KERRY WOULDN'T HAVE LIBERATED IRAQ, BUT THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT

By the way, as a side point, I haven't undergone any great conversion to Jeffersonian principles in my endorsement of Kerry over Bush. I am still quite queasy about Kerry's willingness to err too much against the use of military force in the war on terror. But I am getting a bit tired of reading pundits who seek to define this election as fundamental clash of ideas with respect to the War on Terror. If it were that simple, I'd be voting for Bush, whose abstract positions on the use of military force and the role of democratization in combatting terror I agree with far more than those of Kerry. But an election is not simply a referendum on a competing set of ideas - it is also about the people who are charged with executing their visions. And after 4 years it is obvious that Bush and the people around are both disingenuous about many the values they advocate, incompetant in translating these values into productive policy on the ground or both.


So the question isn't is the world safer without Saddam in power, which noone seriously disputes. Nor is the question either is the world safer with Saddam no longer in power through Bush's war in which the candidates vigorously disagree about. The real question is who is going to manage the mess we're in at the present for the next for years? The answer for me is Kerry. Kerry may not advance the strategy of defeating terror through expanding freedom in the Islamic world - but at least he won't like Bush has, through his strong embrace and weak execution of these ideas - discredit it.

IS KERRY FINALLY IN THE GAME?

If Kerry does go on to win this fall, I believe yesterday's speech on Iraq will be seen as a turning point for his campaign. For the first time since his convention acceptance speech, Kerry was clear and crisp, outlining his differences with the President unencumbered by his usual mountain of obfuscatory verbiage. On top of that he actual offered something resembling a policy to boot. The key section, in which Kerry offers a devastating critque of the Bush administration's failed assumption about Iraq was quoted by Andrew Sullivan yesterday. However, it a phrase Kerry used later in the speech to apply to Bush - stubborn incomptence - that I believe is the one that gives him the best opportunity to crack Bush's so far impregnable reputation on national security.


First, because Bush's Iraq policy has been stubborn & incompetent. Kerry reeled off some of the clearest examples of Bush's incompetence - failure to adequately train Iraqi soldiers, the inability to utilize the overwhelming majority of the reconstruction money. (To that I would add the collassal moral and strategic failue at Abu Ghraib, which Kerry needs to highlight more). In each case, Bush has stubbornly continued to deny the existance of any problems nor hold anyone accountable.


Second - labeling Bush as "stubborn" is effective political jujitsu. The public's perception of Bush after months of well-honed message form the Bush camp is that he is a decisive and steadfast leader. Rather than fighting against the pre-disposition, "stubborn incompetence" exploits it. There is fine line between steadfast and stubborn and Kerry has the very doable task of pushing the perception of Bush over that line. Bush doesn't swerve from his chosen path, but he's driving us off a cliff. This metaphor needs to pounded home ad nauseum.


Third, making the election about Bush's "incomptence" frames the election on the ground least favorable to Bush and most favorable to Kerry. The core vulnerability for Bush is the yawning chasm between his rhetoric and his real accomplishments. Kerry needs to drag Bush into the muck of the details of the last four years, and not let him retreat to platitudes. (here Edwards could be very effective, complementing Bush on his good intentions but sticking the knife in on his failed execution). The Bush administrations glib excuses for their failures "freedom's messy", "war is unpredictable" don't wear well. In contrast, while Kerry fails repeatedly at being stirring, he should be able to market himself as stable and competent.


Kerry has finally found a message that could win the election. Whether he sticks to it is another question.