This was published as a comment in the New York Times, which I penned in response to an editorial piece titled, “Mr. Trump and Spineless Republicans.” Yes, another hit piece against the Republican Nominee for President by a newspaper that is increasingly reading like the PR arm of the Clinton campaign. The Times Editors slammed the The Donald for his comments relating to Russians in the Ukraine, plus his reaction to the appearance of Khizr Khan with his wife, Ghazala, at the Democratic National Convention.
Crimea, which had been part of Russia since the days of Catherine the Great, was a province of Soviet Russia when it was transferred to Soviet Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954 as sort of internal administrative USSR matter. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Crimea remained part of Ukraine until a vote of the Crimean people in 2014 to have their province returned to Russia. Yes, some dispute that referendum, but still, it’s not as though Putin just swooped down from nowhere and took over a foreign country. In the rest of Ukraine there is some sentiment favoring alignment with Russia–in fact, the Ukrainians democratically elected a pro-Russian president in 2010. After he was overthrown 4 years later, he asked Russia for support in restoring the “rule of law” and protecting the people of Ukraine. Correct me if I’m wrong on any of this but…is there a side we’re on here?
As for Mr. Khan, if he would have limited his remarks to some kind of statement that his son’s sacrifice showed that there are Muslims who are good patriotic Americans, if Khan had done just that without directly attacking The Donald in a vicious political way, waving the Constitution right out of Grandstanding 101, I would be on his side. But in choosing to engage in insulting smears just like many of the other speakers at the convention, he went way beyond the boundaries, and protections, of a grieving parent.