The Kerry campaign has recently accused the Bush camp of twisting the remarks about terrorism out of context. Bush has kept up a pathetic criticism of comments Kerry made in an interview with The New York Times Magazine, in which, in answer to a question about what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, the senator replied that "we have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. 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," Kerry told the magazine.

Alluding to those comments, Bush told his luncheon audience in Arizona that he and Kerry "have a different view of the war on terror. It's not just to be reduced as a nuisance. It is to be defeated by using all of the might of the United States and spreading freedom as an alternative."

Well, I have a different view of this issue. I think that Kerry is saying that we can fight a "balanced war" against terrorism. Something effective, but within reason. Bush is clearly willing to fight an unreasonable and (mentally) "unbalanced" war, at the cost of a $500 billion deficit, at the cost of our personal liberties, at the cost of breaking the Geneva Conventions and instituting torture as SOP, at the cost of our international reputation, at the cost of hunting down and killing every "potential" terrorist... which invariably creates more terrorists than it kills.

When Bush says, "He can run, but he cannot hide from his record." Who is he really talking about? Isn't this just another pathetic attempt to run from his own record of failure, both economic and in foreign policy?Clearly, it's time for new leadership.