Kerry finds freedom by taking a firm stand on Iraq: Democratic contender manifests new conviction on campaign trail after grasping election's big issue, reports Joshua Chaffin

Wednesday, Sep 22, 2004

When John Kerry travels to the University of Miami on September 30 for a potentially pivotal presidential debate, he will be attending as the antiwar candidate.

Mr Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president, marked a watershed moment in this election when he said on Monday that he would not have invaded Iraq had he known that Saddam Hussein possessed neither weapons of mass destruction nor ties to al-Qaeda.

Those comments were a resounding statement on Iraq from a candidate who has grappled throughout his campaign to express his position on the first pre-emptive war launched by the US - and the dominant issue of this election.

Nearly two years ago Mr Kerry voted in favour of giving President George W. Bush the authority to go to war and, last year, during the Democratic primary races, scolded Howard Dean, the Vermont governor, for suggesting the country was not safer with Mr Hussein removed from power.

At a news conference yesterday Mr Kerry defended himself against claims that he had been inconsistent, insisting: "I have one position on Iraq. One position."

The Democratic challenger said he had always maintained that the world would be better off without Mr Hussein. The question was how the dictator's removal was managed. On that count, he said, Mr Bush and his administration had proved "incompetent".

As Mr Bush met world leaders at the United Nations, Mr Kerry also continued to assail the president over Iraq.

"The president really has no credibility at this point," he said, arguing that Mr Bush had failed to level with the world on the deterioration in Iraq. "He has no credibility with world leaders."

For months Mr Kerry had been touring the country, speaking to voters on the economy and healthcare. His strategists seemed to be abiding by the wisdom that US elections turn on pocketbook issues, not foreign policy. That approach also seemed defensible since Mr Kerry had struggled to differentiate himself on a war he had publicly supported.

But over the past three weeks Mr Kerry has begun to acknowledge the dominance of Iraq in this election amid mounting US casualties and a bloody insurgency that commanded voters' attention. At a speech in Nashville he criticised the president's handling of the war and then launched his most expansive and blistering critique on Monday.

The senator's indictment was bolstered by prominent members of Mr Bush's party - including Senators Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel and John McCain - who criticised the administration's performance in Iraq over the weekend. It was made more poignant since it was preceded by an especially bloody week, in which more than 300 people were killed, and followed by the news on Monday that another American contractor had been beheaded. For the moment, staking out a clear position on Iraq seems to have liberated Mr Kerry. In an effort to appear "upbeat" and "optimistic", the Massachusetts senator had displayed the awkward charisma of Al Gore on the campaign trail while parsing words on Iraq.

Over the past two days he has demonstrated the conviction of the Vietnam veteran who led protests against that war and the incisiveness of the senator who led investigations into Iran-Contra and other scandals. Republicans, however, say they welcome the prospect of debating the war with Mr Kerry. The president's advantage on the issue has widened dramatically in recent months as he has managed to fuse Mr Hussein's removal in voters' minds with the war on terrorism. A Newsweek poll, for example, found voters evenly divided on July 29 over which candidate they would prefer to handle Iraq. Two weeks ago the margin had grown to 18 percentage points in Mr Bush's favour.

It is unclear whether the four-point plan Mr Kerry put forward to improve Iraq will pass muster with voters. The ideas revolve around increasing international support, something that would be difficult to achieve in a meaningful way.

Finally, Mr Kerry will have to explain the evolution of his Iraq position during the presidential debate and why he is now clearly opposing a war he once voted to support.

"My vote was a vote to do this the right way and, had I been president, we would have," Mr Kerry said yesterday, beginning his defence.

As the candidate himself said on Monday: "We must have a great honest national debate on Iraq." Editorial Comment, Page 12 Observer, Page 12

By JOSHUA CHAFFIN