Khizr Khan politicizes son’s death for Democratic gain

in Politics

The Democratic National Convention was a wreck. After the left criticized Republicans for failing to contain the #NeverTrump rebellion, the Democrats had their moment and it was worse. While Senator Bernie Sanders sold his soul for political favor in pushing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his supporters were standing firm in opposition to Clinton. Jill Stein banners were seen, Senator Sanders’ supporters booed party leadership, and progressives protested outside of the convention.

As the general election officially begins with Donald Trump leading the Republican Party, the Democrats have fallen apart.


Aside from the chaos, there was also the resignation of Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz triggered by a massive dump of e-mails between party leaders by Wikileaks. Among these files was proof that the Democratic National Committee all along had been in the bag for Clinton.

All of this could be forgotten however, if only the Democratic Party could just find its moment. Enter Khizr Khan.

Khan is the father of a soldier who died in Iraq and also a Muslim. He took to the stage to use his dead son as a political pawn against Trump and the Republicans. Repeatedly ripping policy points, Khan pointed out his son would have been banned by Trump and largely opposed. It was a strong speech that captivated even those who don’t normally follow politics, because it hit hard at home. While not everyone can relate to losing a child, many more can relate to having a child and knowing what that child means to them.

For parents, losing a child is beyond devastating. Khan and his wife likely felt an incredible amount of loss in this tragedy.


But in that case, why would Khan speak at the Democratic National Convention? The Democrats had come together to celebrate the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Clinton has a long history of supporting conflicts that endanger our troops and on questionable terms. Among these is the invasion of Iraq.

The Iraq conflict was where Khan lost his son.

Nothing can be taken away from the sacrifice of any soldier and nothing should be. Regardless of the reasons why a government engaged in war, it is the fault of the political leaders and not the soldiers. From Vietnam to Iraq, history has later shown after the fact that ambitious leaders eager for war will distort current events and stretch the truth to achieve their political goals.

Even if it means endangering the lives of soldiers.

This is why it is important to understand the hypocrisy in Khizr Khan’s defiant stand against Donald Trump. He’s playing politics, which is every American’s right, but he is also playing politics with the memory of his son. At the end of the day, Trump is likely not the politician most favorable to Muslims, but he is one who has spoken against the Iraq conflict. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq conflict.

Would a Muslim ban had wrongfully discriminated against Khizr Khan’s son? Absolutely. But the Hillary Clinton-supported invasion of Iraq got his son killed. Which is worse?

On that point, why would Khizr Khan speak at the coronation celebration of Hillary Clinton?

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.