President Bush has simply made too many mistakes, both at home and abroad. Sen. John Kerry has a better plan to deal with the war in Iraq, terrorism and domestic issues.

Tuesday's presidential election is the most important vote America has had in generations. That might sound like political rhetoric since every presidential election is touted as gravely important.

But it is the first presidential election since the terrorists attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Further, we are at war in Iraq and fighting terrorism globally. At home, we continue to deal with the new reality of homeland security and toil in an economy that shows only slight signs of slow recovery and is precariously vulnerable.

That said, whoever is chosen to lead the country for the next four years will have their hands full, on both domestic and foreign fronts. How we got in this situation and who has the plan to make life better overall we feel are the keys to selecting the next president.

Based on those simple benchmarks, we endorse Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for president.

President Bush did an admirable job of leading the country following the 9/11 attacks and rightly sent troops into Afghani-stan to root out Osama bin Laden and the Tali-ban. But, he never completed the mission.

Instead, he turned his attention to Iraq and Saddam Hussein and laid out what was, at the time, a convincing argument that the cruel dictator was an imminent threat to the U.S., had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to al-Qaida. As we have since found out, little to none of that was the truth.

Bush claims he was fed inaccurate information, but a pattern has emerged indicating he was fixated on Iraq and his administration distorted information to support their view and discounted data that contradicted it. One tragic result of that was the miscalculation on the amount of force needed to keep the peace in Iraq after Saddam was removed.

Some 140,000 American troops and smaller legions from a handful of allies have battled bravely, but those are insufficient numbers to both handle the waves of insurgents who believe they are fighting a holy war and secure Iraq's borders. The term "quagmire" accurately portrays the situation.

Despite this - and the loss of 1,100 American soldiers - Bush claims we are winning the war in Iraq. If he remains president, we may just do so some time in the distant future.

Contrary to Bush's claim that Kerry would "cut and run" in Iraq, Kerry has repeatedly said more boots on the ground is what's needed to bring a quicker end to the war. Over-whelming force and more participation by allies is Kerry's plan, which has been endorsed by many former joint chiefs and members of prior presidential administrations.

Kerry is right when he said Iraq is the wrong war, at the wrong place at the wrong time. But now that we're fully engaged, Kerry has a better plan to end the war and secure the peace.

As for domestic issues, Kerry is more in tune with the needs of average Americans.

Rolling back Bush's tax cuts that benefit the rich is a good start. So is ending protection to companies that outsource jobs to foreign countries and reducing the trade imbalance. Under Bush, America has actually lost jobs, squandered the federal surplus and built a trillion-dollar deficit while pandering to corporate America and overseas interests.

As for healthcare, Bush pushed through the Republican-controlled Congress a Medicare reform plan that does little to reform the system. Seniors, especially, have found out the new coverage exposes them to high costs while it enhances the bottom lines of both the drug and insurance companies.

We admit Kerry is not the ideal candidate and has shortcomings. His voting record is not the best and he's championed very few causes in the Senate. But he presents a new and more flexible vision for the country at a time when honest, forthright leadership is needed. Four more years of Bush's policies would be difficult to tolerate.