FULTON, Mo., April 30 -- Despite President Bush's failure to find weapons of mass destruction and end the bloodshed in Iraq, John F. Kerry is struggling to present himself as a stronger foreign policy leader who offers voters an exit strategy significantly different from the president's.
The senator from Massachusetts has had only limited, if any, success in capitalizing politically on Bush's national security setbacks and articulating a clear foreign policy alternative for November, according to polls, focus groups and strategists from both parties.
Kerry, who voted for the congressional authorization of the war in October 2002 but quickly became a critic of Bush's Iraq policy, sounded a lot like the president Friday in cautioning against retreat and calling for a continued U.S. lead in securing the region. "We must lead a broad coalition against our adversaries, and we must be a beacon of values as well as strength," the Democratic candidate said in a speech at Westminster College.
Bush, deftly using the power of the bully pulpit, has boxed Kerry out by essentially adopting the more multilateral approach his rival has favored for two years. "It's a message the president has adopted slowly and in pieces," said Rand Beers, Kerry's national security adviser. "Bush is copying Kerry."
There are several areas where Bush's and Kerry's positions have begun to merge. Kerry called for increased NATO involvement the same week Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the European press that he hoped that NATO, when it meets in June, would agree to play a role in Iraq. Moreover, Bush has moved in recent weeks to provide the United Nations with a larger role in governing and in the effort to rebuild Iraqi security forces. Both Bush and Kerry support providing more U.S. troops if needed.
"We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice to just pick up, leave," Kerry said Friday.
The differences Kerry spelled out here and in other forums are mostly at the margins. His biggest complaint is Bush's failure to bring in other countries to help patrol and manage Iraq at the beginning . The one new change Kerry called for Friday was the appointment of an international "high commissioner" authorized by the United Nations to organize the political transition and reconstruction efforts.
After the president of Westminster College rebuked Vice President Cheney for attacking Kerry in what had been billed as a policy address, Kerry was invited to speak at the same forum. Kerry's remarks were less partisan and political.
Kerry dropped many of his usual pointed references to the president's failures and insisted that the one-year anniversary of "Mission Accomplished" is not a time for politics. (He referred to the banner that flew for Bush's landing on an aircraft carrier.) He did fault Bush for endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers by failing to adequately equip them and failing to ease their burden by bringing in more foreign troops.
"This anniversary is not a time to shout, not a time to blame," he said. "It is a time for a new direction."
Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said: "John Kerry's speech on Iraq today neglected to offer any new ideas or credible alternative to the American people. . . . His rhetoric simply echoes the policies the administration is already implementing, while offering nothing but criticism."
The presidential debate over where the country goes from here is proving politically problematic for the Democratic challenger in an election campaign dominated by war and terrorism.
Kerry's message of military experience and strength has not penetrated the minds of many voters, according to Democratic and GOP strategists. A top Kerry adviser who did not want to be named while discussing internal deliberations said he was surprised when the campaign's focus groups found a large number of voters were generally unaware of Kerry's record of military service and experience on international matters. The campaign is planning to run new ads highlighting Kerry's experience.
"I think what the Kerry campaign has got to do is understand that you don't have to get down in the weeds with these people. I think Kerry ought to have a simple declarative sentence: 'I served two tours in Vietnam,' " Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said.
Despite continuing bad news in Iraq from bloody fighting in Fallujah to a rise in American deaths in April, Bush is still viewed as a stronger national security figure than Kerry and more trusted to complete the job in Iraq, according to polls. A mid-April poll by The Washington Post and ABC News found a majority of voters disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq, yet the president had an 11-point edge when voters were asked which candidate they trusted most to handle the issue.
Kerry's 19-year Senate career has provided ammunition for the Bush campaign forces and complicated his attempts to bring clarity to his national security message. Consider Iraq: He voted against going to war in 1991, then supported President Bill Clinton's tough approach with Saddam Hussein in 1997 and voted to authorize this war only to emerge as a critic of it. Kerry offers a nuanced position that is hard to explain in sound bites or short TV ads.
The Bush campaign has been pounding Kerry on national security with millions of dollars in television ads, including a new spot that attacks the senator for voting to eliminate weapons programs. Bush has been relentless in portraying Kerry as an inconsistent politician who cannot be trusted to lead the nation in a time of terrorism. Kerry often focuses on issues such as his service in Vietnam and commitment to veterans and, in recent days, he questioned whether Bush fulfilled his National Guard duties in the 1970s. But the GOP has called Kerry's service into question, including raising doubts about whether he deserved his first Purple Heart for a minor wound. A few days later, Republicans hit Kerry on whether he threw away his war ribbons to protest the war after his tour in Vietnam was over. The GOP goal is clear: Paint Kerry as inconsistent and calculating and keep the campaign focused on national security.
Staff writer Charles Babington and Peter Slevin and researcher Lucy Shackelford in Washington contributed to this report.
