I have never
seen a political convention exploit dead children like this year's DNC.
Sure, we've come to expect Joe Biden's perennial tear-jerking allusions
to Beau, but this cycle we've also had eight black mothers of kids gunned down by cops,
all wearing black except the lady who didn't get the memo and who wore a
gorgeous blue dress, probably not intending it to be a sign of solidarity
with the silent blue line. And we've got the Mad Muslim from
Maryland, Khizr Khan, who has gone mega-viral by turning his hero
son's death into a self-righteous rant against Donald Trump. It
is a PR tactic, I suspect, that is more related to Mr. Khan being a lawyer
than to him being a Muslim, given that not many Muslims would pull such
a stunt, but many lawyers would.
This ex-Marine is not buying this
self-righteous, political bunk
Sorry to be such a hard-ass about this Kahn
guy but I've taken my knocks in combat and I've seen my share of fallen Americans, and I don't like
what's going on here. I have carried zipped body bags of America's
dead warriors and I've smelled
their burned flesh. I've watched them pass into whatever world comes next.
I spent years reading every name, rank, hometown, date of birth and date
of death in the Directory of Names of the Vietnam Memorial, a few pages at
a time -- 763 pages, almost 58,000 entries, from Gearld L. Aadland of
Sisseton, SD to David Lee Zywicke of Manitowoc, WI. I still sit and read
entries now and then just to keep painful but edifying memories from evaporating
completely and to keep reminding myself how fortunate I
am not to have been included in that directory of the dead.
Consequently, to be quite frank, I find the exploitation
of dead American servicemen for political purposes distasteful and
disgusting. I also find the
exploitation of dead enemy -- "We came, we saw, he died -- hee, hee,
hee" -- for political purposes distasteful. But there seems to be
no lower limit to how far Democrats will go to exploit the dead. The DNC's
exploitation of the tragic death of the Khans' son -- which represents,
and is meant to represent, every American who has died in combat -- in an
attempt to gain the higher moral ground for the sake of politics is in
the same category as rogue Marines pissing on the bodies of dead Taliban, in my
opinion. Why not let them all rest in whatever peace they
have prematurely graduated to?
According to internet reports Mr. Khan's
son, Army Capt. Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan, was killed in Baquabah,
Iraq on Jun08|2004, which was a bit more than a year after Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and dozens of other American war
criminals jacked up the illegal, false-flag war that got Capt. Kahn and
4400 other Americans a trip home in flag-draped coffins, and butchered
still-unknown thousands of Iraqis. If Mr. Khan feels
a need to vent his rage publicly and to exploit the tragic loss of his son
for a just cause, I don't understand why
he doesn't direct his rage against those Americans who were most directly
responsible for his son's death. Donald Trump didn't send Humayun Saqib
Muazzam Khan to die in Iraq; George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton did. So
why isn't Mr. Khan going off on Bush, who ordered the Iraq War, or
Clinton, who voted for it and enthusiastically supported it? It
seems to me Mr. Khan's rage at losing a son in an illegal war is entirely
valid but is being directed at the wrong person.
This Harvard lawyer, Mr. Khan, needs to
read that Constitution
Mr. Khan's syllogism is this: 1) his son died protecting the Constitution,
is a threat to that same Constitution, 3) therefore, Trump is a bad person
and unqualified to be President. I don't know that I can argue
with #2, and I wouldn't begin to argue with #3, but I'll sure as hell disagree with the first part.
Saqib Muazzam Khan may have thought he was in Iraq fighting for the
Constitution and to protect Americans and their liberties, but if he did
think that, he had been duped. He took the bait, just like the 58,000 Americans
who died in Viet Nam when it was the Democrats who were using false
pretenses to troll for patriotic young men to give up their lives.
Americans need to disabuse themselves of the myth that their children are
dying in these undeclared wars to protect the Constitution or the
"American Way of Life." Democrats on the street need to quit pushing that
myth and become, once again, the party that will stand up against illegal
American wars. Enough of this neo-lib bullshit.
