Trump responds to Khan parents DNC speech megathread

[Fuzzy Bear]

He's right, her husband probably told her she couldn't. I thought that when I saw her

I can't imagine having the level of hate in my heart like you have.

The next time I hear such a comment from a liberal commenting about a conservative Christian expounding on something while his wife just stands silently won't be the first.  Of course, it's not "hate" when a conservative Christian is the target of such a comment, it's just "pointing out the obvious".  There is a right and wrong, but there is also a double standard here amongst some, and some who will deny this are just flat-out intellectually dishonest.  And there is, very much, a sharp differentiation on the issue of the status of women between Muslims (even American Muslims) and it is interesting that liberal Democrats rake conservative Christians over the coals on this issue, but provide deafening silence when the issue of the status of American Muslim women is mentioned.

I have empathy for Mr. and Mrs. Khan.  They are Gold Star Parents, and Trump might have done better to have focused more on that.  They deserve honor for being Gold Star Parents, and that honor is a bittersweet honor, to say the least.  But they did voluntarily use their status as Gold Star Parents in a purely political venue to take Trump to task, and about "the Constitution" no less.  When you do that, you waive a degree of deference you might get otherwise.  And when you comment on substantive matters in that venue, your comments are subject to analysis and criticism.

As to the Constitution, the Khans are flat-out wrong.  The Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, do not guarantee foreigners the right to come to America, or to stay here; we can keep them out for any reason we choose.  The only requirement is that IF THEY ARE HERE, they are to be dealt with under the law as other PERSONS.  It does not require that we allow folks from all countries and all walks of life equal opportunity to enter America, because everyone who wants to come to America is not amenable to be citizens of a liberal republic with democratic features and enumerated liberties.  When asked what kind of new nation we were, Ben Franklin said that our new nation was "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it (emphasis added)."  Part of that "keeping" is being mindful to ensure that those who shape its destiny share in their belief in liberal democracy, and not everyone, everywhere in the world who wants to come to America is amenable to that.

Don't BS about this. What he said was wrong, unsubstantiated and bigoted. She has spoken in interviews and said she chose not to speak because she was overcome with grief. Which is of course the logical first choice of theory for why a mother would want to stay silent. Unless you're an Islamophobe like you and your ilk, of course.

Trump's comments about Muslims already in America, for example branding American citizens of Muslim faith as foreigners or pushing for active persecution of Muslims clearly are in violation of those amendments. And furthermore it's pretty clear that the spirit of US legislation on religious freedom is very anathema to banning people from entering solely due to their faith.

Is it against the spirit of religious freedom (never mind the letter) to restrict immigration against those who advocate the establishment of Sharia Law in America?  I grant you that not all Muslims agree to this, but some do.  We would not allow Nazis or Bolsheviks into our country because of their political ideology.  We would not allow folks leading White Nationalist movements in Europe into America.  These folks seek to undermine the principles of republican government that, however hardy it has proven to be, does not self-maintain, and while folks already here have freedom of speech, we are not Constitutionally obliged to invite more trouble.

Sharia Law is what it is.  Should persons residing America be subject to Sharia Law?  If not, is there harm in allowing in folks who subscribe to the imposition of Sharia Law in sufficient numbers as to someday prove electorally significant?  The race of immigrants is irrelevant to me, and their religion, in and of itself, is irrelevant to me as well, but their IDEOLOGIES are MOST important to me, as an American citizen, and Islam carries with it ideology and philosophy that goes beyond mere religion. 

[Blair]

He's right, her husband probably told her she couldn't. I thought that when I saw her

He's an immigration lawyer from North Carolina ffs

[Maxwell]

Khizr Khan seems to rattle Mr. Trump significantly. Let's get him on the stump more.

[Classic Conservative]

I didn't see this interview, my apologies. That's what I thought when I saw it at least

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy, what Trump said wasn't even criticism. It was just a race-baiting insult.


Trump's desire to strike back on any person who criticizes him, regardless of who they are, is disturbing.

When I post here, I endure folks calling me all sorts of names, and I endure the questioning of any and all of my motivations.  Some of it may be a bit unfair, but that's the price of advocacy in today's political discourse.  Folks who take a public stand are going to get negative feedback; that's just the way it is.

The Khans took a public stand.  God Bless them; that's their right.  When they did so, however, they forfeited the deference of being received uncritically.  Mr. Khan made partisan public statements.  Trump fired back.  And when Mr. Khan took Trump to task on the Constitution, Trump fired back about the issue on the status of women in the eyes of Muslims.  Was that wrong?  Is there some pot-calling-the-kettle-black here?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It bothers me immensely when people try to pretend they're just sticking up for women when they lambast the entire Muslim faith.

