A Republican aide has sharply criticized two Democratic candidates, Michigan Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed and Colorado congressional candidate Melat Kiros, over their comments regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. The critique, published as an opinion piece, argues that these remarks suggest an unacceptable excusal of terrorism within parts of the Democratic Party.
The author, Harrison Fields, a former deputy press secretary in the Trump administration, recounts his mother's experience as an NYPD detective who worked in the city morgue for weeks after 9/11, identifying victims, some of whom were her colleagues and friends. He states she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and a chronic skin condition linked to her exposure at Ground Zero.
Fields takes issue with El-Sayed campaigning with media personality Hasan Piker, who reportedly stated that America "deserved" 9/11. When questioned, El-Sayed is quoted as saying the comments needed to be viewed "in context." Fields criticizes this response, questioning the context for the murder of nearly 3,000 people.
The opinion piece also targets Kiros, a Democratic Socialists of America member, who referred to both the 9/11 attacks and the Oct. 7 massacre as "inevitable consequences" of American and Israeli foreign policy. Fields contrasts this with the idea of debating foreign policy, stating there is a significant difference between political debate and excusing mass murder.
Democratic strategist James Carville is cited as calling Kiros a "bridge too far" for the party. Fields asserts that the defense of candidates making such statements by sitting officials and the platform given to them to suggest that civilians "had it coming" is alarming.
The author argues that the murder of civilians, whether on 9/11 or Oct. 7, is outside the realm of political debate. He pleads with the Democratic Party to draw a clear line against language that excuses terrorism, suggesting that if the party cannot unequivocally state that the United States did not deserve 9/11, it faces a significant problem beyond messaging. Fields concludes by questioning whether today's Democrats understand what it means to stand with the country.