Moreover, I am completely flummoxed by the
way Mr. Khan has attacked Trump on the ground that Trump has "sacrificed
nothing and no one." What? . . . is Mr. Khan disappointed that Trump has
not lost a child in some idiot war? It is Mr. Khan who is waving the
Constitution around, but has he read it? Does it say that to be
qualified for the office of Commander-in-Chief one has to have made a
blood sacrifice in behalf of the country? What the hell is his point
here? What sacrifice did Obama ever make? Or Bill Clinton? Or
Ronald Reagan? What sacrifice did Abraham Lincoln make? Did
the fact that all of these presidents "sacrificed nothing or no one" disqualify them?
Where is Hillary's blood sacrifice -- fabricated stories about her and
Chelsea dodging bullets in Bosnia?
I don't doubt for a moment that Mr. and
Mrs. Khan have sacrificed more than most of us could imagine or many of us could endure, and our hearts are torn by their loss, but it seems
to me to be unseemly to wish such a loss on any other human, no matter how
much you detest him or her, and that is what Mr. Khan appears to be doing. It seems to me to be even more unseemly
to use one's loss of a child as a poker chip in the filthy game
of American presidential politics.
I agree with Mr. Khan to the extent that I
believe that there should be a Constitutional requirement of personal
sacrifice before one may become Commander-in-Chief. In my opinion, a
presidential candidate should be required to have served at least 3 years
of full-time active duty in the military. But that minimal
"sacrifice" is not now specified in the Constitution and never
has been, so I don't know where Mr. Khan's juxtaposition of the
Constitution with personal sacrifice is coming from.
But that's not the only point Mr. Khan
needs to go back and check in his pocket-Constitution. CBS
quotes him as saying:
"For this candidate for presidency
to not be aware of the respect of a Gold Star Mother standing there, and
he had to take that shot at her, this is height of ignorance. This is
why I showed him that Constitution. Had he read that, he would know what
status a Gold Star Mother holds in this nation. This country holds such
a person in the highest regard. And he has no knowledge, no
This is so bonkers crazy on so many levels
one hardly knows where to begin. For instance, Trump's noisome, loutish
attack on Mrs. Khan came after Mr. Khan flapped the Constitution
around at the DNC convention, so Mr. Khan could not have been showing
Trump the Constitution to drive home the point that it somehow demands
respect of Gold Star mothers. Which raises the larger point: Gold
Star mothers are not some sort of protected class under the
Constitution. They are not even mentioned in the
Constitution. What is mentioned in the Constitution is freedom of speech,
and I have not seen this Harvard-trained lawyer, Khizr Khan, so much as mumble a single
syllable about that right, which is guaranteed to Trump every bit as much
as it is guaranteed to the parents of fallen soldiers.
Mind you, I am not defending Trump,
his "platform," or his gormless attack on Mr. and Mrs. Khan.
Trump is disgusting on so many levels I could not begin to inventory them.
Perhaps Mr. Khan and I would raise a beer to that, if he drinks beer. But
daft as Trump is, it is still beyond my comprehension that he could be so utterly
politically clueless as to attack Mrs. Khan rather than raise valid
points of rebuttal to Mr. Khan's hyperventilating when there are so many
valid points to raise.
Clinton is exploiting these Muslims and
the loss of their son
But then the irony is also beyond my comprehension that
Clinton would exploit a Muslim family's loss in her head-long endeavor to occupy the
Oral Office where she will surely order the deaths of thousands
more Muslims. Even if a President Trump (Heaven forefend the
thought) were to block the migration of all Muslims to America, it would
be nothing compared to the Muslim blood Clinton has been complicit in
spilling in the past and surely will continue to spill in the future
if she is elected.
So I don't understand
Mr. Khan's position. Why would a Muslim get up in front of millions of
Americans and root for the
candidate most likely to spill more Muslim blood? Is this a Sunni v. Shia
thing? Is he a shill for the Israelis, who are primary benefactors of
Clinton's penchant and plans for destabilizing Muslim countries?
Whatever Mr. Khan's motivations, one thing
is for sure: Muslims are going to be screwed either way this election
goes, just like every election since Ronald Reagan's in 1980, and Khizr Khan's
inflammatory rhetoric won't change that. His PR efforts may put a more
human face on Muslims in America -- and that is a good thing -- but
if those efforts help get Clinton elected, they will surely exacerbate the
horrible suffering of Muslims, mostly Shia, in war zones created by the
USG in Muslim countries throughout the world.
LogoPhere Hump-Election Coverage