If hijabs, chadors, niqabs, and burqas offend you, seek out the voices of the women who wear them before you start your crusade. For many women, wearing one of these garments is a statement of identity, not subservience. Obviously there are always going to be areas of concern, but it is possible to be a Muslim woman and not be consistently oppressed or mistreated any more than other women.

And it bugs the hell out of me when we're told that religious freedom is not compatible with feminism or LGBT advocacy. Sometimes there are battles between advocates for these causes that are worth fighting. But there's no use in just assuming the battles will always be there. I will always fighting against religious intolerance (Hell, I'll fight against intolerance of any kind). But religious intolerance is not always part-and-parcel with religion.

[ProudModerate2]

Fuzzy, what Trump said wasn't even criticism. It was just a race-baiting insult.
Trump's desire to strike back on any person who criticizes him, regardless of who they are, is disturbing.

When I post here, I endure folks calling me all sorts of names, and I endure the questioning of any and all of my motivations.  Some of it may be a bit unfair, but that's the price of advocacy in today's political discourse.  Folks who take a public stand are going to get negative feedback; that's just the way it is.

The Khans took a public stand.  God Bless them; that's their right.  When they did so, however, they forfeited the deference of being received uncritically.  Mr. Khan made partisan public statements.  Trump fired back.  And when Mr. Khan took Trump to task on the Constitution, Trump fired back about the issue on the status of women in the eyes of Muslims.  Was that wrong?  Is there some pot-calling-the-kettle-black here?

Fuzzy,
You are wrong.
There is a big difference between the two, it's not a simple kettle and pot description.
Mr Khan taking "trump to task on the Constitution," versus trump's personal attack on the Khans regarding the wider issue of "the status of women in the eyes of Muslims" is not comparable.
It's like me saying that your cooking (food) does not taste very well, and then out of nowhere, you call me a ni**er (if I were black) in retaliation.
And remember this bigoted attack from donald on the grieving Kahns who lost their son (a US soldier) comes directly from trump's mouth. This makes trump look completely un-presidential in the eyes of the public. What kind of president would say such a thing ?
I don't recall Hillary personally attacking the moms of those who died in Benghazi, after they spoke at the RNC.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It bothers me immensely when people try to pretend they're just sticking up for women when they lambast the entire Muslim faith.

If hijabs, chadors, niqabs, and burqas offend you, seek out the voices of the women who wear them before you start your crusade. For many women, wearing one of these garments is a statement of identity, not subservience. Obviously there are always going to be areas of concern, but it is possible to be a Muslim woman and not be consistently oppressed or mistreated any more than other women.

And it bugs the hell out of me when we're told that religious freedom is not compatible with feminism or LGBT advocacy. Sometimes there are battles between advocates for these causes that are worth fighting. But there's no use in just assuming the battles will always be there. I will always fighting against religious intolerance (Hell, I'll fight against intolerance of any kind). But religious intolerance is not always part-and-parcel with religion.

The concept of "The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" trumps intellectual honesty in this election, does it not?

Does voting Democratic absolve folks of their sins of intolerance?  Is that the operative theology here?

I'm not in the heads of every woman who wears head covering.  I'm not in the heads of their fathers or husbands for that matter.  But Sharia Law is what it is.  It's not a secret, and it's certainly not egalitarian.  And it's something that many Muslims in America wish to codify in American Law, starting at a point comparable to how Britain does things (allowing certain issues to be resolved in Sharia Courts).  If a Christian advocated the same thing, you'd be screaming, and painting with the broadest possible brush.  Sharia Law is about the subjugation and submission of women to men in law.  I know it's uncomfortable for the Feminist Left to admit that these are the folks they've forged a political alliance with, but facts are facts.  Enjoy your alliance with religious misogynists; just remember that's who you've allied yourselves with when you decide to take Fundamentalist Christians to task.

[Maxwell]

Khizr Khan seems to rattle Mr. Trump significantly. Let's get him on the stump more.

It's really hard to tell what does and does not rattle Trump. He lashes out at every single person who speaks out against him, so it's difficult to find the layers of Trump rattling. It does seem that Bloomberg and Khan did do something more to him though.

I think he's rattled by Mr. Khan because he's jabbering so incoherently, even by Trump standards. With Bloomberg, he knows he's not a threat, so he slaps a silly name on him and ships out the tweet.

