John Kerry decided to throw Charlie Hebdo under the bus.
Secretary of State John Kerry suggested on Tuesday that there was a “rationale” for the assault on satirical French weekly Charlie Hebdo, unlike the more recent attacks in Paris.
“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that,” Kerry said in Paris, according to a transcript of his remarks. “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, OK, 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,” he continued.
Sigh. Don’t do that. Say they selected Charlie Hebdo specifically while the targets on Friday were generic, if you want to, but don’t say more than that. You’re the Secretary of State, you should be able to filter your words.
Comments
16 responses to “Charlie Hebdo’s skirt was maybe a little too short”
Well that’s both shit and untrue.
(Kerry obviously)
Disinformation or (honest) stupidity, but I can’t tell which is worse.
I think you give him too much credit; as a politician, he panders to his constituency, disturbingly honest as he may be being here.
What a horrible offensive thoughtless thing to say. A politician and gas bag.
What an asshole
I was just talking to my son, and he said he could understand why the Democrats were unwilling to call it religious terrorism. I told him I couldn’t understand (not in the sense of not understanding why – it’s sheer political pandering – but in being understanding about it, which is the sense he was using). He said someone would say they weren’t real Muslims. I told him just because someone says that doesn’t mean it’s true, any more than it’s true when people say of Westboro (his example) that they are “not real Christians”. Who gets to define? What is the exact definition of a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/Atheist, and how do we know that’s the right definition? If someone says an action is the result of their faith (or their non-faith), I will take them at their word that it is their faith (or non-faith) driving them, because I am no more able to say that their religion doesn’t say that than anyone else who has read the “holy” books and realizes how often they contradict themselves, and that all these people arguing over who is a real this or a real that can probably find justification in their book, as long as they ignore those passages they don’t agree with.
Sorry if I seem a bit incoherent. I’m still so angry at this latest attack that I’ve nearly lost my ability to speak.
iknklast, I don’t think ‘they weren’t real Muslim’ flies, but it is still true that plenty of Muslims, just as real, do not explode themselves in public places. I think there is benefit to the West from not othering all Muslims as such, and from making sure those who want to escape ISIS are likely to do so. Can we do that while not eliding that the attackers were a group of (some kind of) Muslims? Logically we can, but few people are inclined to logic at such times, and enough are looking for ways to interpret things the worst way possible. So I understand Obama, Kerry, and Clinton being cautious. (And still no justification for Kerry’s words about Charlie Hebdo.)
Shorter Kerry: The Charlie Hebdo cartoons put me off. But the latest victims weren’t doing anything I wouldn’t do.
Pathetic.
Both sets of attacks were completely terrorism.
And his ignorance shows: the terrorists told us why they chose the targets they did. They find all expressions of freedom – of thought, of word, of association – as antithetical to what they are trying to achieve.
The people at the concert, the people at the football match, the people eating at a restaurant, were just as objectionable to them as the people writing a magazine. It is incoherent to claim that one group somehow ‘deserved it’ slightly more than another group.
So, it isn’t actually about what the terrorists thought at all.
What Kerry is telling us is that he, personally, approves of censorship of the press.
Still blaming the victims.
There’s never been a Democrat I’ve voted for that hasn’t found a way to make me wish I hadn’t.
This.
Okay, yeah, this may be one of the most disturbing things to be uttered by the Obama administration.
Anat
I agree with you. This was the discussion we were having. Still, it is not acceptable to say they weren’t real Muslims. It is acceptable to say they don’t represent all Muslims. Those are two totally different statements, and the second is not the one being made.
John Kerry was appointed to his position of Sec’y of State, not elected; thus, he doesn’t have a constituency – nor does he have the ‘excuse’ of pandering.
picklefactory, you are disputing the contention that “as a politician, he panders to his constituency” on the (irrelevant) basis that “John Kerry was appointed to his position of Sec’y of State, not elected”.
Do you deny that he is a politician, and thus elected?
Oh, John, for fuck’s sake. MUST you be so annoying? It’s not irrelevant. I had the same thought, but didn’t take the time to utter it. A Cabinet official is, while in that job, less of a politician than someone running for office is. Kerry is not at present “elected” in the usual understanding.
Do less nit-picking. It gets on people’s nerves.