. . . while Kerry bore in on ground-level details, Bush, in defending his policies, seemed, characteristically, to be looking at the world from a much higher altitude, repeating in his brief and sometimes agitated statements a single unifying worldview: America is the world's great force for freedom, unsparing in its use of pre-emptive might and unstinting in its determination to stamp out tyranny and terrorism. Kerry seemed to offer no grand thematic equivalent.

Inside liberal think-tanks, there are Democratic foreign-policy experts who are challenging some of Bush's most basic assumptions about the post-9/11 world -- including, most provocatively, the very idea that we are, in fact, in a war. But Kerry has tended to steer clear of this conversation, preferring to attack Bush for the way he is fighting terrorism rather than for the way in which he perceives and frames the threat itself.

. . . the philosophical difference between the two camps, applied to a conflict that may well last a generation, is both deep and distinct. Fundamentally, Bush sees the war on terror as a military campaign, not simply to protect American lives but also to preserve and spread American values around the world; his liberal critics see it more as an ideological campaign, one that will turn back a tide of resentment toward Americans and thus limit the peril they face at home.

As Bill Whittle puts it,

. . . about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean. . . It all comes down to carrots (liberals) or sticks (conservatives). By the way: if you�re in a rush and need to run, here�s the spoiler: You can offer a carrot. Not everybody likes carrots. Some people may hate your carrot. Your carrot may offend people who worship the rutabaga. But no one likes being poked in the eye with a stick. That�s universal.

I�m a stick man. I wish it were different. But part of growing up � in fact, the essential part of growing up � is realizing that wishing does not make it so. Folks, it�s time to reach down deep and get in touch with our inner adult.

This is a bit stark. Bush and Kerry both believe that a carrot and a stick are necessary (and Bush's approach to international affairs is certainly ideological). But Bush's ideas of when to apply the stick are vastly more realistic, and his carrots are handed out with deliberation, not merely waved about to create the impression that "diplomacy" is taking place. For example, his policy toward the Palestinians is a masterpiece of steely "tough love," compared to Clinton's shuttle diplomacy.

Here's where it gets scary:

Kerry. . . rejects the premise of viral democracy, particularly when the virus is introduced at gunpoint. ''In this administration, the approach is that democracy is the automatic, easily embraced alternative to every ill in the region,'' he told me. Kerry disagreed. ''You can't impose it on people,'' he said. ''You have to bring them to it. You have to invite them to it. You have to nurture the process.'' Those who know Kerry say this belief is in part a reaction to his own experience in Vietnam, where one understanding of the domino theory (''if Vietnam goes communist, all of Asia will fall'') led to the death of 58,000 Americans, and another (''the South Vietnamese crave democracy'') ran up against the realities of life in a poor, long-war-ravaged country.

Now the Times ideology starts to show. "Democracy introduced at gunpoint" is a strawman. One million Vietnamese fled onto the high seas or disappeared into re-education camps because we withdrew. One doesn't have to claim that they wanted "democracy" to appreciate that they were willing to risk their lives in huge numbers to avoid a totalitarian regime. To suggest that a desire for dignity and justice isn't inherent in human beings is condescending and contrary to all the evidence. Apparently these boat people don't exist to Kerry.

If forced democracy is ultimately Bush's panacea for the ills that haunt the world, as Kerry suggests it is, then Kerry's is diplomacy. . . . The only time I saw Kerry truly animated during two hours of conversation was when he talked about the ability of a president to build relationships with other leaders. ''We need to engage more directly and more respectfully with Islam, with the state of Islam, with religious leaders, mullahs, imams, clerics, in a way that proves this is not a clash with the British and the Americans and the old forces they remember from the colonial days,'' Kerry told me during a rare break from campaigning, in Seattle at the end of August. ''And that's all about your diplomacy.''

What a joke. This is the guy who doesn't hesitate to denigrate the UK, Australia, Poland, Japan, and the Iraqis themselves. This is the guy who voted against Desert Storm even though it had a huge coalition and UN approval. This is the guy who barely showed up in the Senate to cooperate with his colleagues to get legislation passed.