[Seriously?]

He's right, her husband probably told her she couldn't. I thought that when I saw her

Typical knee-jerk reaction by the leftists on this board when Classic Conservative basically states the horrible way that some Muslim women are treated by their male counterparts.

And assuming that they didn't remove the post on their own, then there's that typical Atlas BS censorship.

Fact: Muslim women are treated like dirt in Muslim-dominated countries. Ask Malala Yousafzai what happens when they try to aspire to learn or do other things that women here take for granted.

It's Untrustworthy, Crooked, Lyin' Hillary that is on the wrong side of history, taking money from unscrupulous folks like the Saudis.

Culturally, it's not outside of the realm of normalcy for the woman to concede to the male in Muslim culture. With that said, if the record states otherwise in the instant case, Trump should apologize and go from there.

But you folks really need to get a grip.

[Ebsy]

I don't think the people refusing to support the fascist demagogue are the ones that need to "get a grip."

[Wells]

He's right, her husband probably told her she couldn't. I thought that when I saw her

Typical knee-jerk reaction by the leftists on this board when Classic Conservative basically states the horrible way that some Muslim women are treated by their male counterparts.

And assuming that they didn't remove the post on their own, then there's that typical Atlas BS censorship.

Fact: Muslim women are treated like dirt in Muslim-dominated countries. Ask Malala Yousafzai what happens when they try to aspire to learn or do other things that women here take for granted.

It's Untrustworthy, Crooked, Lyin' Hillary that is on the wrong side of history, taking money from unscrupulous folks like the Saudis.

Culturally, it's not outside of the realm of normalcy for the woman to concede to the male in Muslim culture. With that said, if the record states otherwise in the instant case, Trump should apologize and go from there.

But you folks really need to get a grip.

So it's okay to assume that an immigration lawyer living in the US, who had a son who died serving in the military would mistreat his wife because he's a Muslim? And you wouldn't just assume that the mother is staying silent because she's grieving over her dead son?? Why don't you take your own advice and get a ing grip?!

[Seriously?]

I don't think the people refusing to support the fascist demagogue are the ones that need to "get a grip."

Trump is NOT a facist demagogue.

He's not the one taking money from these backwards-assed Muslim countries that oppress women. Hillary! is.

[Seriously?]

He's right, her husband probably told her she couldn't. I thought that when I saw her

Typical knee-jerk reaction by the leftists on this board when Classic Conservative basically states the horrible way that some Muslim women are treated by their male counterparts.

And assuming that they didn't remove the post on their own, then there's that typical Atlas BS censorship.

Fact: Muslim women are treated like dirt in Muslim-dominated countries. Ask Malala Yousafzai what happens when they try to aspire to learn or do other things that women here take for granted.

It's Untrustworthy, Crooked, Lyin' Hillary that is on the wrong side of history, taking money from unscrupulous folks like the Saudis.

Culturally, it's not outside of the realm of normalcy for the woman to concede to the male in Muslim culture. With that said, if the record states otherwise in the instant case, Trump should apologize and go from there.

But you folks really need to get a grip.

So it's okay to assume that an immigration lawyer living in the US, who had a son who died serving in the military would mistreat his wife because he's a Muslim? And you wouldn't just assume that the mother is staying silent because she's grieving over her dead son?? Why don't you take your own advice and get a ing grip?!

You can assume whatever you want to. Sometimes it makes you look like an ass, like it did here. With that said, I'll pass on the idea of a thought police. They have stuff like that in backwards-assed third world Muslim countries that Hillary! has no problem taking money from. Even though those countries oppress women.

[Wells]

He's right, her husband probably told her she couldn't. I thought that when I saw her

Typical knee-jerk reaction by the leftists on this board when Classic Conservative basically states the horrible way that some Muslim women are treated by their male counterparts.

And assuming that they didn't remove the post on their own, then there's that typical Atlas BS censorship.

Fact: Muslim women are treated like dirt in Muslim-dominated countries. Ask Malala Yousafzai what happens when they try to aspire to learn or do other things that women here take for granted.

It's Untrustworthy, Crooked, Lyin' Hillary that is on the wrong side of history, taking money from unscrupulous folks like the Saudis.

Culturally, it's not outside of the realm of normalcy for the woman to concede to the male in Muslim culture. With that said, if the record states otherwise in the instant case, Trump should apologize and go from there.

But you folks really need to get a grip.

