was in the white house.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/u...ons-trump.html

Bullshit... your linking that their communication was caught with Russia, contradicts that they were monitoring anyone, but Russia. Do you read your own links or assume I won't? WTF? This is hilarious... >.<

- - - Updated - - -

but that happened in the past. thats not how sheepology works

No, the fact that it's always news when it happens isn't sheepology. But, damn... its funny how calling people sheep, now resembles the very thing it's meant to represent, more than just about anything else. Crack thesaurus once in a while... or is that too conformist?

- - - Updated - - -

As far as I know, Obama could not conduct this raid since they were waiting for a monnless night and the next one would happen after his term was over. Hence he could not do it under optimal conditions and left it to Trump to make the final call.

Which is exactly what I am trying to convince him off. He keeps acting like this would have been the only such night ever or that there was nothing Trump could do, but sign it... as Obama would have inevitably...

[Kiri]

Which is exactly what I am trying to convince him off. He keeps acting like this would have been the only such night ever or that there was nothing Trump could do, but sign it... as Obama would have inevitably...

Yeah, that looks like it was an attempt to get an Osama moment right away. But good luck with the convincing thing, I don't think that's gonna work out, looking at history.

[Ishayu]

Love how everyone here is blaming Trump. Trump is very clearly quite horrified. He fired several people over it and went to the funeral and spoke about it and tried to get in touch with the family to apologize. Oh yeah, such a bad man.

The question is, how was this information leaked before the operation, during the presidency of Obama, and how was Donald Trump not made aware of it?

Here's a theory from the son of McCain (who is no friend to Trump!):
http://www.americanow.com/story/soci...vy-seals-death

[Cyi]

And the Obama administration said "Nah, too risky."

This wasn't said in the article so lets leave speculation out of it. It did say "valuable intelligence" was gathered so it was a mission we got something from. Not to be sore or cold hearted but lets face it, when you "voluntarily" join the Seals, you are signing up for missions with a high degree of danger and risk. Sure, they plan and calculate the best odds, but that doesn't mean it still isn't far more risky then any other type.

Its a horrible thing to lose a soldier, they have my greatest respect, however they did sign up to do a job and this has to be something that you are prepared too have happen. RIP.

[Elegiac]

This wasn't said in the article so lets leave speculation out of it. It did say "valuable intelligence" was gathered so it was a mission we got something from. Not to be sore or cold hearted but lets face it, when you "voluntarily" join the Seals, you are signing up for missions with a high degree of danger and risk. Sure, they plan and calculate the best odds, but that doesn't mean it still isn't far more risky then any other type.

Its a horrible thing to lose a soldier, they have my greatest respect, however they did sign up to do a job and this has to be something that you are prepared too have happen. RIP.

The does not give the administration free license to throw said lives away because 'brown people are scary'.

[Cyi]

I find this whole thing pretty petty and it is nothing more then the left trying to politicize the death of soldier. Take a look at your messiah Obama and all the civilians killed due to airstrikes he authorized. Take a look at the fact that we are now operating in three theaters, 1 more then he inherited. Look up how many special forces soldiers have died while he is president.

Give me a break, your politics are transparent and beneath even this group.

- - - Updated - - -

The does not give the administration free license to throw said lives away because 'brown people are scary'.

Dont recall saying it did. The military said the mission wasn't comprised, from an intelligence view point and that "valuable information" was taken. Lives thrown away? I don't think, and yes this is my opinion, Trump sat in the oval office while everyone in the military said "Stop, this mission is doomed to fail" while Trump just said "screw it, American soldiers lives mean nothing, carry on". Give me a break. This is war, people die, it sucks but to pin it all on Trump is a little short sided.

[Elegiac]

I find this whole thing pretty petty and it is nothing more then the left trying to politicize the death of soldier. Take a look at your messiah Obama and all the civilians killed due to airstrikes he authorized. Take a look at the fact that we are now operating in three theaters, 1 more then he inherited. Look up how many special forces soldiers have died while he is president.

One of the chief criticisms of Obama by 'the left' was the use of unmanned drones to perform extrajudicial killings, point in fact.

But that generally doesn't crop up in stories on Fox or whatever cable news channel takes your fancy.

Dont recall saying it did. The military said the mission wasn't comprised, from an intelligence view point and that "valuable information" was taken. Lives thrown away? I don't think, and yes this is my opinion, Trump sat in the oval office while everyone in the military said "Stop, this mission is doomed to fail" while Trump just said "screw it, American soldiers lives mean nothing, carry on". Give me a break. This is war, people die, it sucks but to pin it all on Trump is a little short sided.

No, what I blame Herr Drumpf for is the fact his administration is such a ramshackle firetrap due to his complete lack of ability and how that invariably leads to situations where government agents (military included) are not operating with the best possible advantage.

[Deleted]

But soldiers die all the time, don't they? It's part of the job. Or at least, the risk of dying is.

Why is this one all the sudden so important compared to all the others that died in the last years?

[Kaleredar]

But soldiers die all the time, don't they? It's part of the job. Or at least, the risk of dying is.

Why is this one all the sudden so important compared to all the others that died in the last years?

Because this one was acting under direct orders from Trump, in effect (Trump gave the go-ahead himself) on a mission that Trump couldn't have reviewed for more than six days while deciding to launch said mission over dinner. Trump's rash decision making caused the death of this navy seal and numerous civilians.

Hence the outrage.

[Deleted]

Because this one was acting under direct orders from Trump, in effect (Trump gave the go-ahead himself) on a mission that Trump couldn't have reviewed for more than six days while deciding to launch said mission over dinner. Trump's rash decision making caused the death of this navy seal and numerous civilians.

Hence the outrage.

But didn't the experts (?) say that this was already planned under the former administration?
They might have executed the mission under the first week of Trump, but I doubt they set it all up in a few days.

[Glorious Leader]

But didn't the experts (?) say that this was already planned under the former administration?
They might have executed the mission under the first week of Trump, but I doubt they set it all up in a few days.

Operational realitiws change. In any event if donnie wants to take credit hes gotta take blame too. If trump can fix the economy in a couple days or at least take credit for it then intellectual consistency suggests he can also take credit for pop pooing this op.

[Kaleredar]

But didn't the experts (?) say that this was already planned under the former administration?
They might have executed the mission under the first week of Trump, but I doubt they set it all up in a few days.

It was planned, sure, but Trump had the decision to go ahead with it or not. He obviously chose to go ahead with it.

If the plan was unsound, or based on faulty intel, or needed further planning, or needed to be tossed out altogether, that was Trump's ultimate decision. I doubt he could have come to a properly informed decision over the course of six days of having just heard about it.


If someone pushes you down a staircase, do you blame the guy that built the staircase for its existence, or the guy that pushed you down it?

[Xirrohon]

It was planned, sure, but Trump had the decision to go ahead with it or not. He obviously chose to go ahead with it.

If the plan was unsound, or based on faulty intel, or needed further planning, or needed to be tossed out altogether, that was Trump's ultimate decision. I doubt he could have come to a properly informed decision over the course of six days of having just heard about it.


If someone pushes you down a staircase, do you blame the guy that built the staircase for its existence, or the guy that pushed you down it?

How the fuck do you know? Lol. JFC, people on here act like they have inside information to the intel, or how the decision was made. The fact is, the time to act was when Trump was approached with it. You think Obama would have said no? GTFO.

Also, look at last nights speech. The wife attended, sat right next to Ivanka. This all the Fathers politicizing of his sons death and its shameful and embarrassing.