>Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B06
>
>EXPERTS TELL US that most voters have had no difficulty making up their 
>minds in this year's presidential election. Half the nation is 
>passionately for George W. Bush, the pollsters say, and half passionately 
>for John F. Kerry -- or, at least, passionately against Mr. Bush. We have 
>not been able to share in this passion, nor in the certainty. As readers 
>of this page know, we find much to criticize in Mr. Bush's term but also 
>more than a few things to admire. We find much to admire in Mr. Kerry's 
>life of service, knowledge of the world and positions on a range of issues 
>-- but also some things that give us pause. On balance, though, we believe 
>Mr. Kerry, with his promise of resoluteness tempered by wisdom and 
>open-mindedness, has staked a stronger claim on the nation's trust to lead 
>for the next four years.
>
>The balancing process begins, as reelection campaigns must, with the 
>incumbent. His record, particularly in foreign affairs, can't be judged 
>with a simple aye or nay. President Bush rallied the nation after Sept. 
>11, 2001, and reshaped his own world view. His commitment to a long-term 
>struggle to promote freedom in the Arab world reflects an understanding of 
>the deep threat posed by radical Islamic fundamentalism. His actions have 
>not always matched his stirring rhetoric on the subject, and setbacks to 
>democracy in other parts of the world (notably Russia) appear not to have 
>troubled him much.
>
>But Mr. Bush has accomplished more than his critics acknowledge, both in 
>the practical business of forming alliances to track terrorists and in 
>beginning to reshape a Middle East policy too long centered on 
>accommodating friendly dictators. He has promised the large increases in 
>foreign aid, to help poor nations cope with AIDS and for other purposes, 
>that we believe are essential.
>
>The campaign that Mr. Bush led to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan seems 
>easy and obvious in retrospect, but at the time many people warned of 
>imminent quagmire. Mr. Bush wasted valuable time with his initial 
>determination to avoid nation-building after Kabul fell and his drawdown 
>of U.S. forces. But even so, Afghanistan today is far from the failure 
>that Mr. Kerry portrays. Afghans and U.S. security alike are better off 
>thanks to the intervention.
>
>In Iraq, we do not fault Mr. Bush for believing, as President Clinton 
>before him believed, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass 
>destruction. We supported the war and believed that the Iraqi dictator 
>posed a challenge that had to be faced; we continue to believe that the 
>U.S. mission to promote a representative government in Iraq has a chance 
>to leave the United States safer and the Iraqis far better off than they 
>were under their murderous dictator.
>
>We do, however, fault Mr. Bush for exaggerating to the public the 
>intelligence given him privately and for alienating allies unnecessarily. 
>Above all, we fault him for ignoring advice to better prepare for postwar 
>reconstruction. The damage caused by that willful indifference is 
>incalculable. There is no guarantee that Iraq would be more peaceful today 
>if U.S. forces had prevented postwar looting, secured arms depots, 
>welcomed international involvement and transferred authority to Iraqis 
>more quickly. But the chances of success would have been higher. Yet the 
>administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its 
>disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal in 
>both Iraq and Afghanistan that has diminished for years, if not decades, 
>the United States' image and influence abroad. In much of the world, in 
>fact, U.S. prestige is at a historic low, partly because of the 
>president's high-handed approach to allies on issues ranging far beyond Iraq.
>
>These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his 
>failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his 
>unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are 
>dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They 
>are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials 
>accountable for theirs.
>
>ON THE DOMESTIC side, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in the House have 
>governed as heavy-handed partisans. We applaud Mr. Bush's campaign to 
>promote accountability in elementary and secondary schools, and some of 
>his other ideas may sound attractive as well: a degree of privatization to 
>give people more control over their retirement funds, individual health 
>accounts that might better match the mobile 21st-century world of work, 
>market incentives to reduce pollution. But he has failed to do the hard 
>work to turn such ideas from slogans into fair and balanced programs, and 
>he has never said how he would pay for them, as in the case of Social 
>Security private accounts.
>
>Which brings us to his reckless fiscal policy. Mr. Bush inherited a budget 
>in surplus but facing strains in the long run as retiring baby boomers 
>intensify their claims on the nation's resources for pensions and health 
>care. A recession that was gathering as he took office, and the economic 
>blow delivered by the Sept. 11 attacks, would have turned surplus into 
>deficit under the best of circumstances.
>
>But Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to 
>record levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic 
>stimulus and that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on 
>the Treasury from the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made 
>permanent; no one, no matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush's 
>rationales have shifted, but his prescription -- tax cuts -- has remained 
>constant, no matter what the cost to future generations. The resulting 
>fiscal deficit has dragged down the national savings rate, leaving the 
>country dependent upon foreigners for capital in an unsustainable way. Mr. 
