President Bush and Senator Kerry on Iraq Policy

KWAME HOLMAN:

Speaking in Washington Tuesday, President Bush addressed the planned U.S. transfer of authority to the Iraqis on June 30, and noted the violence there in recent weeks.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:

It's hard work in Iraq. Our efforts are approaching a crucial moment. On June 30, our coalition will transfer its authority to a sovereign Iraqi government. With the assistance of the United Nations and our coalition, Iraqi citizens are currently making important decisions about the nature and scope of the interim government.

Yet as June 30 approaches, the enemies of freedom grow even more desperate to prevent a rise of democracy in Iraq . That's what you're seeing on your TV screens — desperation by a hateful few, people who cannot stand the thought of free societies in their midst.

They're killing foreign aid workers who are helping to rebuild Iraq . They're attacking our military. Their goal is to undermine the will of our coalition and the will of America , and to drive us out before our mission is complete. They're not going to succeed. They will not shake the will of America.

KWAME HOLMAN:

While the president typically devotes a portion of each campaign speech to the conflict in Iraq , his November opponent, John Kerry, does not. Of late, Kerry's chosen to concentrate mostly on domestic issues.

Yesterday however, Kerry did discuss Iraq during an interview in Washington with the Associated Press, first on the subject of recruiting additional allies to help with rebuilding.

SEN. JOHN KERRY:

I think we need a president who knows how to strengthen America 's alliances and make us stronger in the world by restoring the respect and influence that we have had. It is at the lowest ebb in modern times.

People who ought to be sharing the burden with us in Iraq are not. Can a new president of the United States with a new approach to Iraq, which appropriately shares responsibility and reconstruction and authority and decision making, can that president convince people of the stakes and bring them to the table? The answer is profoundly yes, absolutely, no question.

KWAME HOLMAN:

Kerry was asked, if elected president, when he would bring American troops home.

SEN. JOHN KERRY:

I'm not going to give you know a short-term… when you say, "Can you get them home?" Look, you may have some deployments of people for a long period of time in the Middle East, depending on what the overall approach to the Middle East is — I'm not going to tell you that we won't shift deployments from one place to another, but we're not going to be engaged in an active kind of death zone the way we are today.

KWAME HOLMAN:

Kerry plans a speech on foreign policy next Thursday in Seattle . The White House says President Bush will address the Iraq situation regularly in the run-up to the June 30 transfer of authority.

MARGARET WARNER:

So how deep are the differences between President Bush and Senator Kerry on what to do now about Iraq?

From the Republican camp, Kenneth Adelman, he was director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan administration. He now serves on the Defense Policy Board, a group that advises Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

From the Democratic camp, Richard Holbrooke, he was U.N. Ambassador in the Clinton administration, and held a top State Department post in the Carter years. He's currently a foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign. Welcome to you both.

Alright, if I'm a voter and my number one issue is which of these two men will get this country out of Iraq, conclude the operation most successfully, why, Ken Adelman, should I vote for President Bush?

KENNETH ADELMAN:

Well, I think because he has a steady and clear policy that we're going to transfer sovereignty over to Iraq on June 30. Then assist in having a government that will help the newly elected government of Iraq . If you go with Kerry, I think that, although he's been very responsive of late and responsible of late, you don't know what you're getting because his policy on Iraq has been really all over the lot.

He was against the war, he was for the war, he was against getting out, he was for getting out. Now he is for the supplemental that he was against a few weeks ago.

And when he talks about his secretary of defense prospective, it could be somebody way against the war, like he mentioned Sen. Levin, or it could be someone who thinks that Bush has been too soft on the war, like Sen. McCain, who he also mentioned.

You don't know what you're getting there because his leadership just hasn't been evident.

MARGARET WARNER:

Flip question to you, Mr. Holbrooke. If I'm that voter and my number-one test is concluding this operation successfully, why should I vote for Sen. Kerry?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

First of all, Margaret, we have to look at what's actually happened in Iraq for the last year and then decide whether or not the incumbent administration deserves to be allowed to continue this effort. Then we ought to look at Sen. Kerry's actual position, which unlike what Ken Adelman just said, has been absolutely consistent.

In fact, it's the Bush administration which has flipped and flopped from the beginning. Now, on Iraq itself, Saddam Hussein was an extreme tyrant. Getting rid of him was a correct objective. Sen. Kerry supported the resolution in September of 2002, as did I, that authorized the president to take action against him.

None of us, not myself, not Sen. Kerry, as it turns out, not even Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz who two days ago admitted that his miscalculations had been continual for the last year, could have imagined that things would turn out this badly.

