Throughout his career, Kerry has had a problem with words Unbelievably Kerry

Once again, John Kerry’s created an unbelievably big problem out of one little phrase.

Throughout his career, Kerry’s had a problem with words. Monday, with just two of them, he managed to illustrate the Obama administration’s overall ambivalence toward a Syria strike, the latest shift in arguments from a man whose case for action has been changing almost with the days of the week.


Saying that any Syria action would be “unbelievably small” was supposed to reassure voters that the White House isn’t hatching a new Iraq-level invasion and occupation. Instead, he just bolstered skeptics who believe the administration’s either only looking for a symbolic move against Syrian President Bashar Assad to be able to claim action or for those who believe that President Barack Obama’s about to blunder into a long-term engagement in yet another fractured Arab nation.

That’s distinct from the new international policy Kerry at first seemed to have stumbled into, but as subsequent comments from White House officials and the president showed through the day, was actually a concerted — but heavily conditional — float , that Assad could stop an attack if the Syrian president somehow turned over his entire chemical weapons arsenal immediately.

( VIDEO: Kerry: 'Unbelievably small, limited kind of effort')

Russia seemed to be hurriedly embracing that proposal, leading to suspicion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had simply seized upon the opportunity for a delay. But in his television interviews Monday evening, Obama embraced Kerry’s suggestion, saying that he’d discussed some of what Russia announced directly with Putin at last week’s G-20 summit. And Obama agreed, he’d “absolutely” put the strike on hold if Assad met the incredibly steep condition of turning over all chemical weapons.

Kerry made clear to his Russian counterpart Monday morning in a prescheduled call that the idea was a rhetorical response, and not a proposal, according to a State Department official, and that the Obama administration was only interested in a serious proposal from Moscow.

He added that the United States wasn’t inclined to trust Assad, given the history with him, the official added, who attributed the speed with which Russia is moving to the administration’s clear position internationally that this proposal would not in any way delay the push in Congress.

( PHOTOS: John Kerry’s career)

To the administration, that was all part of what made Kerry’s Monday a success, rather than a muddle. He broached what’s quickly becoming a major element of the administration’s case on Syria during a quick trip to Europe that racked up more of the international support for the U.S. plan.

Then, after he landed back in Washington, pressed the case again to a closed Hill briefing, where backers say he’s arguably been the administration’s most convincing lobbyist as he’s presented classified evidence. The “unbelievably small” comment didn’t come up in that briefing, and the thought so far is that those words didn’t change any opinions in Congress — those most concerned with by it weren’t going to vote for authorizing a strike anyway.

He’ll be back on the Hill Tuesday, pressing the case to the House Armed Services Committee, then leading a Google Hangout.

( PHOTOS: What lawmakers said then (Iraq) and now (Syria))

Back in 2008, Obama campaign aides would sometimes hold Kerry up as the example of the kind of messaging tangles their candidate needed to avoid. Five years later, the administration was forced to spend what should have been full focus on the closing argument into cleaning up and explaining the latest Kerry bungle.

Monday, the administration had the woman who used to have Kerry’s job — Hillary Clinton — and the woman whom Obama wanted to have his job — National Security Adviser Susan Rice — to make the case while Kerry was in Europe. They, along with the president himself and deputy national security advisers Tony Blinken and Ben Rhodes were part of an effort that Kerry’s said to support of having as many people out in addition to him, even as the administration continues to lean on him to lead the push where on the Hill.

( PHOTOS: Scenes from Syria)

So to Kerry supporters, the “unbelievably small” comment was at most the latest example of a man whose word bungles get the attention instead of the work he’s trying to do.

Rice’s role is particularly striking. She is, after all, the woman who was so toxic to Republicans on the Hill that Obama had to retreat from making her secretary of state, all because the last time she went out and talked about a video, she was accused of facilitating the Benghazi coverup. But hours after Kerry’s off-the-cuff bungle, she was standing at a podium at the New America Foundation, urging the undecided to look at videos the administration’s put out of in the aftermath of the gas attacks, and carefully outlining, “What do we mean by limited?” “What do we mean by deterring?”

