Mr. Bush spoke yesterday in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Excerpts follow:

My opponent and I have a very different view on how to grow our economy. Let me start with taxes. I have a record of reducing them; he has a record of raising them.

He voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes 98 times. That’s a lot. He voted for higher taxes on Social Security benefits.

…Now the senator is proposing higher taxes on more than 900,000 small-business owners. My opponent is one of the few candidates in history to campaign on a pledge to raise taxes. And that’s the kind of promise a politician from Massachusetts usually keeps.

He says the tax increase is only for the rich. You’ve heard that kind of rhetoric before. The rich hire lawyers and accountants for a reason – to stick you with the tab….

The senator and I have different views on another threat to our economy – frivolous lawsuits. He’s been a part of the Washington crowd that has obstructed legal reform again and again. Meanwhile, all across America unfair lawsuits are hurting small businesses. Lawsuits are driving up health care costs. Lawsuits are threatening OB/GYNs all across our country. Lawsuits are driving good doctors out of practice. We need a president who will stand up to the trial lawyers in Washington, not put one on the ticket.

The senator and I have very different views on health care. I’ve got a specific plan to help Americans find health care that’s available and affordable, lawsuit reform, association health care plans to help our small businesses, health savings accounts, community health centers to help the poor, expanding health care for low-income children, using technology to drive down the cost of health care.

He has a different vision….My opponent’s proposal would be the largest expansion of government-run health care ever. And when government pays the bills, government makes the rules….Senator Kerry’s proposal would put us on the path to “Clinton-care.”…

The senator and I have different views on government spending.Over the years,he’s voted 274 times to break the federal budget limits. And in this campaign, Senator Kerry has announced more than $2 trillion in new spending. And that’s a lot of money even for a senator from Massachusetts.

During his 20 years as a senator, my opponent hasn’t had many accomplishments. Of the hundreds of bills he submitted, only five became law. One of them was ceremonial. But to be fair, he’s earned a special distinction in Congress. The nonpartisan National Journal analyzed his record and named John Kerry the most liberal member of the United States Senate. He earned that title – by voting for higher taxes, more regulation, more junk lawsuits, and more government control over your life. And that sets up a real difference in this campaign.

My opponent is a tax-and-spend liberal; I’m a compassionate conservative. My opponent – my opponent wants to empower government; I want to use government to empower people. My opponent seems to think all the wisdom is found in Washington, D.C.; I trust the wisdom of the American people.

Our differences are also clear on issues of national security….

After September the 11th,America had to assess every potential threat in a new light. Our nation awakened to an even greater danger, the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder. We had to take a hard look at everyplace where terrorists might get those weapons. And one regime stood out: the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Our victory requires changing the conditions that produce radicalism and suicide bombers, and finding new democratic allies in a troubled part of the region. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march. And freedom is on the march – in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere.

There will be good days and there will be bad days in the war on terror, but every day we will show our resolve and we will do our duty. This nation is determined: We will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

My opponent agrees with all this – except when he doesn’t.

Last week in our debate, he once again came down firmly on every side of the Iraq war. He stated that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that America had no business removing that threat. Senator Kerry said our soldiers and Marines are not fighting for a mistake – but also called the liberation of Iraq a “colossal error. “He said we need to do more to train Iraqis, but he also said we shouldn’t be spending so much money over there. He said he wants to hold a summit meeting, so he can invite other countries to join what he calls “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

He said terrorists are pouring across the Iraqi border, but also said that fighting those terrorists is a diversion from the war on terror.

You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face. My opponent’s endless back-and-forth on Iraq is part of a larger misunderstanding. In the war on terror, Senator Kerry is proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous. His – Senator Kerry approaches the world with a September the 10th mind-set. He declared in his convention speech that “any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.” That was the mind-set of the 1990s, while Al Qaeda was planning the attacks on America. After September the 11th, our object in the war on terror is not to wait for the next attack and respond, but to prevent attacks by taking the fight to the enemy.

