I did not hear that much detail of his comments. The very tone of the one comment from him that I did see, suggested to me that he either did not have a rational view of the situation or that he was denying many facts and lacked intelligence in his assessment of the situation.
But we have, since the days of 9/11 and the Jersey girls, replaced peoples' emotions with everything else as far as granting them moral justification for their views. If they have any degree of being some sort of "aggrieved" party, then by God their view on any related matter must be morally superior to anyone else. Or so our current public opinion seems to say.
Actually, I saw this beginning before 9/11, when judges started accepting end-of-trial statements from family members of victims as non-evidentiary "testimony" before the guilty person was sentenced. From my reading, the idea that the emotions of the family members of the victims is relevant to the sentence is totally foreign to the hisotry of our nations' legal-philosophy. Guilt is guilt, and the sentencing of the guilty is supposed to deal with the severity of the crime and not the severity of the emotions of those afffected by the crime. The idea that justice is blind is supposed to work both ways - justice is supposed to be dispassionate, by design.
Well, from the dictates of the "results" oriented approach of our courts, to the loudest and most vocal family members of 9/11 victims , to the leftist family members of a few of our brave soldiers, being related to a victim makes anyone, morally, a saint and beyond public criticism.