If I hadn't observed Sen. Kerry's incoherent ramblings during the 2004 presidential campaign, I would have been shocked by his indecipherable utterances on "Fox News Sunday" regarding President Bush's foreign policy. Almost every statement was at war with the facts or with other statements he made elsewhere and in this same interview.
On North Korea, Kerry said, "One of the reasons that North Korea can misbehave the way it is today is because the United States has lost its leverage, lost its credibility and doesn't have the capacity to be able to bring countries together in the way that it used to. This administration is allowing North Korea to get away with what its doing."
Notice Kerry didn't make the argument that we haven't brought enough force into Iraq and so we lack the credibility to inspire fear in and thereby deter the North Korean regime. No, the context makes clear that Kerry is talking about our failure to approach our diplomacy multilaterally: We don't "have the capacity to be able to bring countries together."
So one would assume that when Chris Wallace asked Kerry what he would do differently, he would respond that we need to work more closely with other nations. Wrong. Kerry said, "I would engage in bilateral, face-to-face negotiations with North Korea, make it absolutely clear that we are not intending to invade and have a regime change, and work on the entire set of issues that are outstanding since the armistice with regard to the north."
Kerry was saying -- if anyone could follow him without falling asleep -- that because of our alleged "go-it-alone" policy on Iraq we have lost our credibility to employ a go-it-alone policy with North Korea. When Wallace asked him to explain the obvious inconsistency, Kerry didn't even bother to clarify. In fact, a little later in the interview he went back to the same point, saying, "[Bush] has made every mistake possible so he has isolated our troops, isolated America." Yet, Kerry would have us isolate ourselves with respect to North Korea.
Kerry lambasted Bush for his six-party approach, saying he was only engaging in this multilateralism as cover -- as an excuse not to continue with Clinton's agreed framework and go-it-alone approach. But why would Bush need an excuse not to continue with a failed policy?