The Democratic nominee is making sense regarding WMDs:

"The enemy is different and we must think and act anew," Kerry said in excerpts of remarks prepared for delivery in West Palm Beach, Florida. "We have to do everything we can to stop a nuclear weapon from ever reaching our shore and that mission begins far away."

...

"The greatest threat we face today (is) the possibility of al Qaeda or other terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon," Kerry said. "Osama bin Laden has called obtaining a weapon of mass destruction a 'sacred duty."'

He might be relieved to know that three rogue nations have recently given up on procuring or manufacturing nuclear weapons. (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya)

Although no one would question his desire to protect the United States, some might have a problem with this:

Kerry has criticized President Bush for refusing to hold bilateral negotiations with North Korea. He has said he would adopt a two-track policy of continuing the six-party talks that include Russia, Japan, China and South Korea while also holding direct discussions with Pyongyang.

It is not that I completely disagree with the idea, but wouldn't such an action be considered unilateral?