This started off has a six-line post

The TNR's Noam Scheiber is exactly right with his post on how John Kerry's new focus on Iraq will change media coverage on the war. Kerry's new line of attack against President Bush in the past week has been the best move his campaign has made so far.

I say this for a few reasons. Read Shneiber's post for the first one. The second reason is that there is a gulf between the assumptions of people who support the war in Iraq and those against it. In short, most people who support the war on Iraq hold the false assumptions that Iraq had ties to 9/11 and al Qaeda. Kerry is finally directly contradicting these assumptions. The details are in this awesome study PIPA did a few weeks ago (summary PDF), but here's what to me is the most important part:

Such beliefs are highly correlated with support for the decision to go to war with Iraq. Among those who believed that Iraq had WMD 81% thought going to war was the right decision, and among those who thought it had a major WMD program 49% believed it was the right decision. Among those who thought that Iraq only had some WMD-related activities only 21% thought war was the right decision, and for those who thought there was no such activity just 8% thought it was the right decision.

Likewise, among those who thought Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, 73% thought going to war was the right decision, and among those who thought Iraq was giving al Qaeda substantial support 69% thought this was the right decision. But among those who thought there were only a few contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, 21% thought war was the right decision; and among those who thought there was no relationship at all, only 16% saw war as the right decision.

(page 9)

As I hope you all know, the 9/11 Commission report stated that Iraq had no WMDs or a major WMD-program. It also concluded that there were no substantial ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Furthermore, while a shockingly high number of people still hold these incorrect beliefs, the number has declined a bit since their last survey in March, likely due in part at least to the 9/11 Commission report that came out in July. From PIPA:

The percentage saying that Iraq was giving substantial support to al Qaeda has dropped from 57% in March to 50% today. The percentage saying that Iraq had WMDs or a major WMD program has dropped from 60% to 54%.

None of this guarantees that if people realize their rationales for suporting the war are in error, they will reverse their support of the war, punish President Bush for fostering these views and vote for John Kerry. I mean, who can compete with the powerful logic of "Support our Troops!"? But if the Three Stooges of politics, logic, truth, and rationality, can stop running away from mummies long enough to poke the eyes out of even a few hundred thousand Americans, that alone could shift the election towards John Kerry.

And the Kerry campaign knows this. Check out these passages from a speech Kerry gave only days ago:

His two main rationales—weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection—have been proved false...by the President's own weapons inspectors...and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

(several paragraphs later) We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.

(And, later) Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no—because a Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

What I love about Kerry's new focus is that not only is it hard-hitting and confrontational, it's backed by the truth. Isn't that strange, a biting political attack that's also true? Yes, his strategy is based on at least 50.1% of the American public having the ability to reason and make decisions based on that reasoning. And that's always a risky strategy. But in a democracy, the leaders are no better than the average intelligence of the people who elect them. We will get what we deserve.