So it's okay to assume that an immigration lawyer living in the US, who had a son who died serving in the military would mistreat his wife because he's a Muslim? And you wouldn't just assume that the mother is staying silent because she's grieving over her dead son?? Why don't you take your own advice and get a ing grip?!

You can assume whatever you want to. Sometimes it makes you look like an ass, like it did here. With that said, I'll pass on the idea of a thought police. They have stuff like that in backwards-assed third world Muslim countries that Hillary! has no problem taking money from. Even though those countries oppress women.

I never said it should be illegal, I just think casual racism should be frowned upon by society. If you want thought police, vote for a candidate who wants to sue the press for libel and thinks people who don't report their neighbor's suspicious activity should be arrested.

[ProudModerate2]

He's right, her husband probably told her she couldn't. I thought that when I saw her

Typical knee-jerk reaction by the leftists on this board when Classic Conservative basically states the horrible way that some Muslim women are treated by their male counterparts.
And assuming that they didn't remove the post on their own, then there's that typical Atlas BS censorship.
Fact: Muslim women are treated like dirt in Muslim-dominated countries. Ask Malala Yousafzai what happens when they try to aspire to learn or do other things that women here take for granted.
It's Untrustworthy, Crooked, Lyin' Hillary that is on the wrong side of history, taking money from unscrupulous folks like the Saudis.
Culturally, it's not outside of the realm of normalcy for the woman to concede to the male in Muslim culture. With that said, if the record states otherwise in the instant case, Trump should apologize and go from there.
But you folks really need to get a grip.

So it's okay to assume that an immigration lawyer living in the US, who had a son who died serving in the military would mistreat his wife because he's a Muslim? And you wouldn't just assume that the mother is staying silent because she's grieving over her dead son?? Why don't you take your own advice and get a ing grip?!

You can assume whatever you want to. Sometimes it makes you look like an ass, like it did here. With that said, I'll pass on the idea of a thought police. They have stuff like that in backwards-assed third world Muslim countries that Hillary! has no problem taking money from. Even though those countries oppress women.

Seriously .... if anyone here is "looking like an ass," it is you.
As this Atlas member so precisely pointed out, and it just happens to have your name painted all over it .....

It's truly frightening there are so many people, on this very forum including, that will overlook or defend everything Trump says or does.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

[LLR]

Jesus christ. How low can he go?

[LLR]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy, what Trump said wasn't even criticism. It was just a race-baiting insult.
Trump's desire to strike back on any person who criticizes him, regardless of who they are, is disturbing.

When I post here, I endure folks calling me all sorts of names, and I endure the questioning of any and all of my motivations.  Some of it may be a bit unfair, but that's the price of advocacy in today's political discourse.  Folks who take a public stand are going to get negative feedback; that's just the way it is.

The Khans took a public stand.  God Bless them; that's their right.  When they did so, however, they forfeited the deference of being received uncritically.  Mr. Khan made partisan public statements.  Trump fired back.  And when Mr. Khan took Trump to task on the Constitution, Trump fired back about the issue on the status of women in the eyes of Muslims.  Was that wrong?  Is there some pot-calling-the-kettle-black here?

Fuzzy,
You are wrong.
There is a big difference between the two, it's not a simple kettle and pot description.
Mr Khan taking "trump to task on the Constitution," versus trump's personal attack on the Khans regarding the wider issue of "the status of women in the eyes of Muslims" is not comparable.
It's like me saying that your cooking (food) does not taste very well, and then out of nowhere, you call me a ni**er (if I were black) in retaliation.
And remember this bigoted attack from donald on the grieving Kahns who lost their son (a US soldier) comes directly from trump's mouth. This makes trump look completely un-presidential in the eyes of the public. What kind of president would say such a thing ?
I don't recall Hillary personally attacking the moms of those who died in Benghazi, after they spoke at the RNC.

I do wish to clarify certain things (although I'm sure I've said them before here).

I would vote for Trump if the election were held today, but I'm not asking anyone else to.  His persona is why I won't go further in my support for him.  I agree with him, issue by issue, more than any other candidate, but I do have reservations about his persona, and I understand why other folks do as well.  

