May 28, 2004

Announcer: From our nation's capital, this is WASHINGTON WEEK. And now here's moderator Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL, host: Looking at the politics of foreign policy from the right and the left. Two sides of the coin in the politics of Iraq.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: Our efforts are focused and unrelenting, and no power of the enemy will stop Iraq's progress.

Senator JOHN KERRY (Democrat, Massachusetts; Presidential Candidate): Staying the course is important, but staying the wrong course is not a sign of strength; it is a mark of stubbornness.

IFILL: The president and the challenger square off in dueling speeches as the UN prepares to step in and the future on the ground begins to take shape. With new terror alerts, new battles and new attention being paid by voters, which candidate has the toughest sales job?

And as the fight for the top job heats up, what's happening with Congress? Is control suddenly up for grabs?

Covering these stories this week: Barbara Slavin of USA Today, Dan Balz of The Washington Post, Alexis Simendinger of National Journal and Janet Hook of the Los Angeles Times.

Announcer: Here again is moderator Gwen Ifill.

IFILL: Good evening.

Analysis: President Bush maintains the US will hand over full sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30th

GWEN IFILL, host: So how complicated is the situation in Iraq? So complicated that the president has vowed to hand power over to Iraqis, but no one knows who that means. So complicated that the United Nations, once dismissed as an obstructionist world body, now turns out to be vital to the political transition. So complicated that when the president says he supports Iraqi sovereignty, no one is exactly sure what that will look like. The president addressed that question in the Rose Garden today after meeting with the Danish prime minister.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: I told the prime minister that--that our government and our coalition will transfer full sovereignty, complete and full sovereignty, to a Iraqi government that will be picked by Mr. Brahimi of the United Nations. He said, `Do you mean full sovereignty?' I said, `I mean full sovereignty.'

IFILL: But what does full sovereignty mean, and who will be in charge? Today we got the first hint. Barbara.

Ms. BARBARA SLAVIN (Senior Diplomatic Reporter, USA Today): Well, we have a prime minister at long last, and this is a very important development. Or at least it seems now we have this prime minister. His name is Iyad Allawi. He's not any of the names that we've heard before that were discussed earlier this week. He's a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, which is the body that the US appointed over a year ago. He's a favorite of the CIA, which is an interesting choice. He is head of something called the Iraqi National Accord. And back in the 1990s he tried to overthrow Saddam unsuccessfully. Very well known to US intelligence and British intelligence. An unusual choice.

IFILL: Let me ask you about this full sovereignty question, because it seems that the American troops aren't going anywhere; they're still going to stay at 138,000. In some ways, therefore, they're not su--they're not surrendering control over themselves to any other outside group. So what kind of full control, political control, will the Iraqis have if, in fact, the occupying force is still there?

Ms. SLAVIN: It's a very good question, and it's really unclear how Iraqis are going to regard this, whether they'll think this is a real transfer of sovereignty or not. The troops will remain under American control. It's still not clear how Iraqi forces will coordinate with American forces, whether they can refuse to participate in certain operations, whether they can veto certain operations. Some of this hopefully will be explained in a UN Security Council resolution that the United States also wants to pass. But basically, the United States will be there with the troops and will have a large embassy, a large aid program and will have a very large say in the future of Iraq.

Ms. JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times): So--but this choice of Allawi for prime minister, is that sort of a done deal, or is there any chance there'll be alternatives that come up? And--and--and what are the--what does the UN think of him as the prime minister?

Ms. SLAVIN: Well, nothing is every quite a done deal in Iraq. The early reports suggest though that Lakdar Brahimi, the UN envoy, has signed off on this choice, and he has said, and his spokesman has said, that they welcome the choice. But it's not the sort of person we expected. Mr. Brahimi said he was looking for a non-partisan figure, someone who was a professional, a technocrat. Iyad Allawi is--is not that. He heads a party, a faction. He's been around for a long time. He's an exile, someone who spent 30 years outside Iraq. So he's not the sort of man we were led to expect. But people that I've spoken to today say he's not a bad choice. He's a Shiite Muslim, from the majority in Iraq, but he's secular. So they're hoping, perhaps, he will not give way to those who want to make Iraq a more fundamentalist state.

