It's a bit hyperbole-loaded for my tastes BUT, if Kerry really did say this, then he'd likely get my vote --

So let me suggest one. It would go something like this: "Thank you, Mr president, for your leadership in difficult times. You took some tough decisions in good faith. I disagree with you but I will not let our troops down and I will not abandon Iraq. But you, Mr president, are now part of the problem. You are too polarizing a figure to bring real peace to Iraq, and have bungled the post-liberation too badly. Your failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has undermined your credibility as a war-leader. You are too unpopular to allow European governments and the U.N. to cooperate fully in the war. One of the advantages of a democracy is that we can pursue the same goals over time with different leaders and different strategies. I intend to win the war in Iraq because we cannot afford to lose it. But I also intend to bring our allies more centrally into the task, to increase troop levels in the country, to appoint Richard Holbrooke to oversee our cooperation with the incoming Iraqi government, and ask former president Bill Clinton to re-open peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. I will be tough on terror and tough on the causes of terror. I can complete what you started. In fact, I alone can complete what you started."

I'm not quite ready to say that I've made up my mind on the situation BUT, I would point out that when it finally comes to voting, there are actually 3 poles - Bush's Policy, Kerry's Policy, or Kerry's Policy blocked by a GOP congress.

IF Kerry says this and means this (Thomas Friedman asked for something similar), then it indicates that there's rough alignment b/t Bush and Kerry on the Foreign Policy big picture and that forward momentum will continue here.   Congress will hopefully stymie Kerry's domestic adventures.   If the world unfolds like this, Bush would potentially join interesting historical company along the ranks of Churchill, Patton, Sherman and other leaders of various stripes whose war ferocity created the momentum towards a better world but nevertheless found themselves alienated immediately afterwards for precisely that ferocity.

UPDATE - this is why we need Kerry to say it so badly -

Ahmed is more eloquent on how the fighting can end and peace can come to Iraq.

"God willing Bush will fall down by the hands of Fallujah," he says, combining military and political rhetoric. "If John Kerry wins the election and withdraws the Americans troops from Iraq, and maybe just leaves a few in bases, then we will not fight. But Bush we will always fight."

Got it?   So Ahmed is going to fight as hard as he can because he thinks it will create a policy reversal in America (and afterwards, he promises, he'll stop fighting).    Kerry needs to come out and emphaticly state that such a policy reversal will, under no circumstances happen.   But, for him to say this will require taking a strong stance on the war... above and beyond his wishy-washy earlier statements -

when asked last week what [Kerry's] own current policy would be, he responded: "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made." That's a non-answer.