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.”