>Bush says the answer lies in spending discipline, but he has shown none 
>himself; see, for example, the disgusting farm subsidies he signed into law.
>
>In 2000, Mr. Bush justifiably criticized his predecessor for failing to 
>deal with the looming problems of Social Security and Medicare. In office, 
>though, he has been equally delinquent, even as the day of reckoning drew 
>closer. He championed a huge new entitlement for Medicare without 
>insisting on the cost-cutting reforms that everyone knows are needed.
>
>SO MR. BUSH HAS not earned a second term. But there is a second question: 
>Has the challenger made his case? Here's why we say yes.
>
>Mr. Kerry, like Mr. Bush, offers no plan to cope with retirement and 
>health costs, but he promises more fiscal realism. He sensibly proposes to 
>reverse Mr. Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest and pledges to scale back 
>his own spending proposals if funds don't suffice. He would seek to 
>restore budget discipline rules that helped get deficits under control in 
>the 1990s.
>
>On many other issues, Mr. Kerry has the better approach. He has a workable 
>plan to provide health insurance to more Americans; the 45 million 
>uninsured represent a shameful abdication that appears not to have 
>concerned Mr. Bush one whit. Where Mr. Bush ignored the dangers of climate 
>change and favored industry at the expense of clean air and water, Mr. 
>Kerry is a longtime and thoughtful champion of environmental protection. 
>Mr. Bush played politics with the Constitution, as Mr. Kerry would not, by 
>endorsing an amendment to ban gay marriage. Mr. Kerry has pledged to 
>follow the Geneva Conventions abroad and respect civil liberties at home. 
>A Kerry judiciary -- and the next president is likely to make a 
>significant mark on the Supreme Court -- would be more hospitable to civil 
>rights, abortion rights and the right to privacy.
>
>None of these issues would bring us to vote for Mr. Kerry if he were less 
>likely than Mr. Bush to keep the nation safe. But we believe the 
>challenger is well equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. 
>Kerry brings a résumé that unarguably has prepared him for high office. He 
>understood early on the dangers of non-state actors such as al Qaeda. To 
>pave the way for restored relations with Vietnam in the 1990s, he took on 
>the thankless and politically risky task of convincing relatives that no 
>American prisoners remained in Southeast Asia. While he wrongly opposed 
>the first Persian Gulf War, he supported the use of American force in 
>Bosnia and Kosovo.
>
>As with Mr. Bush, some of Mr. Kerry's strengths strike us as potential 
>weaknesses. The senator is far more likely than Mr. Bush to seek a range 
>of opinions before making a decision -- but is he decisive enough? He 
>understands the importance of allies and of burnishing America's image -- 
>but would he be too reluctant to give offense? His Senate record suggests 
>an understanding of the importance of open markets, but during the 
>campaign he has retreated to protectionist rhetoric that is troubling in 
>its own right and as a possible indicator of inconstancy.
>
>We have been dismayed most of all by Mr. Kerry's zigzags on Iraq, such as 
>his swervings on whether Saddam Hussein presented a threat. As Mr. Bush 
>charges, Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a "diversion" does not 
>inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry 
>has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq, and we believe a 
>Kerry administration would be better able to tackle the formidable 
>nation-building tasks that remain there. Mr. Kerry echoes the Bush goals 
>of an elected Iraqi government and a well-trained Iraqi force to defend it 
>but argues that he could implement the strategy more effectively.
>
>Mr. Kerry understands that the biggest threat to U.S. security comes from 
>terrorists wielding nuclear or biological weapons. He pledges to add two 
>divisions to the U.S. Army; try harder to secure nuclear weapons and 
>materials around the world, and improve U.S. preparations for a 
>bioterrorism attack. There is no way to know whether he would be more 
>successful than Mr. Bush in slowing North Korea's and Iran's march toward 
>becoming nuclear-armed states, but he attaches the right priority to both 
>problems. He is correct that those challenges, like the 
>Israeli-Palestinian conflict, call for the kind of sustained diplomacy 
>that has been missing for four years. We hope he would be firmer than Mr. 
>Bush in standing up to the genocide unfolding in Sudan.
>
>We do not view a vote for Mr. Kerry as a vote without risks. But the risks 
>on the other side are well known, and the strengths Mr. Kerry brings are 
>considerable. He pledges both to fight in Iraq and to reach out to allies; 
>to hunt down terrorists, and to engage without arrogance the Islamic 
>world. These are the right goals, and we think Mr. Kerry is the better bet 
>to achieve them.
></blockquote></x-html>