With three Presidential debates behind us and numerous election related programmes appearing daily on the TV, people in the US and the world have crossed the saturation point.

In one such programme a French journalist raised an interesting point. She asked that there was plenty of talk about the Bush-Kerry debates but the issue really was that this was a referendum on President Bush's four years in office. What kind of record has it been. She pointed out that it was not really bright. The US Presidency had a faltering beginning with the 9/11 as President Bush looked lost by the enormity of the event. Then came Afghanistan and the Taleban regime with his new found friend Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan, was given short shrift. The gaze then turned towards Iraq and without provocation and the absence of any Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), a massive attack was launched on the country with the collaboration of willing Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain.

President George Bush has gone deeper into the quagmire of Iraq and in the meantime Iraqis have become sufficiently organised to mount a very successful guerilla warfare and caused more than 1000 deaths to US soldiers. Since US is the most talked about democracy of the world and takes pride in exporting it to the world, she has set her sights upon establishing democracy in Iraq. This democracy of the US variety sits uneasily since in the last Presidential elections that brought President Bush to the White House, it was widely criticized as President Bush was not really 'elected' but ' appointed' by the US Supreme Court.

So total has been the involvement of President Bush in Iraq that he has paid hardly any attention to numerous other issues. As a matter of fact the perennial Middle East conflict between Palestine and Israel has failed to draw his attention. He has given 'carte blanche' to his friend and mentor Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, to rain death and destruction upon the defenseless Palestinians and grab West Bank under the garb of 'unilateral withdrawal'. Indeed it is now acknowledged by many that on the prodding of Sharon, financier of Bush Presidential campaign and master of the powerful Jewish lobby that President Bush went into Iraq in the first place.

Sensing danger of defeat in the elections and unable to pull troops out of Iraq, President Bush has worked out the strategy of creating a fear psychosis throughout the country. He has declared War on Terror and has claimed to be the only one to fight this scourge. Whereas world leaders are understandably cagey about endorsing either of the American candidates Russian President Vladimir Putin has come out in favour of Bush. The reason can only be that Russia would want nothing better than a Bush getting deeper into the mess of Iraq and consequently getting bled white. This would be Russian response to the Afghanistan episode of the former Soviet Union, which saw the US powerfully helping the Afghan Mujahideen, which helped in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

John F. Kerry has tried to hold the high moral ground of America, the humane leader of the world. Repeatedly he has attacked President Bush of recklessly going into Iraq, 'without thinking how to win peace'. He has been harsh in his criticism of Bush for pushing away allies and friends and isolating the US. On the domestic front Kerry has stated that Bush has squandered 200 billion Dollars in the war effort turning the surplus of more than 6 billion Dollars left by President Bill Clinton into a deficit of nearly 2 billion Dollars. Repeatedly Senator Kerry has stressed that President Bush cut no taxes of only 1 percent of more than 200 million income group whereas the major taxpayers have been the middle class and the poorer citizens. Kerry has dwelt heavily on the middle class throughout the campaign.

The US poll-sters, who come out with daily predictions have nearly settled for a dead heat. US newspapers in their editorials have endorsed one of the two candidates. Whereas Kerry has been endorsed by such prestigious papers as N. Y. Times and the Washington Post, Bush has been endorsed by lesser known papers.

The French journalist raised a valid point and that is the four years of Presidency of George W. Bush. Judged by any yardstick the performance is not bright and if anything it raises the continuation of the war, may be in the oil rich Arab lands and Iran. John Kerry has rightly pointed out that President Bush's policy is four words 'more of the same'.

The US Presidential elections have created an interest throughout the world, never seen before. It is of course due to the fact that the US is the most powerful country of the world and elections, which may lead to a change of regime have the most profound consequences. The focus is on Iraq and President Bush has attempted without any success to convince his countrymen and the world that he is taking democracy to Iraq. John F. Kerry is offering a clear alternative. From the path of violence and mistrust between allies and friends he wants to bring back peace and sanity. CNN had an interesting programme telecast from Berlin and several Americans residing in Europe took part. They overwhelmingly endorsed Kerry. On a French programme we were informed that if Europeans had a vote 80 percent would vote for Kerry.

Home stretch is the longest stretch. On 2 November the US voter has a choice of 'more of the same' or genuine change.

Arshad-uz-Zaman is a former Ambassador.