If you're an avid reader of the blogosphere then you've undoubtedly read something by a serious person who has written something to the effect that they are voting for John Kerry, despite his past record of being wrong on every major foreign policy issue for the last thirty years, because this time he will do the right thing.
This reminds me of Albert Einstein's definition of insanity as, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." And right on cue, John Kerry tells Tom Brokaw:
"That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He [Saddam Hussein] might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."
I'm sure that a President John Kerry would have responded to an attack on America by Saddam Hussein, because he told us he would. It is just as obvious that preemption will never pass a global test. If you are looking for a reactionary response to terrorism and defending America, then John Kerry's your man, no doubt about it.