Was it wrong for Mr. Khan to bring his deceased son's legacy into the political arena? If so why?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:22:04 -0400

Response by MSgt C Madd made Aug 5 at 2016 5:25 PM

MSgt C Madd — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:25:52 -0400

Yes

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 5 at 2016 5:35 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:35:45 -0400

I don't think it was necessarily wrong to mention the death of his son after 12 years. However I do question why he thought he use his son's death by Islamic insurgents to lambast a straw man he made of Donald Trump CPT Private RallyPoint Member. I think that was demeaning to the memory of what his son accomplished and how he died protecting his soldiers IMHO.

Response by SSG Jeremy Sharp made Aug 5 at 2016 7:27 PM

SSG Jeremy Sharp — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 19:27:27 -0400

I feel it was an unfortunate decision on his part. Having been the father of a soldier killed in combat does not give him any clearer perspective on being a US citizen whether naturalized or native born. He was used by the DNC because of his son's status. Why did he not deliver his speech as an immigration attorney or a person that has made money through a business dealing with the Clinton Foundation? His son's sacrifice and service were heroic, his self serving pussy-foot with truthfulness while stumping for a candidate whose campaign is fraught with half truths and outright lies is neither heroic or respectful to his son' memory. Sad! SMH

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Aug 5 at 2016 8:32 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 20:32:48 -0400

Considering his political history, slippery slope

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 5 at 2016 8:49 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 20:49:11 -0400

It might help to compare the mother who spoke at the GOP convention to the father who spoke at the DNC convention. In the former case, the mother complained of Hillary's complicity in the death of her son. In the latter, Trump was not complicit. In the former case, Hillary has a commercial interest to protect in her associations with Middle Eastern potentates who have "contributed" millions to Hillary's family "charity" in exchange for favors to be announced. In the later case Mr Kahn had commercial interests to protect inasmuch as Trump's call for closer vetting of Muslim immigrants would discourage his clientele. Now you decide. Was it wrong?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 5 at 2016 9:04 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:04:55 -0400

Stepping away from RNC/DNC for a second... This is not aimed at Mr. Khan, or any grieving parent, but taken to the hypothetical.

Should our Fallen be used as Political Props?

Please bear in mind that I would say the same thing regardless of what party presented a Vet's Parent. I do not have any issue with the parent speaking. I have concerns that we would use them knowingly or unwittingly to turn Fallen into props...

CC: SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" please check my logic.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Aug 5 at 2016 9:35 PM

MAJ Byron Oyler — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 21:35:15 -0400

No it is not wrong for a parent to use a child's legacy, what is wrong is for anyone to use this family as a pawn for their advancement. No one in either party gave two shits about this family until Trump made his immigration and comments against Islam. The DNC used this family for votes, nothing more or less.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Aug 5 at 2016 10:23 PM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 22:23:02 -0400

I have no problem with either party honoring a vet, deceased or otherwise. But . . . I have trouble with families, (parents) that use their vet's legacy for political purpose or personal gain. If the family didn't want the national focus on them, why was the father (mostly) in front of every camera he could find? I've since discovered he is politically connected and has his own political agenda, so I suppose that was the reason for his getting involved with the convention.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2016 11:26 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 23:26:35 -0400

No, Cindy Sheehan needs friends too.

Response by Sgt Joseph Baker made Aug 6 at 2016 1:18 AM

Sgt Joseph Baker — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 01:18:31 -0400

I begin with, I didn't hear his speech. That being said, I guess if you lose a son in combat, you deserve basic respect for that. What Mr. Khan's motives are is unclear to me, but you know the DNC was totally taking advantage of them. I plan to vote for Trump because I think you have to be insane to elect Hillary Clinton with everything that has gone on around the Clintons from all the way back to Arkansas, and she is clearly a pathological liar. Trump may be a liar too, but I know from HRC's own mouth that she is diametrically opposed to every single thing I believe matters in this world, and if we don't break the cycle for four years, we will find ourselves in a dictatorship. That being said, I wish the Donald would shut the heck up long enough to get elected! Good grief, you take a potshot at a gold star mother???? I think most Trump supporters, at least veterans and patriots groaned and slapped their forehead when he made the comment about whether she was allowed to talk. This isn't Iran, so there's a pretty solid chance she is allowed to speak. I am never accused of being politically correct, but the gracious answer, showing respect to the fallen hero, would have went something like this: "I wish to thank the Khan family, and honor their son's heroism and their sacrifice to a grateful nation. The great thing about America is everyone is entitled to their opinion, and gold-star parents so much the more." Instead of everyone trying to figure out how to get Trump to stop pissing himself in public, people might actually have been impressed that he can be compassionate, and big enough to let a gold-star father take a shot at him and let it go. All we can hope for now is the next Clinton legal shoe to drop and maybe the Donald getting a sore throat.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Aug 6 at 2016 9:22 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 09:22:52 -0400

As a society, should we care about the perspectives of families who have lost loved ones in war? If so, their perspective needs to be heard. I have no problem with them voicing their opinions, inside or outside of the political arena. I don't believe they should sit in silence, nor should they only voice their opinions to those within their immediate circle of friends/family. And, I see it as being no different than the mother who spoke about Benghazi at the Republican National Convention. If one was wrong, they should both be wrong. If one is acceptable, they should both be acceptable. I don't have a problem with either having voiced their perspectives.

Now, is it appropriate for a political candidate to exploit this family's grief for their political gain? That is an entirely different issue. I do think that is wrong. With that being said, we're back to the consistency argument. If it was wrong for the Clinton campaign to use the Khan family, it was also wrong for the Trump campaign to use Patricia Smith and her son's death in Benghazi. If one was wrong, they should both be wrong. If one is acceptable, they should both be acceptable.

Response by SFC Don Vance made Aug 6 at 2016 10:21 AM

SFC Don Vance — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 10:21:43 -0400

Yes, he politicized his son's death to support a proven liar.

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Aug 6 at 2016 11:06 AM

SSG Mark Franzen — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 11:06:48 -0400

I think it was a good thing that he was allowed to tell his story to the Country showing that doesn't matter what race
You are it shows how people are still racist today and it will never be right.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 6 at 2016 1:43 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 13:43:32 -0400

No. But since he brought it up he then made himself fair game. CPT Kahn's death does not render Mr Kahn sacrosanct.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 7 at 2016 2:41 AM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Aug 2016 02:41:59 -0400

He has the right, however is it ethically right? That's a hard call. I'd say it was in particular bad taste, however that is not my call to make.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 17 at 2016 1:09 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:09:22 -0400

This today from the Early Bird:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/16/shame-on-you-rick-perry-takes-fallen-muslim-soldiers-father-to-task-for-attacking-trump/?utm_campaign=Military%20EBB%208-17-16&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Sailthru

‘Shame on you ’: Rick Perry takes fallen Muslim soldier’s father to task for attacking Trump

The father, Khizr Khan, harshly criticized Trump last month during the Democratic National Convention over the nominee's proposal to temporarily ban Muslim immigration.