And a State Department spokeswoman clarified the chemical weapons idea as “rhetorical and hypothetical,” though by then, Russia and Syria were already expressing interest — and the White House seemed to be eyeing it as a possible fallback plan or credible method of delay. White House press secretary Jay Carney said the administration would take a “hard look” at the Russian offer, adding the administration remains skeptical of Moscow.

But it was the “unbelieviably small” comment that had people backing the president smacking their heads even as the administration continued to argue that he was on message, and opponents of action on the Hill held up what they claimed as another key piece of evidence for their position.

Kerry’s been in an odd position on Syria for weeks. The man who litigated his 2004 presidential campaign on opposing the Iraq War and had his honored service in Vietnam was twisted into a portrait of a weakling has become the administration’s leading hawk, forcing — or allowing — Obama and administration aides to distance themselves from him as they stake out a less intensive position.

In 2004, the most a misplaced word could do was sink his presidential campaign. The difference now is that a lot of lives — Syrian, American and others — depend on his getting the words right.

“In the era of the noise machine going 24 hours a day, government officials have to be particularly careful with their words. Having said that, Kerry is a remarkably effective communicator,” Democratic strategist Phil Singer, who worked on Kerry’s 2004 campaign, said, pointing to the detailed case Kerry has made for Obama’s Syria plans.

So despite the heat that Kerry’s taking over the London comments, Singer said, “A comment here or a comment there isn’t going to hurt overall the credibility he enjoys with his counterparts on the world stage.”

Fellow foreign ministers aren’t the problem. Obama’s having enough trouble selling the case to voters and members of Congress without Kerry giving them new reason to doubt that the administration’s plans are serious or well thought out.

“Kerry says #Syria strike would be “unbelievably small” — that is unbelievably unhelpful,” tweeted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who spent his speaking time at Kerry’s confirmation hearing gushing over his friend and was one of the first backers of Obama’s pitch to Congress on Syria.

Aides and supporters have a sort of repetitive strain injury response to the agony of watching Kerry’s foot go into his mouth. Whatever he’s done to inspire them at points, they accept with a sigh that this is how he is and how he’s always been.

“On the Kerry campaign, there were plenty of times where he got the substance right but the delivery wrong,” said one former aide to his 2004 White House run.

The most infamous, perhaps, was Kerry’s “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” in the 2004 campaign — his attempt to explain the Senate procedure that had him backing money for troops despite being opposed to the overall Iraq War, which captured him as a flip-flopper more than any giant beachwear prop ever could.

Months of pummeling later, he shot back at President George W. Bush in the first debate, “You know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?”

Monday, the White House defense of Kerry was even less interested in parsing words.

“You can focus on phrases,” Carney argued, “but you know exactly what Secretary Kerry was referring to.”

“I think that Secretary Kerry clearly was referring to that in the context of what the United States and the American people have experienced over the past 10, 12 years, which includes large-scale, long-term … open-ended military engagement with boots on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he explained. “That is the contrast that Secretary Kerry was making.”

Chris Lehane, a communications consultant who worked on Kerry’s 2004 campaign, said he thought the attention to Kerry’s words was the unfortunate leftovers of the narrative that got built around him during that run — a level of scrutiny he compared to “a high wire without a safety net and people are pulling on both sides.”

“When he’s actually focused on foreign policy and national security, he’s very good. He understands the nuances,” Lehane said.

Bob Shrum, who served as chief strategist for Kerry’s 2004 campaign, called the amount of attention going to Kerry’s London comments “ridiculous.”

Shrum said he believes Kerry’s swayed a lot of minds in America and abroad, and that the bulk of his arguments means a lot more than a couple of words, no matter how much attention they’ll get. And in floating the idea about giving up the weapons that the Russians have latched onto, Shrum said, Kerry may with a passing comment have laid the foundation for what may end up being one of the more significant achievements of his time at Foggy Bottom.

“You’re going to have people jump all over him, you’re going to have people who jump all over the president,” Shrum said. “But if you look at what really happened today, it seems to me Kerry’s made some of what could be very important progress.”

This article tagged under: John Kerry

Syria