IFILL: Go ahead.

Ms. ALEXIS SIMENDINGER (National Journal): You know, Barbara, at the White House one of the issues that--that the president's aides were talking about to reporters was the concerns about security for this--these new members of the governing element of Iraq. Is Mr. Allawi going to get the best security that the US can buy for him or how is that going to work?

Ms. SLAVIN: I think Mr. Allawi already has very good security. As I say, he's very--he was very close to the CIA and to British intelligence. He's in charge of the security committee on the Iraqi Governing Council. So if anybody knows how, I think he should. He's also a former Ba'athist. And this makes him a little bit controversial. You'll remember the king of Jordan was speaking last week about how Iraq needed another strongman. Well, there are perhaps elements of the strongman in Iyad Allawi. And that may be why the United States is tilting toward him.

Mr. DAN BALZ (The Washington Post): Barbara, what else has to be done before the June 30 deadline?

Ms. SLAVIN: Many things. Many things. The UN resolution is not essential, but important because it would bless this new transition; it would bless this new government structure. Hopefully, it will spell out the powers of the next Iraqi government. That has to be gotten through and, once again, France, Russia, Germany, China--the countries that opposed the war--have problems with the draft resolution that the United States and Britain introduced on Monday. So they have to get through that. They have to calm the country to a greater extent than it has been calmed. And we've seen some progress there, some patchwork deals with different militias...

IFILL: Can I ask you about that? We've been--we've been...

Ms. SLAVIN: Sure.

IFILL: ...following the--the rise and rise of--of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, the radical young Shidite--Shiite cleric, to use the shorthand, and there was a deal, we think, struck with him in Najaf?

Ms. SLAVIN: Yes. Again, it's kind of the Fallujah model. We--we basically stop fighting and you can say it's--it's giving in to these forces or--I mean, I don't know how you can really call it a victory. But the US has basically no option. We could not go into Najaf, which was where Muqtada al-Sadr's forces were; this is a holy Shiite city. Already we had put a few bullet holes in a couple of the shrines there.

IFILL: You say `we'--you mean?

Ms. SLAVIN: I--excuse me, I mean, the US government, US forces, had put a couple of bullet holes in--in the shrine. And that would not play well in the Muslim world, needless to say. So really there was no option for the Bush administration but to make deals with various militias. And concerns have been expressed that it's almost an Afghanistan model, that we're going to wind up with warlords, militias, local control, and not really a unified Iraqi government.

IFILL: OK. Well, we'll be watching to see if that happens.

GWEN IFILL, host: Meanwhile, both major candidates for president were on the hunt this week for a way to use the war for political advantage without exactly using the war for political advantage. Now if that sounds like a tough assignment, that's because it is. John Kerry, in the first of a series of foreign policy speeches, accused the president of alienating longtime allies, and being a leader who has misused Teddy Roosevelt's big stick. But why is John Kerry focusing on foreign policy now, Dan? That's not supposed to be the thing that gets presidents elected.

Mr. DAN BALZ (The Washington Post): Well, one, the calendar dictates it. We're in a period with the opening of the National World War II Memorial here in Washington, Memorial Day weekend and the 60th anniversary of D-Day where there's going to be a tremendous amount of focus on national security. And so I think for someone who has been trying to punch through, this gives him an opportunity to get an audience and to be heard.

But secondly, he has to do something on this issue. We're in a period of war. This is the first time foreign policy has been such a dominant issue in a campaign, certainly since the end of the Cold War. And he has to try to figure out how to differentiate himself from the president. He--he's--he's got a difficult job to do because, on the one hand, as his opening speech on Thursday suggested, he needs to be tough on terrorism. He has to show that he can be the commander in chief at a time like this and assure people that he can keep the country safe. At the same time, he has to differentiate himshelf--self from the president both to show that he has an alternative approach and, secondly, to reassure those on the left and in his own party that he will take the fight to President Bush on these issues.