The administration has achieved only one of its stated goals: It's gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. And for that all of us, including the Iraqi people, should be grateful. But every other benchmark, every other goal has gone the way of the wind, the desert winds of Iraq.

The governing council will be dismantled in 40 days. The U.S. authority will be turned over to an Iraqi government, but what government? How in God's name could the United States be prepared to turn over sovereignty without knowing who to a group that will be determined by Lakhdar Brahimi, a U.N. official, an Algerian Sunni Muslim, a very good guy in many ways. He's smart. I worked with him. But we don't know what he's going to come up with or when he's going to come up with it or whether it serves America 's national interests.

This administration, which has undermined, demeaned, and under funded the U.N. for three years has now turned its fate and destiny in Iraq over to the U.N. while leaving 135,000 American men and women at risk.

Even today the administration raided the home of Ahmed Chalabi, as your previous segment just indicated, without apparently the secretary of defense knowing it was going to happen.

Chalabi, the man who invented the weapons of mass destruction, maybe they raided his house to look for the missing weapons — who knows — but I want to be clear that the administration has set out to pursue a worthy goal, has done it so ineptly that we have to face the reality of the danger of a civil war and more casualties.

Now, Sen. Kerry, contrary to what Ken Adelman just said, Senator Kerry has been consistent in sporting the goals and laying out an alternative strategy, which I believe has a much, much better chance of succeeding in what is, after all, the worst crisis the U.S. has faced since Vietnam.

MARGARET WARNER:

All right. Ken Adelman, answer the charge, which is being made by the Kerry camp, that the president has mismanaged the war thus far in many respects.

KENNETH ADELMAN:

I would say it's been very difficult. It's far more difficult than anybody expected a year ago in that you know you try things because you're in a new ground.

I think it is fair to say that we expected there would be whole units of the army that would turn over either at the time of liberation or shortly thereafter and be more coherent.

We did not expect that there would be so much resistance to a freedom plan that the Bush Administration has. Now, listen, it is totally legitimate for the opposition to say that Bush got it wrong. I understand that argument, and I don't agree with it, but it's consistent and it's, you know, there's a case to be made there, and that's the Sen. Levin case.

MARGARET WARNER:

Let's focus on the future.

KENNETH ADELMAN:

But you really can't say Kerry has been consistent. That's just not true.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

Of course he has, Ken. He has never stopped talking about the need to bring in an international cover for our presence through the U.N., of bringing in more forces, of building the kind of diplomatic coalitions which would have worked.

Let me just say one other thing, Ken, he is a very experienced diplomat and a professional and an international expert, as well as his famous Vietnam service.

KENNETH ADELMAN:

I'm not saying he's not an experienced guy. What I'm saying is when he votes to authorize the president for the going into Iraq and then he says, oh, my God, I'm amazed that he went into Iraq, after authorizing that, when he then says, we cannot cut and run, and then votes zero money for us to stay in Iraq, which necessitates us to cut and run, if Congress had gone his way, and then he says we have to be steady, and then he now votes for the new supplemental, it's a policy that's incoherent.

MARGARET WARNER:

Can I get you…

KENNETH ADELMAN:

He may turn out fine, but you have no indication now because you don't know where he stands on anything.

MARGARET WARNER:

I would like to get the two of you to agree that now we're going to look forward. When voters sit down, they want to know, where is this guy taking me. Dick Holbrooke, I'll start with you. If you look at some of the positions you just laid out, internationalizing the force, getting the U.N. more involved, bringing NATO in, getting a better Iraqi military, at this point, those are also positions that the president to some degree…

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

Not really.

MARGARET WARNER:

All right. So you both disagree. What are the differences on where to go from here?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

First of all, the president has not yet gotten to the point where Sen. Kerry has been for over a year. Secondly, the president's movement in the direction that Sen. Kerry and many other leading Democrats and many Republicans have advocated, ought to indicate to your viewers which of the two men has the better prospect of bringing America its national security objectives in Iraq.

MARGARET WARNER:

Are there specific policy differences that you see between Sen. Kerry's approach and the president's approach at this moment?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

Anyone who knows the two men, their background and what they've said, knows that they would have pursued Iraq differently and the challenge…

KENNETH ADELMAN:

Let me answer your question. If Richard is not going to answer your question, I'll answer it.

MARGARET WARNER:

All right. What differences do you see?

KENNETH ADELMAN:

Okay. I think it's clear that Sen. Kerry has been talking about a commissioner from the U.N. I think that it's clear that President Bush has been talking about handing over sovereignty not to the U.N. on June 30 but to an Iraqi interim regime. And I think that regime will have to set up elections. I think that will be a very big difference or that is a difference on going out. I think secondly that it's fair to say that President Bush has an enormous stake in Iraq, that his base, the people around him are absolutely convinced that we have to see it out and win.

