HOW HE SEES IT Kerry makes a call to action

By MARTIN SCHRAM
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
Campaign 2004 is under way, at last. It began for real last Monday, when John Kerry searched within, maybe reached out, and finally came up with the one thing he has seemed to lack for all these months:
A national security conceptual framework.
A firm foundation and intellectual scaffolding that enabled him to clearly define, carefully frame and boldly explain just what he really believes about the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
In a speech at New York University, carefully timed for the day before President Bush's address to the United Nations, the Democratic presidential nominee emerged from his own senatorially nuanced cocoon and gave Americans a campaign gift we desperately needed: a real choice.
For the first time, Kerry made clear his real, substantive national security differences with Bush. Kerry forged his new conceptual framework by fusing bold themes that together are a powerful indictment of Bush's leadership failures that have left Americans less safe than ever after 9/11.
(Whether Kerry's bold framework is seen as new stuff or old stuff may be in the eye of the beholder.)
All-out effort
Consider Kerry's newly fused indictment of Bush's leadership failures and the actions he's urging Bush to take, right now: "The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al-Qaida or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon." Kerry pledged America's all-out effort to prevent that. Bush has given it lip service but little action.
"Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." Exactly. And now we're threatened anew. "The president has failed to level with the American people." Bush assures us "the Iraqi people have their country back;" but his official intelligence estimate tells a different story. And the daily casualty totals are sharply increasing monthly.
"[Bush's] two main rationales [for invading Iraq] -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al-Qaida/September 11 connection -- have been proved false ... by the president's own weapons inspectors ... and by the 9/11 Commission."
"The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. ... He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion." A general and economic adviser who told us the truth were fired.
"Our credibility in the world has plummeted."
In Afghanistan, "instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11th in order to invade Iraq. ... I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden."
Kerry didn't add -- but should have -- that if Bush had rushed 130,000 troops to Afghanistan, where there were only 6,000 U.S. troops, instead of Iraq, they'd have crushed Al-Qaida by now and probably captured bin Laden. And we wouldn't be under the high state of alert today, with officials warning of a new Al-Qaida attack on our homeland.
Same-old ridicule
Kerry called on Bush to convene a summit of the world's major nations in New York City and be prepared to promise leaders their countries will be free to bid on Iraq's oil resources. Also, to "get serious about training Iraqi security forces" -- where not one policeman has completed a 24-week training program. Bush's response was the same-old ridicule of Kerry.
The day before Kerry spoke, Bush's flailing and failing Iraq policy was sharply criticized by three prominent senators who urged a new course. They were not Democrats, but straight-talking Republicans: Dick Lugar of Indiana, John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Politically, they must still publicly stand with their party's commander in chief. But I believe that, deep down, all three privately agree with Kerry's pointed critique and urgent call for action.
In another era, they'd be forging a fusion presidency, a bipartisan team to lead America to a safer tomorrow. Privately, they may prefer Kerry over Bush; but don't hold your breath waiting to hear that. At least they have the courage to speak their impolitic policy convictions. It's a campaign equivalent of walking a political tightrope.
XSchram writes political analysis for Scripps Howard News Service.