Wednesday, November 18, 2015

John Kerry Bombs in Paris

No one is very surprised to hear it from the mouth of our leading diplomat, John Kerry. Speaking extemporaneously, or so it seemed, and undiplomatically at the American Embassy in Paris yesterday, Kerry answered a question that many had been asking.

Why did no senior American official show up in Paris for the anti-terrorist rally following the Charlie Hebdo attack last January?

Now, Kerry tells us: the Obama administration believed that the Charlie Hebdo victims deserved what they got. Kerry explained yesterday that the attack had some “legitimacy” but he quickly changed that to: it had a “rationale.” Thus, the attack on Charlie Hebdo made sense, there was a reason behind it, the terrorists had a right to do what they did, and it even had legitimacy.

There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that. This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, 

In truth, if your frame of reference is Sharia Law, then Kerry’s statement is true enough. If you believe in the principles of American constitutional law, Kerry’s statement is an abomination.

True enough, Muslims believe that those who blaspheme the prophet deserve to die. If that is the principle the Obama administration was affirming in boycotting the Paris demonstration, it’s good to know about it.

Kerry did not mention whether or not the simultaneous attack on a Kosher supermarket, in an effort to kill Jews also had a rationale or a legitimacy?

Given that Kerry is intellectually challenged, he did not consider another possibility. From the point of view of ISIS, the Friday night terrorist attack did have a rationale and even legitimacy. Perhaps it was ISIS’s way of retaliating against France for bombing its territory in Syria.

Clearly, Kerry is not very bright. He managed to expose a poorly hidden truth: the Obama administration bears a considerable sympathy to Islamist culture.

Then again, the woman he replaced in the state department, while perhaps not as intellectually challenged or as prone to Freudian slips, was, in the words of her sidekick Huma Abedin: “often confused.”

When it comes to Secretaries of State, Barack Obama has not chosen either wisely or well.


Sam L. said...

"When it comes to Secretaries of State, Barack Obama has not chosen either wisely or well."

He picked someone enough like himself as to make no difference.

Anonymous said...

I had dinner tonight with a work colleague who calls himself a pragmatist. We lightly broached the topic of domestic politics. I told him Obama is neither a pragmatist, nor an idealist. He agreed. So what is President Obama? An empty suit. In the early years, Obama like to think himself Lincolnian, overseeing a metaphorical "Team of Rivals." Lincoln made decisions. His key cabinet ministers stuck around, and were strong figures in their own right. Obama has John F. Kerry, and a pathological liar before him. Not much pragmatic or idealistic about those choices. So they were idealistic? Not a chance. More like infantile and moronic. Like the Olympian One. -$$$

Anonymous said...

O Olympian One, do shower us with your impenetrable ideas! -$$$

Dennis said...

I would suggest that these commentaries provides a hint into Obama and the selection of the people who surround him. Kerry has always been selective of the information with which he makes decision. More driven by political considerations than anything else much like Obama. Freudian Slip anyone. If one pays close attention to what Obama says sans teleprompter there is a lot of that.


One cannot carry the hatred instilled in Obama by his father and not act as Obama does.

A long time ago I posited that Obama would suffer the death of a thousand cuts and it does seem that the pace is picking up.

A-Bax said...

I think you hit upon well the reasons that many beleive that Obama is/was secretly Muslim. In addition to his having been raised as one for a time in Indonesia by Soetoro, Obama seems to identify and sympathize with Islam more than the West.

The contrast is almost always brought up in terms of religion solely. I.e, is Obama Muslim (as opposed to Christian)? Or is he really a post-modern atheist?, etc. This serves only to confuse things, for, as Andrew McCarthy of NRO repeatedly points out, Islam is a complete civilizational world-view, not just a religion.

Indeed, the separation of "religion" from "society" that comes so naturally to the Western mind, is in fact part of the civilizational world-view of the West. But to the Muslim mind, such a distinction is a chimera.

Your point about Obama (through his idiotic mouthpiece Kerry) essentially endorsing a Sharia-based view of the quasi-legitimacy of the Charlie Hedbo killings get at this point nicely: That is, Obama has more intellectual sympathy with Islam-Sharia than he does Western Consitutionalism (regardless of whatever he actually believes in deep down about the supernatural).

That is what many, many people have sensed about Obama for years. It gets articulated as "He's a secret Muslim!", and that is argued about through the lens of religion qua theology/creed, but in reality what people are (rightly, IMO) sensing is that Obama's thinking is alien to the West. He's not really "one of us" in the sense that he is at best ambivalent towards Western constitutional norms, and at worst hostile to them.

Interesting times.