John Kerry Finds More ‘Rationale’ With Charlie Hebdo Massacre Than Paris Terrorist Attack

John Kerry, the current Secretary of State and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, is in hot water for the comments he made today from the U.S.Embassy in Turkey regarding last week’s Paris terror attacks. Politico reported that Kerry was offering up some sympathetic words about the recent terror attack in Paris and decided to bring January’s Charlie Hebdo terror attack into the discussion.

The Inquisitr reported on the Charlie Hebdo murders, in which two French-born brothers killed 10 members of the Charlie Hebdo staff and two police officers in retaliation for the magazine’s many Mohammad cartoons and their satirical portrayal of Islam. Cherif and Said Kouachi parent’s were originally from Algeria, and the two boys were sent to an orphanage following their mother’s suicide. The boys were raised in the Islamic faith, and French authorities believe they were radicalized in their late teenage years.

Kerry’s remarks Tuesday did not exactly come out the least bit sympathetic to the recent Paris attack that left more than 100 people dead or Charlie Hebdo terror attacks.

“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, OK, they’re really angry because of this and that.”

Seemingly realizing that something was amiss, or possibly realizing that he said something wrong, John Kerry attempted to clarify his comments by claiming the much higher body count of last week’s terror attacks made them worse than the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Secretary Kerry merely seemed to insert his foot further into his mouth.

“This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people.”

Breitbart News reported that Politico Editorial Director Blake Hounsel harshly criticized Secretary John Kerry for his Paris terror attacks comments, saying, “This Kerry quote is really something else. I mean, what was he thinking?” So far, only one senator has called on Kerry to apologize for his seemingly insensitive, bizarre remarks. Republican U.S. Senator, Cory Gardener, said he was calling on Secretary Kerry to “apologize for these offensive remarks, and Gardener emphasized his disgust by saying, “Terrorism is terrorism.”

Two Republican 2016 presidential hopefuls also slammed Kerry for his remarks, and former New York Governor, George Pataki took to Twitter to suggest that John Kerry should resign for his comparison of the Charlie Hebdo murders to the Paris terror attack, according to the Daily Caller.

“John Kerry should immediately resign or be fired. Saying there was a rationale for the Charlie hebdo massacre is inexcusable.”

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush stopped short of calling for Kerry’s resignation, firing, or even mentioning him by name on the campaign trail. He instead took the moment to talk tough on terrorism and say it never deserves empathy or any attempt to explain terror attacks as a rational act.

“There should be no empathy and there’s no rationale for barbaric Islamic terrorists who want to destroy Western civilization.”

This is not the first time John Kerry has landed in the hot seat for a foot-in-mouth comment as Secretary of State.

Politico reported in 2013 that Kerry was asked an open-ended question relating to the Syrian conflict, and what President Bashar Assad could do to avoid U.S. airstrikes. Secretary Kerry, without hesitation, gave a clear, concise, and direct response.

“Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay.”

The unplanned remark pushed the narrative in that direction as Russia stepped in to take up John Kerry’s suggestion and offered to mediate the transfer of Syria’s chemical weapons.

The Daily Beast reported last April, at a time when Secretary Kerry was attempting to broker a two-state solution with Israel and Palestine, that in a recorded statement, Kerry used the term “Apartheid” when referring to Israel. Kerry said that without a two-state, Israel risked becoming an “Apartheid state.”

Apartheid is defined as a “inhumane acts” committed by “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other,” and the job of Secretary of State is usually to use statecraft and diplomacy to create peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. Certainly, his job is not to use inflammatory words to demonize one of America’s closest allies, and essentially take a side when he was supposed to be an impartial negotiator. The end result pushed both sides further apart, and as a result, the negotiations were a complete failure.

[Image Via Public Domain|Wikimedia Commons| Resized]