Yes, it has to do with Iraq. And no, it is not that his Democratic challenger will necessarily do things differently. After all, many of the initial Bushisms on foreign policy and Iraq have now been reversed, and the new United Nations resolution on Iraq suggests the mission is finally becoming international. The latest American effort in the Security Council was actually a show of skill in seeking and reaching a compromise. The Europeans were pleased; Iraqis (some) also.

So is Bush evolving into a new multi-lateralist, like his father was? Not really. That's why Kerry has such a good chance at winning the November elections. Iraq at this point is not just a nation-building operation gone sour; it has turned into an embarrassment for the American nation. It's difficult to imagine that the post-war efforts in rebuilding Iraq could have been planned any worse.

Need proof? Consider the raging insecurity; systematic human rights (prisoners' rights) abuses; lack of any effective government structure (let alone a political process that would even as much as resemble democracy); lack of a grand vision for the Middle East reforms; no real exit strategy, and no understanding of the cultural, religious and ethnic complexities of a country like Iraq.

At the same time, the Bush administration thinks it has nothing to answer for. It is as though nobody should be held accountable for what arguably were two of the biggest intelligence failures since the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Not Rumsfeld, not Cheney, not Wolfowitz; except maybe George Tenet.

He was the only one who was serious about international terrorism and the Al Qaida network well before 9/11, but together with Richard Clarke, the terrorism expert and the author of "Against All Enemies", was silenced by the neo-conservative lobby obsessed with Iraq and state-sponsored terrorism.

Nexus

The claim that there is a nexus between rouge states and international terrorism is not entirely untrue. It just happened that it was untrue in the case of Saddam and Al Qaida; which again, is not to say that Saddam should not have been removed from power – one way or another.

So much failed policy followed by so little acceptance of responsibility! John Kerry would be well served by making a point out of this. Tenet's resignation is not sufficient – even inappropriate, given that he's become a scapegoat for an administration obviously uninterested in major changes in the way it conducts its business. The CIA must be reformed; in fact the entire US intelligence apparatus needs to reformed in order to better address security threats in the 21st Century. But cosmetic upgrade - which is what Bush is planning - will not do.

Bush also has a problem in the Republican Party. Iraq has managed to split the Republicans who, traditionally, have always stood united behind their candidate. Many centrist Republicans are now deciding that supporting this president entails too much risk. In this sense, Bush has evolved into a political liability, even for members of his own party.

The Democrats on the other hand, are unanimously backing Kerry on economics, social tolerance and the role of America in the world. Indeed, the future of the Iraqi occupation may be a splitting factor for this political camp as well. But for now, the doves seem satisfied with the fact that Kerry would not have pushed America down this path in the first place.

The money is no longer that big an issue either; though the Republicans continue collecting cheques and increasing their spending pile. Kerry, thanks mainly to the help of techno-savvy Howard Dean, is closing this gap. The days of lavish Republican campaign spending may be over, forever.

What this election will come down to is: can Bush convince the American public that he would act differently if, tomorrow, he was confronted with the same circumstances? The answer is probably no, particularly if we consider that the President will not substantially alter his team – except for Tenet who was always more concerned about Al Qaida than Iraq, and who has already resigned, and Colin Powell who was always more international then unilateral, and who has already said he would be stepping down at the end of this term.

Economic prosperity

This is an ideologically-driven administration, which attests to spreading democracy, freedom and economic prosperity throughout the Middle East, but has no idea on how to go about doing this. (Maybe they simply don't care enough).

The polls show that the American public no longer feels Bush is doing a good job in Iraq, or in securing America - which in fact are (were) two of his campaign strong points.

The question is can the voters be convinced that Kerry will do a better job? A no confidence vote for Bush is still not the same as a yes vote for Kerry. But let's wait and watch. American voters still have five months to decide.

Borut Grgic is non-resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, Washington D.C. and a co-founder of ONAMICS consulting.

www.gulfnews.com