“John Kerry Hasn’t Supported Enough Wars to be Secretary of State”
If Susan Rice doesn’t become the next Secretary of State, the next most likely contender might be John Kerry. Fortunately, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has nipped that idea in the bud: John Kerry hasn’t supported enough wars to be Secretary of State.
On Fox News, Bill Kristol said:
“I rather think [President Barack Obama] will appoint Susan Rice and I think — I’m not a huge fan of hers — but I think she’s likely to be confirmed by the Senate. And an awful lot of people might decide, you know, given the range of alternative appointments, maybe she’s not — John Kerry, in my opinion, might be a worse secretary of state. Maybe one just goes ahead and lets him have the secretary of state he wants. I think Susan Rice has been a little more interventionist than John Kerry. John Kerry was a guy who loved the Assad regime in Syria. John Kerry has been against our intervening in every war we’ve intervened in, the first Gulf War. In Iraq, he was for it before he was against it.”
Somewhere underneath all that doddering and halting and rambling, Bill Kristol has a point. We need a secretary of state who’s just champing at the bit to start a war. And the more wars, the merrier.
In addition to being “against our intervening in every war we’ve intervened in,” John Kerry has an even larger blight on his record: John Kerry himself has actually fought in a war (Vietnam).
Disqualified! A true warmonger would never ever join the military and do his own fighting. That’s for lowly working-class people, the unwashed masses, you know, blue-collar types. The Secretary of State needs to be a foaming Neocon who loves war, but recoils in horror at the thought of actually taking part in it.