In a new television interview, Bush discussed the inability to ever be 100% effective in preventing terrorism in the US:

Bush acknowledged that the United States would be vulnerable to another terrorist attack "because we have to be right 100 percent of the time in disrupting any plot and they have to be right once," he said in the Fox News Channel interview set to air tonight.

He said the nation is safer from terrorism, but "whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up - you know, up in the air."

That's a fairly realistic assessment of the threat of terrorism, isn't it? Wouldn't it be more political to say that you could protect every American 100%, and that there would be no terrorist acts on your watch? Doesn't this demonstrate a realistic understanding of the issue?

So what was Kerry's response:

Kerry said yesterday that Bush's "moment of candor" then and now illustrates Bush's failed approach to terrorism.

"Let me tell you something, ladies and gentlemen: You make me president of the United States, we're going to win the war on terror. It's not going to be up in the air whether we make America safe," Kerry said at a rally at Florida Atlantic University here.

Which of course isn't what Bush was saying. He wasn't saying he wasn't going to make America safe. He was saying that preventing 100% of all terrorist attacks is probably impossible.

By mocking Bush's statement, Kerry seems to be implying that all terrorist acts are preventable.

Is that a bit out of touch with reality?