Mr. French Still Doesn't Know How To Shut Up

I tell you, listening to John Kerry trying to extricate himself from his latest gaffe - accusing American soldiers of "terrorizing" Iraqi women and children - it almost makes me nostalgic for the 2004 campaign.

Almost, that is.

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry blamed top conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh Friday morning for the uproar over his claim that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi women and children.

"You know, the only people who are trying to make anything out of that, to be honest with you, are Rush Limbaugh and a few people on the right," Kerry told radio host Don Imus.

There's a shining example of a statement that says exactly nothing, other than vastly understating the number of people who are right-of-center. Does any Republican ever say, "The only people who are trying to crucify George Bush are the major media and a few people on the left"?

Asked if he meant to say that American soldiers were guilty of terrorism, Kerry claimed: "Obviously not."

Obviously not, not with his background.

But, being what he is, the Boston Balker just couldn't clamp his lips and say no more. He just had to insert yet another foot:

What he meant to say, he insisted, was: "After three years, Iraqis ought to be capable of searching a home ... It's inexplicable that when the biggest killers in Iraq are suicide bombers and IEDs, improvised explosive devices, that we're still on the front lines going into homes and going out in the dead of night. And it scares people."

Getting blown up scares people a lot more. But even Imus couldn't miss the "obviously" unwitting implication Senator Kerry had just put forth:

Asked if Iraqis soldiers wouldn't be "terrorizing" the same homeowners when they take over the searches, Kerry replied: "Hopefully not."

But in the next breath he added, "They're going to resent being terrorized if that's what happens."

Generally speaking, people who get "terrorized" don't live to resent it. Perhaps Brah-man should choose his words more carefully, if he can't ration them.

Kerry's mile-a-minute numbnuttery almost obscured another gaffe that echoed his party's open defeatism:

The one-time top Democrat said that he'd like to see U.S. troops redeployed "in a way that accomplishes the goal but does it without needlessly putting troops at risk and incurring greater difficulties in feeding the insurgency."

So he wants to fight a war without troops? Using Iraqi troops who will "terrorize" their own civilians? Starve an "insurgency" that is fed by its enemies' retreats?

Sounds like that old joke about withdrawal not being withdrawal, but advancing in the opposite direction.

Also sounds like his 2004 presidential bid, come to think of it.