Mr. Kahn suffered the loss of his son. That is a terrible tragedy for him. His tirade at the DNC suggests that he is very angry about losing his son, and that he has focused some of that anger on Donald Trump. Trump was not responsible for the death of Mr. Khan’s son. Mr. Khan’s anger is undeserved.
Mr. Kahn asserts that under Trump’s current immigration stance, he (Mr. Khan) would not have been admitted to the US. Trump’s current stance reflects the current risk level, not the lower risk level at the time Mr. Khan entered the US. Applying immigration rules that reflect current risks to when they were much lower is addressing a straw man. Moreover, since Trump only requires proper vetting of immigrants, Mr. Khan, who could have been vetted at the time, would have been admitted to the US under Trump’s current stance. Mr. Khan’s position is both irrelevant and untrue.
Mr. Khan is angry because, he asserts, that Trump has made no sacrifices, which also is irrelevant. Would Mr. Khan feel better if Trump now loses a son? Does he wish this on Trump?
Mr. Khan held up a copy of the Constitution, while asking, belligerently, if Trump had ever read it. The Constitution does not validate Mr. Khan’s statements. The Constitution does not require “sacrifice” to be President and does not require that immigrants be admitted. Perhaps Mr. Khan should reread the Constitution, and more carefully.
Mr. Khan’s loss makes his anger and comments understandable, even though they are ill chosen, irrelevant, and incorrect. What is not forgivable is the Democrats’ exploitation of Mr. Khan’s loss.