IFILL: And this is the beginning of a series of these speeches?

Mr. BALZ: Yes. He will be giving three major speeches. He gave one Thursday. He'll give another early next week in Florida on weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. He'll give a speech later in the week in Missouri on reshaping the military, modernizing the military to meet the terrorist threats.

Ms. ALEXIS SIMENDINGER (National Journal): You know, Dan, I was doing some reporting on--on Kerry this week, and I was really struck by looking at some of the recent polls showing that Democrats are starting to creep up in the numbers as being interested in a withdrawal or a specific date for withdrawal. Independents, however, are closer, you might say, to where the Republicans are, in terms of stay the course, let's finish the job. Is John Kerry in a dilemma with his own party in terms of starting to see their positions drift apart?

Mr. BALZ: The...

IFILL: And before you answer that question, actually, I want to--I want to give you an example of that because we heard Al Gore come out this week with a speech in which he took the far left view point of view about this. Let's--let's listen to this salvo from Al Gore.

Former Vice President AL GORE: (From Wednesday) He promised to restore honor and integrity to the White House. Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest president since Richard M. Nixon.

IFILL: Now obviously he wasn't talking about John Kerry there; he was talking about President Bush.

Mr. BALZ: Right.

IFILL: And he was--he s--the rest of his speech goes into lots of like hollering, if I may use that term, in which he was being very passionate about it. But very--in stark contrast to Kerry.

Mr. BALZ: Very much so. And it certainly made a lot of people perk up. Look, A, Al Gore is still angry about what happened in 2000, and that was very evident in what he did. There are some people within the Democratic Party who think what he did was not particularly helpful for Kerry because it enlarges the differences between where he and some other Democrats are and where Senator Kerry is. There's an alternative view, which is interesting, which is that he's, actually, in the long run, he--he can be helpful to Kerry, for several reasons. One is, he becomes, in a sense, the Dick Cheney, for now, of the Democratic Party--the guy who's leading the attack against President Bush, the guy who can say things that John Kerry can't afford to say. And one thing he did in that speech was he said Senator Kerry does not need to lay out a detailed policy on Iraq at this point. He simply needs to maintain his own principles at a time when some other Democrats are pushing Kerry to be more explicit on Iraq.

Ms. BARBARA SLAVIN (Senior Diplomatic Reporter, USA Today): Well, let me ask about that, Dan. Does John Kerry have a policy on Iraq that is appreciably different from what the president is doing? I mean, Bush is internationalizing it, bringing in the UN, you know, accelerating the transition.

Mr. BALZ: The differences have been narrowed by the movement that has gone on by the Bush administration in the last month or two months. There's no question about that. The Kerry campaign would say, yes, there are still differences. For one, they say John Kerry has been in this position for much longer and had this position existed at the time, we would not have the problems we have now; second, that there are still steps that he is prodding President Bush to take: one, to--to bring NATO in in a more significant way as a security force and, secondly, to actually appoint a UN high commissioner to help oversee Iraq. He's pushing on those areas. So they would say there are some differences. But I think it's become harder for him to make those distinctive.

Ms. JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times): Dan, can I ask about another decision that Kerry made this week that got almost as much attention as his position on Iraq? He had been considering delaying his acceptance of the Democratic nomination, not doing it at the Boston convention. And at the end of this week, he said, `Oh, never mind. I guess I will accept it at the--at the convention.' What was all that about?

Mr. BALZ: Well, it was an idea I think that you would have to say was not at all fully baked when it came out a week ago. Whether it was half-baked, we'll leave it to others. But, look, they had been considering ways to try to figure out how to overcome what they think is a financial disadvantage because of the way the fall public funding takes place in the campaign. One idea was to jury-rig the idea of delaying the nomination. Once this came out a week ago, they got a lot of flak for it, basically from the idea that there are other ways to overcome the financial problems. Why mess up your convention? And I think once the networks made clear they had problems and once the--the Kerry campaign started to think about it more--you know, more seriously, they realized it was not worth the trouble to do that.

