Posted on 04/08/2004 8:43:36 PM PDT by Stultis
What Would Kerry Do As President? Senator Doesn't Always Answer
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
April 08, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - For the second time in two days, Sen. John F. Kerry on Wednesday seemed unable to answer a question about what he would do if he were president.
Kerry this week has blasted the Bush administration for its "failures" in Iraq. On Wednesday, in an interview with American Urban Radio Networks, Kerry called the administration's actions in Iraq "one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life."
But later, in an interview on CNN, Kerry was asked what he would do differently if he were president.
According to a CNN transcript, anchor Judy Woodruff asked Kerry, "What exactly -- right now -- would you do differently?"
Kerry: "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made. The president needs to step up and acknowledge that there are difficulties and that the world needs to be involved and they need to reverse their policy that countries that were not involved in supporting us are not going to be part of the reconstruction."
After Kerry finished saying what the Bush administration should have done, Woodruff tried again:
Woodruff: "Senator, you said it was a mistake, not your mistake, but you called it a mistake and also said you wouldn't cut and run. You've acknowledged there may need to be more troops. If there were a President Kerry, he might have to send in more troops. I want to ask you the question you asked during the Vietnam War. How do you ask a man...to be the last to die for a mistake?"
Kerry: "Well, the mistake that I'm talking about, Judy, is not the effort to fight and have -- not the effort to have a stable Iraq. The mistake is in the way that they are going about it. So I would change the way you're going about it. I mean again and again I have said, I laid out with great specificity months ago, the steps that they should have taken, and I believe that those people who have been in touch with people in the international community know there is a different and better way to put together an effort that could legitimize a government in Iraq. If we insist on doing this through our provisional government authority, if we insist on being totally in control the way we are today, we're going to having an impossible time legitimately bringing people to the table."
Woodruff, at that point, changed the subject.
Earlier this week, in an interview with National Public Radio's Bob Edwards, Sen. Kerry was asked about the Bush administration's decision to crack down on Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has urged his followers to take up arms against U.S. troops.
The U.S.-led coalition shut down Sadr's newspaper for saying Iraqis should kill "American pigs."
NPR's Edwards asked Kerry, "President Bush says Sadr's defiance can't stand. What should the U.S. do?"
Kerry: "Well, ah, it's interesting to hear that when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq and, well -- let me, let me, let me change the term 'legitimate.' When they shut a newspaper that belongs a voice, because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment. So he has his own set of needs in order to deal with the possible, you know, future spread of terrorism."
Kerry's political opponents blasted him for that particular response, not just because he struggled to answer the question -- but also because he started off by saying that Sadr's newspaper was "legitimate" and then qualified Hamas and Hezbollah as "sort of" a terrorist alignment.
On most aspects of Iraq policy Kerry has been all over the map -- whether sovereignty transfer should be "accelerated" according to a "specific timetable," or whether an "arbitrary date" is a "mistake"; whether it would be "irresponsible" to vote against equipping the troops and funding reconstruction even if his amendment to reverse tax cuts failed, or whether the failure of the amendment was a reason to vote "no"; etc, etc, etc....
But on one thing Kerry has actually been consistent and unwavering: Management of reconstruction, supervision of government creation, and the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people, he insists, should and must be put under the control of the United Nations.
He's held to these positions even after the U.N. ran away from Iraq. He's stood firm even as it has emerged that the last time the U.N. managed contracts for Iraq they facilitated (through collusion, incompetency and/or apathy) the theft of billions from the Iraqi people.
Apparently it's only when America's interest, prestige and power are at stake that Kerry can't stick to a principle. Where those of the United Nations are concerned, he's a rock.
But later, in an interview on CNN, Kerry was asked what he would do differently if he were president.According to a CNN transcript, anchor Judy Woodruff asked Kerry, "What exactly -- right now -- would you do differently?"
Kerry: "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made. The president needs to step up and acknowledge that there are difficulties and that the world needs to be involved and they need to reverse their policy that countries that were not involved in supporting us are not going to be part of the reconstruction."
After Kerry finished saying what the Bush administration should have done, Woodruff tried again:
Woodruff: "Senator, you said it was a mistake, not your mistake, but you called it a mistake and also said you wouldn't cut and run. You've acknowledged there may need to be more troops. If there were a President Kerry, he might have to send in more troops. I want to ask you the question you asked during the Vietnam War. How do you ask a man...to be the last to die for a mistake?"
Kerry: "Well, the mistake that I'm talking about, Judy, is not the effort to fight and have -- not the effort to have a stable Iraq. The mistake is in the way that they are going about it. So I would change the way you're going about it. I mean again and again I have said, I laid out with great specificity months ago, the steps that they should have taken, and I believe that those people who have been in touch with people in the international community know there is a different and better way to put together an effort that could legitimize a government in Iraq. If we insist on doing this through our provisional government authority, if we insist on being totally in control the way we are today, we're going to having an impossible time legitimately bringing people to the table."
Woodruff, at that point, changed the subject.
The "revived" public Media Schadenfreude and and Media Shenanigans lists:
FReepmail an amused spectator to get on/off this list.
what a maroon.
WWsKD. What Would sKerry Do?I don't know, but it would be scary to find out.
Kerry: "Well, ah, it's interesting to hear that when they shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq and, well -- let me, let me, let me change the term 'legitimate.' When they shut a newspaper that belongs a voice...
LOL, he flips within a sentence! In about 41 words, he flips. And the "let me, let me, let me" makes it obvious he's thinking, "CRAP! How do I climb out of this hole I've dug for myself." And then he doesn't change the term legitimate, he just drops it from the statement. Way to think on yer feet, Flipper!
This pathetic, arrogant joke will never be president. He will be, however, and is, an amusing placeholder.
"They're all gonna laugh at you, Kerry! They're all gonna laugh at you!!!" (Stephen King - Carrie)
That he is even this far along in the race for the top job in our country shows the lock that the liberal media and the DNC have on the nomination process.
How did Sadr organize an army in a few days Senator??
NPR's Edwards asked Kerry, "President Bush says Sadr's defiance can't stand. What should the U.S. do?"Kerry: Bob, I want to answer your question, I really do. But before I do my best to answer your question, could you give me a demographic breakdown of the folks that might be listening now? That will make my answering your question much more meaningful for your audience."
LOL!
Kerry would and yet he wouldn't. It depends on what the voices in his head are saying...
Flashback! Excerpt from Kerry on CrossFire in 1997 (Kerry RIPS into France, et al)
Kerry: The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war.
Kerry's flip-flops are easy to see. He's been saddled with a label that he can't shake.
Mission Impossible: Electing John Kerry
"This campaign will self-destruct in..."
What changed is that a Republican became president so the policy was no longer "right" for America. "It just wasn't hip to protest Clinton."
EXACTLY. It's a stunning and frightening thing for a Senator on the Senate Intelligence Committee to say about a man charged with a political murder committed a year ago, and whose ties to Iran have been known for just as long. And that he said this in the process of correcting himself makes it all the more staggering.
I'm waiting for Kerry to have his MTV moment:
"Senator Kerry, do you wear frilly French underwear or a thong?"
Does anyone have a pompous ass translator that we can run this through?
The man is completely incapable of expressing a coherent thought.
OOOPS! Correcting self. Kerry is on Foreign Relations, NOT Intelligence.
Yeah, Johnnie, you did. You wrote in the New York Times that if Saddam doesn't cooperate, we should go to war, even if it's unilateral.
Oh, gee, maybe President Kerry would do exactly what he's b#tching about President Bush doing...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.