In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush gave this country true leadership. We needed to see a strong president, comforting those who had lost everything and promising to strike back hard at the killers of innocents.

In the three years since, Bush has continued to be a resolute, unwavering leader. His supporters see this as a strength.

What they choose not to see is that Bush's steadfast leadership is taking this country in the wrong direction. It is time for a change. We endorse John Kerry for president.

Had this election been held in November 2001, Bush would have had our support. He struck hard in Afghanistan, removing the Taliban from power and driving al-Qaida into caves. But instead of finishing what he started, instead of hounding Osama bin Laden to death, he let his attention be diverted to Iraq.

Bush and his top advisers told the nation that Saddam Hussein was the real threat, ignoring all evidence contrary to what they wanted to believe. Bush allowed the Pentagon to ignore State Department planning for winning the peace, a mistake that cost hundreds of American lives.

It is not just in foreign policy that Bush has failed. His government is more secretive than any in memory, keeping from the American people information they could use to protect themselves and their communities or to hold the government accountable. Civil liberties have been singed. Billions of dollars in debt have been heaped upon taxpayers' shoulders.

Bush describes Kerry as a tax-and-spend liberal who will balloon the deficit and enlarge government. The charge has no credibility coming from a president who ballooned the deficit and made government bigger and more intrusive. How could Kerry be any worse than Bush?

Before tossing out an incumbent, we should always ask: Would the challenger be better? What we have seen on the campaign trail says that Kerry would.

Kerry is a realist on Iraq. He knows the United States cannot pull out without creating a larger disaster. But Kerry recognizes that going after al-Qaida should always have been the prime goal. It is the goal upon which a true international coalition could have been built. Kerry could still build that coalition; Bush cannot.

Kerry's domestic policies also are more inclusive than Bush's. For all of Bush's folksy ways, it is Kerry who is in touch with the middle class. It is Kerry who understands the toll taken by the high cost of health care, by jobs lost to foreign competition, by fears of being able to put food on the table. He has reasonable proposals for addressing these issues.

At a time when this nation should be united against a common enemy, we are polarized. Candidate Bush promised to be a uniter, but he has instead pitted American against American.

The nation will still be polarized after this election, but Kerry is more likely to build common ground. His record is one of working across the aisle, which shows a greater willingness to listen to divergent viewpoints than we have seen from Bush.

Times of crisis normally cry for maintaining leadership. But when leaders go the wrong direction, change is required. Kerry is the change this nation needs.