As we've seen throughout the campaign, Bush has three tactics in answering any questions on Iraq. One, change it to an attack on Kerry's "flip-flop". If that doesn't work, then it's the canard about how the Iraqi people love freedom and we must not waver. And if the questioner persists, the final trump card is: "The world is safer without Saddam in power."
You can be sure he'll repeat this line over and over during the debates, challenging Kerry to answer whether he'd prefer to have Saddam in power every chance he gets.
How should Kerry answer? Has Kerry's answers thus far worked?
Two weeks ago, Kerry kept working the 200 billion that could be spend at home theme. I think that's fairly weak, since that cost might be acceptable to Americans if the Invasion of Iraq did in fact make Americans safer.
His new Iraq frame is much better, and it has the added benefit of being right. And with a stronger anti-Iraq Invasion position, Kerry can finally re-frame the "world is safer without Saddam in power" question to his advantage:
"Instead of blundering in Iraq, I would've devoted America's resources to taking out Osama bin Laden and making sure North Korea and Iraq aren't developing nuclear weapons. They were more dangerous than Saddam before the Invasion, and they've gotten more dangerous because of this Administration's incompetence. I would've used the rest of $200 billion to secure the homeland."
Kerry must keep attacking Iraq in terms opportunity costs, but use simple language in doing so. Basically the idea is this: Bush went to knock out a madman with a pellet gun, while other madmen are busy developing nuclear weapons. That makes America less safe. He can add details in as appropriate (Kerry can cite (1) the NIE findings; (2) David Kay's assessment of Iraq's war capabilities; (3) any number of think tank reports on the dire state of homeland security.).
The danger here is that Bush pulls out Osama's severed head during the last debate. But even then, Kerry can say he would've caught Osama sooner -- and in any case, it would be game over whatever Kerry said during the campaign anyway. But if (god forbid) the terrorists do attack before the election, Kerry frame will pin the blame squarely on Bush's failure to destroy al Qaeda and secure the homeland.
It's good politics, and the frame would again have the added virtue of being right on the merits.