IFILL: You don't think it was a trial balloon and they just wanted to see how it would go?

Mr. BALZ: I don't think so, because there were people at the--at the Democratic National Committee who did not know that this was going to come out at the time, and--and one would think if it was a trial balloon at least some of those people would have known.

IFILL: Oh, a little heads-up is never a bad thing in politics.

Analysis: Back and forth between Bush and Kerry

GWEN IFILL, host: Well, President Bush has launched his own series of foreign policy speeches this week, as we heard earlier. And his campaign has not allowed Kerry to go unchallenged, as in this new campaign ad.

(Excerpt from Bush campaign ad)

IFILL: You know, Alexis, if you go to Google this week and you type in the word `waffles,' the first hit is John Kerry for President's Web site. Wonder who's behind that? Are they on offense or defense over at the Republican National Committee?

Ms. ALEXIS SIMENDINGER (National Journal): You know, Gwen, this was a week in which you could see both--definitely the offense, definitely the defense. And I think probably at the end of this week we have to say a lot more defense than offense. The ad is probably exhibit A of the offense. And that is the relentless effort of the Bush-Cheney campaign going way back to the early part of the primaries to paint John Kerry as the equivocating flip-flopper, the guy who ta--you know, who has taken all sides of all positions. And the Patriot Act is one example. Iraq is certainly another that they've been using. Gas prices, in terms of where Senator Kerry has been on gas prices. They don't miss a trick when it comes to the topical issue of the day to say that Kerry was on various sides.

In terms of defense this week, I think the really elements that stick out in my mind are the president's desire to talk and more talk, if you can't control the facts on the ground in--in Baghdad or in Iraq. He gave a speech this week to try to say, `I have a five-point sort of organizing set of principles.' They called it a plan. And that was supposed to be very reassuring to people that, `Look, you know, June 30th does have some logic to it, and this is going to work. I'm optimistic about this.'

The second ingredient, surely while we watched, and probably Janet's the expert on this, is make sure they reassure their Republican base, Republican lawmakers who are--are concerned and worried, who may be thinking that their own prospects may be sinking as the president's polls drop below 50 percent. And then the third ingredient is when in doubt, change the subject. And I think we saw a little bit of that even with Attorney General John Ashcroft this week. I don't think it's too far to s--a stretch to say that when talking about terrorism this week and whatever information they have out there to put these seven faces and names out there, that it was a reminder to people that George W. Bush, his poll numbers show that in terms of where he does the best right now in job approval, it's in handling terrorism. And that the real threat is out there. Why would you want to make a change? Why would you want to hire a different guy in November?

IFILL: At such a scary time.

Ms. SIMENDINGER: At such a scary time. Yeah.

Mr. DAN BALZ (The Washington Post): How--how nervous do you think they are about, A, the president's numbers at this point, and their ability to have any real control over events over the next couple of months in Iraq?

Ms. SIMENDINGER: I think they're extremely nervous. I mean, in--in terms of my reporting, dealing with them, talking to them, listening to--to the way they frame their arguments, especially their body language--all of the activities that we just talked about in terms of trying to play defense and offense at the same time, those are all indicators of a president who's worried that things are not just out of control but maybe not something that you can quickly bring back into control. They're also thinking about the economy. They--they hope that that's something that the president can sell positively. And they're slightly worried that they're not going to be able to persuade the American public in time for the election that the economy is getting better. So I would say their nervousness is real.

Ms. BARBARA SLAVIN (Senior Diplomatic Reporter, USA Today): Alexis, I don't know if this is fair, but I guess it's equal time. If you go on Google and you type in `miserable failure,' and hit `I'm feeling lucky,' I believe the White House Web site comes up, too.

Ms. SIMENDINGER: All right. Equal time. You guys have been Googling too much.

IFILL: I know. We have way too much time on our hands.

Ms. SIMENDINGER: Googling ...(unintelligible).

