(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.
Kerry was asked recently what he would do differently in Iraq right now if he were President. He said "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".
Who is Kerry referring to when he says "those who have been in touch". I'm not satisfied with this answer, can anyone explain it to me? Is he referring to France, Germany, Russia? Is he referring to Democrats who are in touch with the international community? Why doesn't HE know what he would do if he were President? Is he relying on those who are in touch with the International Community? Is this a good idea to rely soly on what others say?
Why does he state Hamas and Hezbollah as "sort of" a terrorist alignment.
Open for discussion.