US: On the campaign trail, in speech after speech, President Bush declares that diplomacy had failed with Saddam Hussein, writes Conor O'Clery
"What was I to do?" he asks his audiences. "Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or take action to defend this country?"
Then, patting the lectern emphatically, he answers: "Given that choice, I will defend our country every time." This always gets a roar of applause.
Yesterday at the United Nations Mr Bush expressed his rationale for ousting Saddam Hussein in rather different terms to a silent audience.
Saddam Hussein had defied a UN resolution that had warned him of "serious consequences", he said.
"When we [the UN\] say serious consequences, for the sake of peace there must be serious consequences, and so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world."
Following UN Secretary General Mr Kofi Annan's statement last week that the US-led invasion of Iraq was "illegal", and recalling that the pre-war argument was about whether UN arms inspections were succeeding or not, there was understandable scepticism among the statesmen and diplomats in the UN General Assembly about the US going to war "for the sake of peace".
Nor, diplomats noted, was there mention of the weapons of mass destruction that the US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, looking on from the front row, gave as a rationale for war to the Security Council.
But there was also some appreciation of the softer image Mr Bush portrayed compared to previous appearances. The President dwelt less on terrorism and more on his foreign policy. He was also concerned with global problems such as AIDS, poverty and human rights.
On Iraq there was a defiant promise to stand with the people "until their hopes of freedom and security were fulfilled", but also a muted appeal for help. The UN must secure the liberties won in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.
The UN and its member nations must respond to Iraqi Prime Minister Mr Allawi's request for support, "and do more to help build an Iraq that is secure, democratic, federal and free". The proper response to difficulty was not to retreat, it was to prevail.
Mr Bush bolstered his case by saying the NATO alliance was providing vital training for Iraqi security forces, that more than 35 countries had contributed money and expertise, and officials from the UN were helping Iraq build the "infrastructure of democracy".
However, the NATO training has fallen short, with only $1.2 billion of some $13 billion promised by the international community being delivered, and the UN has less than a quarter of the staff it needs to oversee elections in Iraq.
Mr Kofi Annan made it clear last week that elections could not be held in January as planned if the security situation did not improve.
Mr Bush first appealed to the UN for help some months ago, when he secured Security Council resolution No 1546 promising, among other things, a special force to protect UN election monitors. No country responded. It is still too dangerous to go back in.
The old divisions remain between the US and European countries such as Germany and France. It was never likely that Mr Bush would win new allies yesterday, given that the US presidential election is only six weeks away. A recent Pew poll confirmed that many US allies would prefer that Mr Kerry won the election, and will do little to respond to what they will write off as a campaign speech. This is no guarantee either that Mr Kerry's promise to "bring to the table everybody else who has a stake in defeating terrorism" will galvanise allies into a new commitment to Iraq should he win on November 2nd.
Many UN diplomats have also taken note of the vow by US commanders to conduct a second 'invasion" after the election, to take back Falluja and other insurgent-held areas by the end of the year.
Mr Bush certainly had his domestic audience in mind in a meeting afterwards with Mr Allawi, when he took the opportunity to attack Mr Kerry for saying that removing Saddam Hussein was not a reason for going to war. "My opponent said the world was better off when Saddam Hussein was in power," he said.
"His statements are hardly credible at all." It was "an absurd notion". Mr Bush also dismissed the US national intelligence estimate he received in July, which was leaked last week, warning of a future in Iraq ranging from instability to civil war. "It laid out several scenarios," Mr Bush said. They ranged from, "life could be lousy, life could be okay, life could be better", and that "they were just guessing . . ." Mr Bush may have a point. The last intelligence estimate compiled by US intelligence services on Iraq, in 2002, concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be little more than "just guessing".