Iraq issue dominated the debate though Home Land security also came up at the end. On Iraq, Kerry remained on the offensive saying 'this President' made a "colossal error of judgement" in invading Iraq without proper UN approval, without the support of the US allies and without a 'plan for wining the peace'. The war was authorised only as a last resort. Bush, however, said he had a 30-country coalition with the UK and Poland contributing substantial number of troops. But Kerry retorted by saying America has 90% of troops and is going to bear 90% cost of the war.

When Bush said we were attacked; so we had to do what was necessary to protect America.. Kerry corrected Bush by saying that Saddam Hussein did not attack us. 'Bin Laden attacked us, Al-Qaida attacked us'. Bush looked embarrassed and he said somewhat angrily that 'yes I know Bin Laden attacked us, I know Bin Laden attacked us. He did not elaborate on this as indeed he had nothing else to say.

Bush accused Kerry of wavering on Iraq issue and playing an inconsistent role on the Iraq issue starting from voting to authorise Iraq war but not supporting $ 87b Iraq war funding. Kerry replied apparently humbly accepting his fault. He said ' I made mistakes in talking about Iraq, but President made mistakes in invading Iraq - which one was worse?' Kerry said for President Bush it was a wrong choice at a wrong time and at a wrong place.

Bush was on the offensive and said Kerry, in the Senate, saw the same intelligence that I saw. Kerry could, however, defend himself still better by saying that he acted and supported Iraq resolution on the intelligence which was wrong and it was the responsibility of the President to produce the correct and varifiable intelligence as it was he who was in control of all the sources of intelligece. He could also refer to Dick Cheney's reported unscheduled visits to the CIA HQ while these intelligence reports were being prepared. Indeed, later CIA Director had to resign on intelligence issue and the 9/11 Commission bitterly criticised the Intelligence agencies for their failures.

It was interesting that both agreed that Saddam was a "threat". Obviously both had Israel in mind. But the world knows that Saddam was never a threat to the USA. Saddam was not even a threat to Israel; he could at best be a nuisance to Israel. Therefore, when the issue of Israel comes, both are in agreement. It is understandable that both wanted to have support of the Jewish voters and there lies the foreign policy problem of the US.

Kerry appeared to be a multilateralist though he supported pre-emptive attacks in case America's security was in danger. But he said he would go for international support on such actions and see that our actions pass the "global test". Here Bush said that decision on American security could never be handed over to another country.

On his exit strategy Kerry said he would have the US allies on board, have summit with the leaders of the Muslim/ Arab world and have the UN involved in the process. It should not be seen as just America's affair with oil interest as it is now. America is seen as an occupier; there are reports that America has already started establishing 14 military bases in the region. These were Kerry's candid remarks which appear to be the concern also of most of the countries of the region.

America needs to change the leader as the mess created by Bush could not obviously be cleared by Bush himself. The concerned countries in the region including the US allies do not trust President Bush. The latest poll shows that the world in general would look for a change in the White House. Kerry being new with his new plan and exit strategy may work well. Of course, the spoils of the war and the politics of the region wouild have to be shared by paricipating countries. Now it is one sided.

Yad Alawi, a former CIA man ( he himself declared it), and his associates in the Interim government have no credibility among the Iraqis. Practically all of them had link with the US authorities earlier and America supported them with bread and butter. they are all handpicked people of the Bush Administration. They can not deliver anything whatever Alawi may say. Bush Administration made a huge mistake by accepting their version of events in Iraq including WMD.

Now the events are beyond America's control. Indeed, fresh war has started as helicopters are now being used to bomb the different areas of Iraq. Alawi's interim government and Bush Administration say they are bombing the "insurgents and terrorists" hide outs though women and children are being killed. Who are the insurgents and terrorists? Are the Iraqis ( leave aside small number of outsiders) who are fighting the occupation of their country the insurgents and terrorists? We have been urging the UN for long time to give an acceptable definition of terrorists so that the global war on terrorism could be participated by many countries as terrrorism has been a problem around the world even before 9/11. Now Bush Administration's attack on Iraq has made the situation worse; terrorism has spread like a wild fire in many parts of the world. This needs to be controlled if can not be totally irradicated. And here lies the justification for a change in the US Administration. We being the outsiders have nothing against President Bush. Indeed, world demand is there for a change. May be, the fresh Hand in the White House would be able to gain support of the UN and the world community as a whole, which is needed to restore peace in the area with Iraq in one piece.

Muslehuddin Ahmad, a former Secretary and Ambassador, is presently the Vice Chancellor of Presidency University.