If I were Trump, I would have responded to the Khans with something like, "I appreciate their son's sacrifice and empathize with their terrible loss, but I respectfully submit that the Khans and myself have differences as to what the Constitution says and doesn't say on the issue of immigration." and leave it at that.  I wouldn't have "gone there" on the issue of Mrs. Khan's silence.  I do believe, especially in light of the ranting by Democrats over the "Religious Right's" views on the status of women (at least as presented by liberal Democrats), that an examination of the Islamic view of the desired status of women, as set forth in Sharia Law, is a legitimate issue.  I suppose it is embarrassing for the party of the Feminist Left to be in alliance with Sharia Law misogynists, and responding to the Khans may not be the proper time to bring that issue up, but it is certainly a legitimate issue.  A party that takes the Falwells and Swaggarts to task routinely ought to consider the appearances of its own alliances, should it not?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

I do agree in spirit with the highlighted comment on some of Trump's comments, to say the least.  I would be more enthusiastic about his candidacy if he didn't see the need to insult folks who are in no position to do anything but disagree with him.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

The "Benghazi mother" who asked Trump to stop speaking was the mother of Chris Stevens, the career diplomat who supported the Libyan mission and played a role in his own demise. The mother of the marines who died protecting the very man who assisted Clinton and the State Department in the insidious campaign against Qaddafi isn't a "Benghazi victim."

And yes, Benghazi is a black mark on Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Sorry, there is a lot to talk about there. There is a reason for them to speak. Can you guys handle any criticism of Hillary at all?

[Maxwell]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

The "Benghazi mother" who asked Trump to stop speaking was the mother of Chris Stevens, the career diplomat who supported the Libyan mission and played a role in his own demise. The mother of the marines who died protecting the very man who assisted Clinton and the State Department in the insidious campaign against Qaddafi isn't a "Benghazi victim."

And yes, Benghazi is a black mark on Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Sorry, there is a lot to talk about there. There is a reason for them to speak. Can you guys handle any criticism of Hillary at all?

13 different attacks on our Embassay happened in the last administration, and yet only Benghazi has been investigated non-stop for FOUR YEARS now with no new conclusions.

And if your team really has this much contempt for Chris Stevens then you probably should stop addressing his name every single time you talk about Benghazi.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

The "Benghazi mother" who asked Trump to stop speaking was the mother of Chris Stevens, the career diplomat who supported the Libyan mission and played a role in his own demise. The mother of the marines who died protecting the very man who assisted Clinton and the State Department in the insidious campaign against Qaddafi isn't a "Benghazi victim."

And yes, Benghazi is a black mark on Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Sorry, there is a lot to talk about there. There is a reason for them to speak. Can you guys handle any criticism of Hillary at all?

13 different attacks on our Embassay happened in the last administration, and yet only Benghazi has been investigated non-stop for FOUR YEARS now with no new conclusions.

And if your team really has this much contempt for Chris Stevens then you probably should stop addressing his name every single time you talk about Benghazi.

Oh, I'm just speaking for myself, not my team.

Also, the 13 embassy attacks never resulted in multiple deaths, nor were we responsible for directly destabilizing the situation outside of Iraq.

[Maxwell]

Atlas Democrat logic:
Mrs. and Mr. Khan: Yuge Freedom Fighters, bravely acting in defiance for their country!

The Benghazi mother: Classless bitch using her sons death to attack Hillary.

FWIW, I find Trump's comments disgusting. They are reprehensible and wrong. But a Presidential candidate being an asshole is still better than a corrupt, tired, and incompetent relic from the 90s. 

And FWIW, one of the Benghazi mothers asked Trump to stop politicizing her son's death. And unlike Benghazi Night, there was reason for Mr. Khan to speak.

The "Benghazi mother" who asked Trump to stop speaking was the mother of Chris Stevens, the career diplomat who supported the Libyan mission and played a role in his own demise. The mother of the marines who died protecting the very man who assisted Clinton and the State Department in the insidious campaign against Qaddafi isn't a "Benghazi victim."

And yes, Benghazi is a black mark on Clinton's record as Secretary of State. Sorry, there is a lot to talk about there. There is a reason for them to speak. Can you guys handle any criticism of Hillary at all?

13 different attacks on our Embassay happened in the last administration, and yet only Benghazi has been investigated non-stop for FOUR YEARS now with no new conclusions.

And if your team really has this much contempt for Chris Stevens then you probably should stop addressing his name every single time you talk about Benghazi.

Oh, I'm just speaking for myself, not my team.

Also, the 13 embassy attacks never resulted in multiple deaths, nor were we responsible for directly destabilizing the situation outside of Iraq.

Incorrect, there were 60 deaths from those embassay attacks.

And I think the way Libya has played out has been obviously bad, but hindsight is 20/20, as this quote from THE DONALD displays:

You must be logged in to read this quote.