Ms. SLAVIN: Obviously, there are partisans playing with the Internet these days.

Mr. BALZ: Don't worry.

Ms. SLAVIN: But, no, seriously, I wanted to ask whether they are comfortable now that this five-point plan, which is basically a rehash of--of things that they've said before...

Ms. SIMENDINGER: Right.

Ms. SLAVIN: ...that this is going to get them through and that they're going to survive Kerry's attacks on Iraq?

Ms. SIMENDINGER: Well, I think, you know, some people have tried to suggest this week that the president moved in order to--to somehow condense or--or say--you know, bring closer his position to Kerry's. That's--the president just didn't have a lot of other room to go. This was a natural place for him to go. They're--I would say that this is the Hail Mary pass. They hope, they believe. This is the advice that they have been getting from others that they reluctantly took. And what are the alternatives? What are the alternatives that are open to the president? So there's really not much else. They think--the president keeps talking optimistically that, yes, this can be done in a way that will be good news for the American people and for the Iraqis. And, you know, the rest of the world just says they hope so.

Ms. JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times): Do--do you think--are they planning the campaign on the assumption that Iraq is just going to dominate everything between now and Election Day, or are they still crossing their fingers and hoping that people will notice the economy's getting better and things will settle down in Iraq?

Ms. SIMENDINGER: Well, one of the elements of the president's communication now, going out as he does to--to travel, in some cases for fund-raising, which they've pretty much wrapped up in the president, but to do a lot of campaigning in the battleground states is to talk about other elements of the domestic agenda. And they're starting to recognize perhaps in time that you have to have more to sell in a proactive agenda in--in--in addition to Iraq. And so they're--they know that Iraq will dominate, but they're also trying to talk about health care, education and--and the economy.

IFILL: OK. Thanks, everybody.

Analysis: What's at stake for Congress this year

GWEN IFILL, host: It is easy to get caught up in the drama of presidential politics and forget that there's an awful lot at stake this year in Congress, too. It turns out the solid Republican lock on both houses of Congress may not be so solid after all. And who is the--who are--who are the people saying that? It turns out it's Republicans. Janet Hook's been talking to them up on the Hill. And they've been telling you they're a little worried?

Ms. JANET HOOK (Los Angeles Times): Yeah, there is a clearly much heightened sense of anxiety among Republicans, not just about George Bush's re-election prospects but about their own ability to hold on their very narrow majorities in the House and the Senate. Now the mood--it's not panic yet. I mean, the fact is it is five months until the election, and they're assuming that there's plenty of time for things to get better. But the fact is they're looking at poll numbers right now that if this were the day before the election, or even Labor Day, they'd be sweating bullets. There--there's just this sense of, you know, all the--the polls show--showing Bush's approval ratings going down also suggests that congressional Republicans are also taking a hit from the general anxiety about what's going on in Iraq and uncertainty about the economy.

IFILL: In--in particular states, you know, we have a special election coming up this week in South Dakota. Are there particular states where you're seeing that--that--things tighten up?

Ms. HOOK: Well, actually, that special election in South Dakota's an interesting bellwether because--it's a special election because the former congressman, Bill Janklow, was convicted of manslaughter and so there's a ha--it's--it's--South Dakota is a very Republican state. George Bush won by 60 percent there in 2000. And in 2002 a Republican very nearly won the other s--one of the Senate seats. So now you've got, though, a very strong Democratic candidate running very--is--is--has a very good chance of beating the Republican.

IFILL: Stephanie Herseth.

Ms. HOOK: Stephanie Herseth. And as it happens, George Bush's approval rating has really gone way down even in South Dakota. So it's kind of--it'll be an interesting--they haven't been running on national issues, it's a pretty locally fo--focused race, but both of the political parties have been pouring a lot of resources into that with the sense that that might give them momentum heading into the--the fall elections for the House.

Mr. DAN BALZ (The Washington Post): Janet, in terms of the Senate, isn't the--isn't the South still kind of an Achilles' heel for the Democrats because of all of the retirements there?

