Let’s look at the recent commotion involving Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and the grieving parents.
First, Mrs. Patricia Smith held Mrs. Clinton responsible for her son Sean’s death. He had told her that he thought he would die because their security had been reduced in Benghazi even though both the British and International Red Cross personnel had been evacuated due to concern for their safety. More than one request for increased security had been denied, and the anniversary of 9/11 was approaching.
Understanding that Mrs. Clinton held the position of the chief officer responsible for the safety our country’s foreign officials, there are a limited number of alternative responses available for Mrs. C to explain the lack of adequate security in a hostile land which was occupied by elements that would like to do us harm on that particular date.
She could claim lack of knowledge of the amount of security needed. She could claim no one could have done anything that was more appropriate. She could admit incompetence. She could blame others. She could confess that enhanced security was withheld for political purposes. Take your pick.
Further, Mrs. S said that Mrs. C had told her a video incited the attack, even though it was later proven that Mrs. C had immediately told others a different story. The claim by Mrs. S was verified by other Gold Star parents. However, Mrs. C continues to charge that Mrs. S’s memory is faulty. That was a nice (?) way to say that Mrs. S is weak minded or lying.
It seems that no one wants to find any offense toward a grieving parent in the words and actions of Mrs. C, and various news sources have disparaged Mrs. S for expressing her criticism.
Mr. Khizar Khan attacked Mr. Donald Trump under the umbrella of grief for the death of his son, Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq on June 8, 2004. Three other presidential elections have transpired since that tragic event. He did not appear on national media to share his grief during those campaigns.
Mr. Khan emotionally expressed his disapproval of Mr. Trump as though Mr. T was somehow responsible for the fate of Humayun. Mr. Trump has declared Humayun a hero, and is on record as being opposed to the military action that resulted in his death. Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of that invasion.
It is obvious that Mr. Khan was actually angry about Mr. Trump’s position of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration from countries where violent radical Islam is known to be present. Mr. Trump’s original expression regarding his position may have been too emphatic for some, but it was what it was. He had said that Muslim immigration should be suspended “until we can figure out what the h—– is going on”.
Mr. K incorrectly accused Mr. T of not knowing the US Constitution, ostensibly regarding immigration. He failed to identify the article and section that prevents the federal government from limiting any or all immigration. Such article and section do not exist. Perhaps the inquiring minds of the news media should search Mr. K’s professional profile for additional information that may have motivated his opposition to Mr. T’s position.
Mr. K and all of Mr. T’s enemies accuse Mr. T of “attacking” Mrs. Khan because he said, “…she had nothing to say… maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say”. At least he did not insinuate that she was of a feeble mind or lying as Mrs. Clinton has done regarding Mrs. Smith.
Many people do not know what things have actually been said, and they continue to believe the sound bites blurted by the media and parroted by Mr. Trump’s enemies, Dems and Repubs alike.