Of course, to contrast his "diplomacy" with Bush, he must mischaracterize Bush's approach as "democracy at the point of a gun," and refuse to recognize the more universal urge to simply be free of tyranny and fear and to have some say in one's government. There have been clear majorities approving both the Afgan and Iraqi attempts at representative government, disagreeing only on details. Majorities have repeatedly said they do not want the Taliban or Saddam back. Clearly, forces in favor of representative government aren't as authentic to Kerry as "religious leaders, mullahs, imams, clerics." This is the old White Man's Burden in its new multicultural leftist disguise, the "bigotry of soft expectations" which Bush nailed during his acceptance speech.

So if you want to know what Kerry would do if elected, here you go:

He would begin, if sworn into office, by going immediately to the United Nations to deliver a speech recasting American foreign policy. Whereas Bush has branded North Korea ''evil'' and refuses to negotiate head on with its authoritarian regime, Kerry would open bilateral talks over its burgeoning nuclear program.

(He has yet to make a case for why bilateral talks are better.)

Similarly, he has said he would rally other nations behind sanctions against Iran if that country refuses to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Earth to John: It's being done.

Kerry envisions appointing a top-level envoy to restart the Middle East peace process.

Oh great. Just when we were beginning to see results from denying the intifada any legitimacy, you are going to start another "peace process" and perk it up. John, before you repeat Clinton's mistakes, sit down and let him tell you how Arafat made him a failure, okay?

(One place where Kerry vows to take a harder line than Bush is Pakistan, where Bush has embraced the military ruler Pervez Musharraf, and where Kerry sees a haven for chaos in the vast and lawless region on the border with Afghanistan.)

No, John, you have it backwards, you fool. Musharraf - flawed as he is - is our bulwark against terrorist proliferation in the region. All his rivals are much worse, and if we withdraw support from Musharraf they will take him out. You want to see terrorism get a new boost in Afganistan and Pakistan start waving its nukes around like Iran, that's the way to go.

So Kerry is ripe to be taken for a ride by every manipulative diplomat or dictator who thinks "fresh meat" when he sees an idealistic gullible American coming, and will shortsightedly sell out useful allies who aren't romantically Third World enough (my guess at why Musharraf is worse than all the mullahs and clerics Kerry does want to deal with).

Finnpundit (scroll down almost to the end):

The one particular fact that galls me about Kerry is that he actually believes France and Germany are going to be willing allies. As a European-born American, I cringe every time I hear him talk about this. Even in Finland - a very anti-Bush country, I'm afraid - people easily see that France and Germany have an inherently hostile agenda to US interests, which existed way before Bush was in office. Kerry's naivete is inexcusable. He will be just like the lamb Jimmy Carter was, when he went to his first meeting with Brezhnev (If you'll recall, that meeting convinced Brezhnev the US will do nothing if the Soviets invaded Afghanistan).

The US president must be strong. He cannot flip-flop. And he cannot listen to Europeans who don't contribute in any major way. And he ESPECIALLY should not be listening to France.

(The article approvingly cites the Kerry-McCain MIA-POW project, although there are still accusations floating around that the two agreed to write off some POWs to close the deal, and the reporter also homes in on Kerry's discomfort with the press, which I won't quote here, but read the whole thing.)

Mark Steyn:. . .

"The truth of that matter," said Bush, "is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he [Kerry] were the President of the United States."

Kerry replied: "Not necessarily."

That's John Kerry: the "not necessarily" candidate. Saddam might not necessarily be in power. He might have been hit by the Number 37 bus while crossing the street at the intersection of Saddam Hussein Boulevard and Saddam Hussein Parkway in downtown Tikrit. He might have put his back out with one of his more vigorous concubines and been forced to hand over to Uday or Qusay. He might have stiffed Chirac in some backdoor deal and been taken out by some anthrax-laced Quality Street planted by an elite French commando unit.

But, on the other hand, not necessarily. That's the difference: Bush believes America needs to shape events in the world; Kerry doesn't and, even if he did, because he doesn't know how he'd want to shape them the events would end up shaping him. There would be lots of discussion. Frenchmen would be involved. And, in the end, President Kerry could claim that however things turned out was what he wanted all along because, on Saddam and Iran and North Korea and a whole lot more, who the hell can say with confidence what Kerry wants anyway? How it would all turn out is anybody's guess. And on November 2 America won't be in a mood to vote for a guess.

Kerry's fans are those who are uneasy with the idea of America shaping events. They don't want an excitable George Bush overrruling Charles Gibson, or the UN. It's unfair, somehow. It's bullying. It's imperialistic. They want a cool, infinitely nuanced John Kerry, who knows how to bullshit his way through international summits without shaping any events.