Ms. HOOK: Well, it is. But you know, the thing that's interesting is that all of last year as the retirements were being announced, you know, everybody was slapping their forehead in the Democratic Party, `Oh, another Southern Democrat retiring.' Because it's so Republican in the South that it's--it--it just made it harder for them to hold on to the seat. But, as it happens, they actually have some very strong candidates. You know, there are five retirements, and I would say only one of them, in Georgia, is sort of a slam dunk for the Republicans. The other four--you know, in North Carolina, Erskine Bowles is running a much stronger race than he did when he ran against--lost to Elizabeth Dole. So, yes, that's--that's their Achilles' heel. But, you now, the Republicans actually have some sea--states up for grabs that they should have a stronger hold on, like Alaska, totally Republican state, but the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, really has a run for her money.

Ms. BARBARA SLAVIN (Senior Diplomatic Reporter, USA Today): Janet, is it hopeless for the Democrats in the House? Is it so gerrymandered that there's really no way they could possibly take it?

Ms. HOOK: It's tough. It's much tougher to imagine the Democrats taking the House than the Senate just because, as you say, after they redrew the district lines after the census, everybody--all the incumbents were districted into safe seats. But I think what they're wondering is they're looking at these polls that show that generically people are feeling more inclined to vote for a Democrat than a Republican. They're wondering `Is this the beginning of a big wave, a big wave, a p--a big political mood swing like there was in 1994 in favor of the Republicans?' Now my--my sense is it's not there yet. And even if it were going to happen, it would--it's sort of too early to say that. Like, at this time, in 1994, nobody saw that the Republicans were going to be taking it.

Ms. ALEXIS SIMENDINGER (National Journal): Right.

IFILL: I don't believe we saw it that night of the election.

Ms. HOOK: Right. Right. The day before. Correct. Correct. So...

IFILL: Yeah.

Ms. SIMENDINGER: Janet, I--you know, as we listen to these campaign promises from President Bush or John Kerry, even if the Democrats don't go the distance and take over e--in the House or the Senate, we're talking about the prospect of the--of the difference between the parties narrowing in each house, in each chamber. Regardless of which president we get in--in November, in January of next year, isn't it going to be tough to fulfill any of these promises working with a Congress that narrows?

Ms. HOOK: Absolutely. And I think this year is like the perfect object lesson in how--you know, the Republicans have control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and almost nothing is getting done.

Ms. SIMENDINGER: Right.

Ms. HOOK: And, you know, so if they lost a seat, even, you know, it would be even harder. On the other hand, you look back to last year, and you can see that under certain circumstances you can get a lot done even with a narrow margin. So it would--probably the--the worst consequence for Bush would be for him to get re-elected and to lose control of the Senate because that would just give him unending headaches.

IFILL: Is there a money question, too, as there always is with these, which is that the president--the president's--he's raising money, fine, but that he a--if he continues to slide in the polls, that members of Congress and people seeking the Senate are going to have more trouble raising money?

Ms. HOOK: I don't know. I think they tend to have sort of independent fund-raising bases. And, you know, right now I think the money situation is, as it always is, the Republicans have an advantage over the Democrats. But I think the Democrats have raised enough that that's not why they're going to win or lose.

IFILL: OK. Well, we'll be watching that, too. It's kind of nice to be talking about politics and it's not the presidential race. There's a lot else going on. And we'll be following it. Thank you.

GWEN IFILL, host: We're out of time for tonight. But you can hear the rest of our conversation on the Web, the WASHINGTON WEEK Webcast: your questions, our answers. And keep an eye on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer" for daily developments, and then join us again around the table next week on WASHINGTON WEEK. And for all of you who served in the wars we all just talk about, thank you for your service. Enjoy your Memorial Day--your Memorial Day weekend. Good night.

Join the e-mail exchange on our Web site. We'll use your questions in our reporters' roundtable, found only on WASHINGTON WEEK online. Write us at WashingtonWeek@pbs.org.