Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Congress woman who made a fuss started the politicizing of this situation. She was emotional because she knew the young man and his family and should have given herself a day or two to regroup. I'm not sure publicly shaming the President for his inability to consolte the woman was the right thing for the family of the fallen soldier or for all of us. But it happened.
Once it did -- we needed the adults in the room to take over.
The White House should have issued a statement without attacking anybody. It would have been okay to say the intent was to console not cause more grief. & just leave it -- shut the door on it -- as best they could.
Having Kelly come out two days later and respond does drag it out further and opens the administration to more criticism.
I guess I did miss it, and I cannot find it. I did see where General Mattis said that "We at the Department of Defense like to know what we are talking about before we talk. We do not have all the accurate information yet. We will release it as rapidly as we get it".
However, it does not address why President Trump did not issue a brief statement, or even a tweet, after the fourth deaths were announced.
After all, there was no question that the four soldiers had been killed. Mr. Trump could have, at least, tweted "Four brave soldiers killed in the line of duty in Niger. We will never forget them or their service".
Instead, it took a reporter, 12 days afterwards, to ask the question to Mr. Trump.
"White House officials prepared and circulated internally a statement to be issued on the President's behalf the day after the attack. But the statement, obtained Wednesday by Politico and confirmed by CNN, was never officially released."
You can make another thread if you like, but in this thread, you have failed...obviously you don't see the difference...
Aah yes, the default position of those who have no credibility....."you can make another thread" thereby implying the poster is off topic.
However, since this is actually all about the thread title and the failure to comprehend Trump's error by some who have the inability to put themselves in the shoes of the wife receiving such a call worded in such a manner; I'll leave it to the volume of responses by those posters who can determine who's the failure and who is unable to determine veracity versus bullcrap.
"White House officials prepared and circulated internally a statement to be issued on the President's behalf the day after the attack. But the statement, obtained Wednesday by Politico and confirmed by CNN, was never officially released."
Thank you. Interesting reading. I think I would disagree with this:
"A White House official said Wednesday the White House opted not to issue the written statement from the President, deciding instead it would be more powerful for Sanders to deliver remarks from the White House podium on the matter. The official said it was more important to elevate the message by issuing it from the White House podium."
If one thinks about what this is saying, it is implying that a statement by the White House Press Secretary is more 'powerful' than from the President of the United States.
Aah yes, the default position of those who have no credibility....."you can make another thread" thereby implying the poster is off topic.
However, since this is actually all about the thread title and the failure to comprehend Trump's error by some who have the inability to put themselves in the shoes of the wife receiving such a call worded in such a manner; I'll leave it to the volume of responses by those posters who can determine who's the failure and who is unable to determine veracity versus bullcrap.
Carry on.
Hahahaaaaa...no credibility , you're the one who is backing this thread and the thread title is a partial lie....
The premises of this thread was trump disrespected this Soldiers wife by saying "Your husband knew what he signed up for" which is complete BS.
The thread title is a partial lie, which you clearly fail to comprehend as many of your leftist buddies, that keep running on those exact words....
So yea, there is bull crap all in this thread including yours....
The Congress woman who made a fuss started the politicizing of this situation. She was emotional because she knew the young man and his family and should have given herself a day or two to regroup. I'm not sure publicly shaming the President for his inability to consolte the woman was the right thing for the family of the fallen soldier or for all of us. But it happened.
Once it did -- we needed the adults in the room to take over.
The White House should have issued a statement without attacking anybody. It would have been okay to say the intent was to console not cause more grief. & just leave it -- shut the door on it -- as best they could.
Having Kelly come out two days later and respond does drag it out further and opens the administration to more criticism.
It's sad.
But completely and inescapably predictable from this gang of fools. Give them a four foot shovel and a can of kerosene, these buffoons dig themselves a twelve foot hole and proceed to light a fire at the bottom while standing in it.
It's one thing to create damage and then employ effective means of controlling it. It's quite another to know in advance without a doubt the damage is certain to occur and instead of anticipating and having developed a plan to mitigate.......they do the obvious to make it even worse!
Given his propensity for saying the wrong thing with the wrong inflection and very often with the wrong intent, could Kelly et-al not have foreseen this coming and have been better prepared. Simply suggesting he not make the call, while knowing he ignores admonishments to stop the stupid tweeting that makes his and everyone else's life at the Whitehouse a colossal PITA, why on earth would Kelly have not at least consulted with someone with a scintilla of empathy to "script" his call?
The Congresswoman saw a chance to get her mug all over the news, and she took it. She's been giving interviews to as many media sources that she can, milking and politicizing this as hard as she can. Is she up for reelection or something
The wife and mother may have been fine with what Trump had said, until that Congresswoman started railing about that snippet of the conversation while she was still in the car with them, and the way she's been milking this I have no doubt that she threw a big fuss while in the car with them. Egads that Congresswoman should be gagged, forever.
The Congresswoman has plenty of interviews floating around about this. At first she was saying...
"It was something like they knew what they signed up for"
"What he basically said was they knew what they signed up for"
"It was something like", "What he basically said" .. sounds like she really wasn't so sure exactly what he'd said. But after awhile she dropped those two phrases, owning her narrative regarding the call. She's making it appear that all Trump had said was 'he knew what he signed up for, but when it happens it hurts anyway'
Okay, so what if he did say 'they know what they signed up for' but his comment went something like this... *'They know the risk, they know what they signed up for but they still volunteer to put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid.'
The follow up in those sentences does somewhat take the sting out of the 'they know what they signed up for'. If Trump had said something like that and the Congresswoman just took a snippet of it, then yeah, I can see Trump saying that it wasn't what he'd said and I'd agree with him on that.
We don't know what was said, but, after obviously agonizing over what to say and speaking to Kelly about it, Trump didn't just say 'He knew what he signed up for, but when it happens it hurts anyway. Bye.'
[*I saw that floating around the web, someone 'claiming' it's what Trump had said, but I found no proof, I'm just using it as an example and Nothing More]
Agreed! She twisted words, could not remember exactly what he said and manipulated this grieving family. It was not her place. She used this family for her own anti-Trump agenda.
Agreed! She twisted words, could not remember exactly what he said and manipulated this grieving family. It was not her place. She used this family for her own anti-Trump agenda.
She wasn't just a politician in the car, she is very close to the family.
Yes she should not have made the whole scene -- she was too close to the whole situation and reacted emotionally.
That's why we need adults running our country. So they can assess a situation like this and address it appropriately.
I don't doubt Trump didn't mean to be callous and cruel and uncaring. I don't doubt he put his foot in his mouth and didn't really do what he meant to do with the call.
A simple formal, terse, succint statement from The White House after would have been enough. Should have been enough.
Parading Kelly at the press briefing -- too much -- too defensive.
Of course -- that's my view. I'm a keep it simple gal and don't fan the flames.
It is true Trump is under high scrutiny -- all Presidents are. But he fans the flames with his tweets and pouts and bruised ego.
It's all too much. He has to let some things go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