In our debate, Senator Kerry said that removing Saddam Hussein was a mistake because the threat was not imminent. The problem with this approach is obvious: If America waits until a threat is at our doorstep, it might be too late to save lives. Tyrants and terrorists will not give us polite notice before they launch an attack on our country.

I refuse to stand by while dangers gather. In the world after September the 11th, the path to safety is the path of action. And I will continue to defend the people of the United States of America.

When my opponent first ran for Congress, he argued that American troops should be deployed only at the directive of the United Nations. Now, he’s changed his mind….But it is a window into his thinking. Over the years, Senator Kerry has looked for every excuse to constrain America’s action in the world. These days he praises America’s broad coalition in the Persian Gulf War. But in 1991, he criticized those coalition members as “shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden.” Sounds familiar. At that time, he voted against the war. If that coalition didn’t pass his global test, clearly, nothing will. This mind-set would paralyze America in a dangerous world. I’ll never hand over America’s security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America’s interests at heart.

My opponent’s doctrine has other consequences, especially for our men and women in uniform. My opponent supports the International Criminal Court, which would allow unaccountable foreign prosecutors and judges to put American soldiers on trial.

That would be a legal nightmare for our troops….As long as I’m your president, Americans in uniform will answer to the officers and laws of the United States – not to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The senator speaks often about his plan to strengthen America’s alliances, but he’s got an odd way of doing it. In the middle of the war, he’s chosen to insult America’s fighting allies by calling them, “window dressing,” and the “coalition of the coerced and the bribed.” The Italians who died in Nasiriyah were not window dressing. They were heroes in the war on terror. The British and the Poles at the head of the multinational divisions in Iraq were not coerced or bribed. They have fought, and some have died, in the cause of freedom. These good allies and dozens of others deserve the respect of all Americans, not the scorn of a politician.

Instead, the senator would have America bend over backwards to satisfy a handful of governments with agendas different from our own. This is my opponent’s alliance-building strategy: brush off your best friends, fawn over your critics. And that is no way to gain the respect of the world.

Senator Kerry assures us that he’s the one to win a war he calls a mistake, an error, and a diversion. But you can’t win a war you don’t believe in fighting.

In Iraq, Senator Kerry has a strategy of retreat; I have a strategy of victory….If Iraq becomes a free society at the heart of the Middle East, an ally in the war on terror, a model of hopeful reform in a region that needs hopeful reform, the terrorists will suffer a crushing defeat, and every free nation will be more secure.

This is why Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman calls Iraq a “crucial battle in the global war on terrorism.” This is why Prime Minister Tony Blair has called the struggle in Iraq “the crucible in which the future of global terrorism will be determined.”…Iraq is no diversion; it is the place where civilization is taking a decisive stand against chaos and terror – and we must not waver.

Unfortunately, my opponent has been known to waver. His well-chosen words and rationalizations cannot explain why he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, and then voted against money for bullets, and vehicles and body armor for the troops on the ground. He tried to clear it all up by saying, I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it. Now he says he “made a mistake” in how he talked about the war. The mistake here is not what Senator Kerry said; the mistake is what he did in voting against funding for Americans in combat. That is the kind of wavering a nation at war can never afford.

As a candidate, my opponent promises to defend America. The problem is as a senator for two decades, he has built a record of weakness. The record shows he twice led efforts to gut our intelligence service budgets. The record shows he voted against many of the weapons that won the Cold War, and are vital to current military operations. And the record shows he has voted more than 50 times against missile defense systems that would help protect us from the threats of a dangerous world.

… Twenty-seven – 27 days from today, Americans will make a critical choice. My opponent offers an agenda that is stuck in the thinking and the policies of the past. On national security, he offers the defensive mind-set of September the 10th, a global test to replace American leadership, a strategy of retreat in Iraq, and a 20-year history of weakness in the United States Senate. Here at home, he offers a record and an agenda of more taxes and more spending, and more litigation, and more government control over your life. The race for president is a contest for the future, and you know where I stand. I’m running for president to keep this nation on the offensive against terrorists, with the goal of total victory….