The Dreamworld of John Kerry

John Kerry came out of hiding yesterday morning for the first time since the botched joke flap with an exclusive at Fox News Sunday. It was it's own complete and superbly done little expose on how never to be President of the United States. This guy just doesn't get it.

Kerry has the political instincts of a rock, and they're all on display in this one brief interview. To the issue of an apology, Kerry insists on making the same point, numerous times:

WALLACE: Senator...

KERRY: Yes, but why didn't you play the part where I said, "It was a botched joke, and I never intended to insult anybody, especially not the troops"?

WALLACE: But why didn't...

KERRY: Because that was part of what I just said.

WALLACE: ... apologize. The question is...

KERRY: I apologized...

WALLACE: The question is, why not just stop the bleeding right away...

KERRY: Sure, Chris, I've apologized. And this is now clear to everybody, that it was a botched joke; I own it.

He made that statement, "I own it," more than once, yet never really did. Every time the subsequent explanation does not address the issues raised by the joke, it is in each attempt a deflection onto Republicans in Congress and/or the President. Every time.

The only exception was his reply to the mother of dead Marine, Cory Palmer:

[KERRY]: Now, I am deeply sorry for that woman, for her. And I have asked my staff to find anybody that I can contact--I've contacted people in the military, because I feel this so profoundly.

Even the joke itself wouldn't make sense for the simple reason that we do have a volunteer army and you have to be smart to get into it. So, even that runs counter to what they did.

But even here it's about what everybody else did, not about the poor judgment that allowed for such a dumb line in the first place.

The Senator saved his best for last and shows yet again the Dems predilection for negotiating-for-negotiations-sake:

KERRY: I have confidence in the generals. I think they've been put in a very, very difficult position.

What I don't have confidence in is the policy. And General Abizaid is giving us a diagnosis that is based on the current policy. But that policy has to change, and it can change.

I believe that if you pursue--I know that if you pursue legitimate diplomacy, the way Henry Kissinger did when he made multiple trips, night after night, day after day, twisting arms, working; if you make the effort that Jim Baker did to build a legitimate coalition, I'm confident we can do what's necessary to get the neighborhood--and I include in that Iran and Syria--to take greater stakes in what they realize they have a stake in.

What does he believe we can get from the likes of Iran and Syria on the issue of terrorism generally and on Iraq specifically? What hand does the US have to play that can coax and/or force what we're looking for there?

Those are my questions to the Senator, as I'd be glad to see another means of settling things down in Iraq. But does he honestly believe this can be accomplished? If he does, do we not deserve an elaboration on the idea, something with some details?

Frankly, this is about the only kind of negotiating ploy that I can think will work with Iran. What would the good Senator have to say about it, I wonder.

In the meantime, this man continues living in his own little dreamworld where his mistakes are all somebody else's fault. His horrible instincts and rotten political judgment--and I don't think I'm going out on a limb here--have ensured that he will never see the Presidency.