On October 10, Matt Bai interviewed Kerry for two hours. He was stunned at the differences between Kerry and Bush, even though Kerry often echoed Bush's tough stance on the war on terror. Kerry used the word "effective" 18 times, but did not get specific.
 
Then Bai asked a question that revealed the core difference between Bush and Kerry:
 
When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law—enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Clearly, Kerry differs from Bush on the most significant issue of our times. Kerry sees the war as being reduced to a nuisance, whereas Bush would like to clear out the swamp that breeds terrorists; hence, he invaded Iraq, not primarily for the immediate (key word) threat of WMDs, but to provide an environment where terrorists do not multiply. This shows Kerry would like to return to law enforcement, whereas Bush wants to press home the attack and fulfill his monumental project in Iraq.

In June 2004 a liberal academic colleague pointed out to me that Bush campaigned against American arrogance and on not embarking on nation—building. 'True,' I responded, but I told him that Democrats are in deep trouble if they still desire to return to a pre—9/11 world.

Incredibly, he retorted that America was not changed by 9/11.

That's when I knew Bush would win the elections in November. He and I see the world entirely differently. We're on different planets. He's on Venus, and I'm on Earth.

I told him that seems foolish a priori, even though I cannot measure empirically the mood of an entire nation. I went on: if 9/11 did not change America, it surely changed Bush. That observation silenced my colleague.

I published article here in July that shows how terrorists must think. Simple logic says this:

(1) A weak enemy improves our (the terrorists') chances for victory

(2) Kerry is a weaker enemy than Bush.

(3) Therefore, Kerry improves the chances of our victory (more so than Bush does).

In previous articles, I defended at length each premise, so we do not need to go into detail here.

This analysis agrees with Cheney's similar claim that terrorists would prefer to fight weaker opponents, and Kerry is weak.

Americans are about to vote on November 2, and the choices cannot get any clearer. Bush is strong and aggressive; Kerry, despite his roundabout rhetoric, is weak and passive.

Personally, at the risk of sounding like Linus waiting for the Great Pumpkin, I still hold out for a Bush re—election. It is impossible to believe that 52% of the American electorate will toss over board a wartime President who is overseeing a strong economy.

We will see a replay of the Australian elections.

James Arlandson   10 18 04