What surprises me in this quote is that Kerry claims to be "a former law enforcement person". At what point in his career was he in law enforcement. We know of his college days, his Navy career and then his days in the Senate. Where and when was he in law enforcement? Perhaps this is a lot like his "marathon runner" days and his "deer hunter" days and... the list goes on.

I agree that this isn't a definitive statement and that too much can be made of it. However, the main difference between this quote and the Bush quote is that this quote reveals more truth about Kerry's likely foreign policy than did Bush's.

A Moeller -

Kerry was a prosecutor from 1976 to 1979 in Middlesex County, Mass.

Kerry has been downplaying his time as a prosecutor because his colleagues didn't view him favorably. In spite of Kerry's claims of his accomplishments while "in law enforcement," his accomplishments pretty much amounted to showing up for work and brown nosing the boss.

The difference between Kerry's statement and Bush's is that when Kerry's and Bush's statements are both taken in complete context, Bush has said nothing new and only reiterates what he has been saying for 3 years.

Taking Kerry's full quote at face value, this is the first time he has stated a definitive policy concerning the war on terror, that is to say something beyond "Bush lied," and "I would have done it better." Unfortunately, his policy is to view the war as a law enforcement effort. Ironically, while Bush could make an effective case for a law enforcement effort, Kerry can't. Kerry says that he is going to go out and kill terrorists. We already know he's against the death penalty, so we are left with the implication of assasinations. Where does Kerry stand on having terrorists assasinated by CIA or Special Forces death squads?

Detailed article (with snappy alliteration filled title) by Beldar on Kerry's background as a prosecutor/lawyer is here:

John Kerry: Lapsed lawyer of little legal luster

As far as whether conservatives are reading too much into the "nuisance" remark, I disagree. In the context of the rest of the interview from that article, and based on Kerry's history and comments on the war on terror, I actually think we lucked out here. This is really how Kerry and many of his ilk feel: Why attack the cancer directly, which may or may not work, and which will certainly be costly and painful, when we can put a nice fat bandaid on top?

I can't believe that this guy might be elected our President.

Being a prosecutor qualifies as law enforcement, yes. However, it does beg the question: what kind of prosecutor was Kerry? As a law enforcement kinda guy I've known prosecutors who were as worthless as teats on a bull. I've know some who were so leftist, they made Ramsey Clarke look conservative. I've known others who used the criminal justice system to further their own career and either prosecuted or failed to prosecute cases based on political considerations. I wonder what Kerry's record was during his "law enforcement" years. I'm sure we'll never know. He's hiding from his entire career except his 4 months in Nam.

BTW, Mrs Kerry -- Tah ray Za -- stated that her husband would never go to war over oil. Hmmmm. I guess she's stockpiled an ample supply for her vehicles, jet plane, five mansions, etc. If a country is starving for oil.

Oh, another thing: In the 1970s, Kerry said we can't fight communism all over the world. His current statements appear to reinterate that thought only now it's terrorism not communism. Kerry did not believe communism was a danger. Nor does he truly believe terrorism is a true danger.

Who doesn't want a world where we do not have to constatnly worry about terror? Its a great goal. The Repubs just can't seem to point to anything else they have done successfully, so they keep coming back to the terror issue.

I also wrote a blog entry about this subject:
http://withoutaparty.blogspot.com/

Hi Irwin,

We had that world, it was called the 1990s. They ended with a bang on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Welcome to the new world.

You can put your head back in the sand now. We'll still be here protecting your butt.

Irwin,

We all would like to go back to the good times. There are a couple of ways to make that happen, a fast way and a slow way. The fast way is without a doubt painless first but painfully lethal last. The slow way is painful for a long time but then *maybe* painless for a much longer time. Neither way is something we want to face but there it is. A positive person would say that things will eventually be painless no matter what we decide.

Anyhow, the world is going to be bloody for a long time before we *hopefully* get back to good times...

PROSTITUTION A "NUSIANCE"?

GUESS KERRY WOULD TAKE THE TRADE IN SEX
SLAVES TO THE WTO MAYBE WE COULD RAISE
SOME TAXES ON THEM

WOMEN'S RIGHTS GROUPS, DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL WON'T SAY A WORD

BECAUSE THEY LOVE KERRY AND THE LEFT

Remy,

Kerry does have a plan, but you don�t seem to be aware of it. Here it is: Defeating Global Terrorism

Enjoy!

Kerry's plan is to say he has a plan. Repeatedly. Until somebody believes him.

Which would be a startling change.

The real danger of Kerry is that he wants to internationalize the problem.

Ordinarily, that would be fine except for one thing: THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T WANT TO DEAL WITH TERRORISM.

Like a nuclear Iran and N. Kroea, the rest of the planet is refusing to do the things necessary to make the US safe...because, let's face it. Germany is not going to get nuked nor is France...and anybody out there think terrorists are going to blow up Rotterdam?

We are the target. Russia to some extent, but we're Satan #1. And while the rest of the world will "cooperate" when it suits them by carrying out raids and possibly exchanging some intel, to try and internationalize a problem no one else wants to deal with is LOONY! While Kerry is d**king around in Paris trying to get his buddy Chirac to cooperate in his anti-proliferation efforts (which Chirac has no intention of doing since French businesses make a mint selling nuke tech to "developing" countries") the terrorists will light the big one.

And the libs will wonder "Now how the heck could that have happened?"

I just read through Kerry's "Plan" thanks to Rollins little link. Seems most of what he Plans to Do is already being Done.
1. Direct use of military force..(Afganistan and Iraq is pretty direct use to me..thanks George)
2. Transform Military......More special forces created.. repositioning of European troops..Thanks George.
3. Reform our intelligence....seems that is already being done...thanks George.
4. Deny Sanctuary in Afganistan....Over 16,000 of our troops already there and fighting....Tillman meant nothing I guess.
5. Expand NATO...you would have to pay them more than Saddam did...tax some more rich people.
6.Stop the Drug Trade...the one thing I can agree with that I have not heard much of Bush doing..must be a good reason though....
7.Warlord Disarmament....that whole democratic voting thing is a fake right?
8.Improve training...again our guys just suck at this and spend all their time watching MTV right? And NATO has nothing to do with it either?

The rest is just as silly. I swear Kerry thinks the world will just lay down at his feet for him. That the money for all his wonderful programs will not cost anything but a few percentage points of tax on the rich. This is the alternative choice for President?

Rich

Well we weren't going to be able to defeat the Soviets. Remember, we were suppose to get use to co-existing. Then there was the original assassins. Remember how they terrorized the Middle East. Been over 1,000 years since they've been heard from.

Dang, I actually have forgotten about those darn Soviets. What have they been up to lately?

Just curious about something. If Kerry gets elected, does this mean that terrorism will be legalized in Nevada?