The title of this post is the position taken by (pick one):
A. Secretary of State John Kerry.
B. The Ayatollah.
C. Osama Bin Laden.
D. The head of ISIS.
E. Timothy McVeigh.
The correct answer is A, Secretary of State John Kerry. The Weekly Standard published the full quotation (emphasis in the Standard):
"In the last days, obviously, that has been particularly put to the test," Kerry said, according to a State Department transcript. "There's something different [from the Paris massacre] 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.
Impeachment is still in the Constitution, isn't it?
Just to be clear, the cartoon below is what creates terrorist "legitimacy" -- or if not that, exactly, then "a rationale you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they're really angry because of this and that."
And here is what, specifically, has the "rationale you could attach yourself to":
I have said recently that, in light of the hideousness from which we can no longer hide, abolitionism has surrendered its former status as error for the lower stature of moral sickness. But "sickness" does not even begin to describe Secretary Kerry's mindset. Still, fear not. He'll have neither the wits nor the dignity to resign.
Kerry geedunked a PH and got out of Vietnam early. When you're an officer, you don't do things like that.
John Kerry, a lifetime of dishonor.
I agree that Kerry's statement was inartful and clumsy. But, in all fairness, I don't think you can interpret him to meani that the Hebdo massacre was rational or justified. The word he ultimately said and meant to say, apparently, was "rationale", not "rational". And in that sense, he was distinguishing between the Hebdo massacre and the recent Paris massacre on the ground that Hebdo was an identifiable public opponent of the terrorists. In that sense, they had a reason to target Hebdo --no matter how insane the motive. The latest event involved no identifiable rationale at all--insane or otherwise. It was simply indiscriminate. Now, what we do have here is another example (following the President's repulsive press conference yesterday) of the administration's complete tone deafness. Also, I think it is fair to say that the Parisian massacre last week is a far more typical example of terrorist activity, than the seemingly "rationale"-driven Hebdo massacre.
Wac,
Kerry's attempt at a cleanup (from legitimacy to rationale) and then your cleanup attempt makes what he said no better.
Rationale is just as bad. To impute a "logical basis" (definition of "rationale") onto ISIS for the Charlie Hebdo massacres is sickening.
I agree with TarlsQtr. This is not an academic exercise in which we're trying to give a cool, arm's length assessment of the purported distinctions in how Jihadist savages "think."
Even if we were, however, it merely adds stupidity to Kerry's perversity: Why is it "better" to target free speech -- the very cornerstone of Western liberty -- than to blast away "merely" to cause generalized misery and death? I'm not aware of any reason the former is "better" than the latter, and Kerry gives none.
Overall, what reason is there for a normal person to take on the Twilight Zone enterprise of trying to distinguish among different strains of unspeakably evil targeting "decisions"?
The ONLY thing to be said -- and certainly the only thing to be said by an American Secretary of State -- is that these episodes are barbaric murder. And the only place they should be distinguished is among the rungs of hell, and Satan himself would have trouble with the job.
Kerry should be impeached for this remark alone, putting entirely to one side the enormous damage he has used his Office to do.
See also this entry by my friend Paul Mirengoff: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/john-kerrys-freudian-slip.php
Kerry's comment deserves the criticism it has received, but a high crime or misdemeanor (the standard for impeachment)? Don't think so.
Let me take this on, largely as an academic exercise.
Impeachment is a political, not a judicial, remedy. Nobody goes to jail. You lose your job, that's it.
Accordingly, there are no judicial standards, like due process, ex post facto, or the void-for-vagueness doctrine. Congress can decide for itself what is meant by the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." It would not necessarily be what you'd find in Black's Law Dictionary. Indeed, it need not even comport with the ordinary understanding one would adopt.
Under an ordinary understanding, no, Kerry has committed no high crime or misdemeanor. But his remark shows that he is unfit for the office he holds.
I would therefore have less than no objection to the House's filing impeachment proceedings, simply as a way to pressure a resignation (there are other ways to do this as well, of course, such as by zeroing out the State Department budget).
Kerry will defend in the way to which your comment points: No one using ordinary language would view this odious remark as a "high crime or misdemeanor."
That's fine. It might well be a winning defense in the Senate (which would acquit him regardless of how well-founded any charges might be). My point here is not impeachment per se, but to generate enough attention and disgust at the remark that Kerry is weakened to the point that he is dismissed by friend, foe and the American public alike (and I think we're already pretty far along with the first two).
Bill,
I agree in principle.
However, it opens a can of worms that will never be covered again. In light of the left's desire to criminalize political dissent, I see them pursuing such a recourse for every inane complaint. "Alito said something unkind about gays! Impeach!"
They would use it far more often and effectively than we would, so I'd rather keep the lid on that can.
Tarls,
For exactly the reasons you state, here's the problem: They'll take the lid off the can anytime they want -- and then, when we try to use the contents of the can against one of theirs, they'll say, "Oh, gosh, you know, you were right, the lid should never have come off that can, so it should go back on." Cf. the NYT ever-shifting stance on whether filibusters should be allowed, depending on which Party holds the Senate and the Presidency.
I do not disagree with a lot of these points. But, I still do not read Kerry's statement as indicating that somehow the Hedbo massacre was "better" than the Parisian massacre. A "rationale" is merely a "reason", but it does not have to be a logical one. From the twisted standpoint of the terrorists, you can deduce a "reason" for the Hebdo attack. But that is a reason based on their own insane logic, not everyone else's or Mr. Kerry's for that matter. I don't see Kerry making any kind of normative comparison. The real problem, perhaps, is that Kerry introduced the concept of distinguishing these acts on the basis of "rationale" at all. At a fundamental level, all murder is senseless. But, from the bizarre standpoint of the murderers, there is almost always a "reason". Apparently, the terrorists have now claimed a motivation for the latest attacks because Paris is a "capital of prostitution and obscenity." Thus, what the Secretary of State does need to understand is that discussing "rationales" is a waste of time. But, I don't see his statement as indicating that he does not understand that all murder is equally unjustified or bad.