The Democratic Party is obviously a big coalition right there. You have the Dean faction, you have all kinds of factions. You have people who really want to get out of Iraq real quick. You have other people that are like Lieberman who are, you know, thinking the president's a little soft on this issue.

So you have a lot of different pressures then, and you have a lot of uncertainty with Kerry. I'm not saying he's not experienced, because I think Dick Holbrooke is right, he is experienced, but the fact is there is a great uncertainty because his position has been all over the lot, and when he talks about a secretary of defense, he goes from Carl Levin on the far left to McCain on the far right. You have no idea what the guy is going to do.

MARGARET WARNER:

Okay. Dick Holbrooke, respond on those two points, one that Sen. Kerry sees more of a role for the U.N. than President Bush… and secondly…

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

The sovereignty issue.

MARGARET WARNER:

On the sovereignty issue. And secondly, that he has not been precise enough about what he would do to give people confidence that they know where he's going.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

On the first point, Margaret, it is quite extraordinary to say that the administration has a plan when they don't know who they're turning sovereignty over to in 40 days and we'll with told in the not too distant future by a U.N. official, a Muslim, Sunni, Algerian named Lakhdar Brahimi — that's a policy? Not really.

I was at the U.N., I know Brahimi, as I said earlier. He's a good guy, but for this administration, after demeaning the U.N., to do this is bizarre. As for sovereignty, of course if the administration had moved a year ago in the direction that many people had advocated, including Sen. Kerry, we'd be in better shape today. But Ambassador Bremer's pro-councilor role really is a failure.

Not one benchmark, not one deadline, not one process that they laid out worked. The governing council will be scrapped in a few weeks. The interim constitution is going to be a footnote to history. That bizarre flag that Ambassador Bremer and company designed for Iraq will be thrown out. Americans are being put into harm's way without an adequate political plan.

Now, Senator Kerry is all for returning sovereignty to Iraq and taking care of women's rights and all the other values that we hold dear, and he is, contrary to what Ken just said, there is no chance at all that Sen. Kerry would follow the advocacy of anyone who wants to cut and run. He is a strong national security Democrat from his three purple hearts, his silver star and his bronze star in Vietnam, all the way through to his principled stands on many foreign policy issues, including, I want to stress, his strong support for the Clinton administration in overthrowing Milosevic and cleaning up Bosnia and Kosovo.

MARGARET WARNER:

Mr. Holbrooke, let me follow up on that with you and ask you this — Ralph Nader says that's exactly the lack of a difference between your candidate and President Bush. When you said he wouldn't cut and run, Ralph Nader is saying, we have to set a timetable for troop withdrawal now. Would Sen. Kerry ever be open to that?

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

Well, listen, Margaret, if anyone wants to cut and run, and they want to vote for Ralph Nader, that's their privilege. Senator Kerry isn't going to cut and run.

But when he's elected president, and I am confident he's going to win, when he is elected president, he will confront a dramatically different situation in January of next year than he does now because none of us know what's going to happen after July 1, above all the U.S. administration which has put 135,000 American troops in harm's way in a situation which is even more chaotic and even more dangerous than Vietnam.

So Sen. Kerry will deal with it with all the skills and experience he has at the time, but it's clear what his objectives will be, to defend American national security and our vital interests in the region. That requires, and here I want to get back to your earlier question, that requires a stable Iraq in a stable region. It requires dealing with the problems between Israel and the Palestinians in a way that fully supports Israel but also gets America more engaged in putting pressure on the Palestinians, the terrorists and the Saudis who keep financing all this.

It also requires strong advocacy of a political solution in Iraq which involves a balance between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. None of that has been done in the last year. Not one piece of this has occurred, and how anyone can think that a group that has performed the way it has so far has any chance of doing this right in the future is really a bridge too far for me.

MARGARET WARNER:

And, Mr. Adelman, on the right, there are also voices calling for more radical approaches, for instance Bill Kristol and others have written that the president should consider advancing elections. Is the president…

KENNETH ADELMAN:

That's not a very radical idea. It's an idea that there will be elections at the beginning of next year and move them up two months.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE:

Margaret, can I just point out —

MARGARET WARNER:

No, actually, let Mr. Adelman finish because you've had a lot of time, Mr. Holbrooke. Do you think that between now and the election, President Bush may make some significant shifts in policy?

KENNETH ADELMAN:

I think he'll have to because I think it's a shifting situation, but these are technical, small shifts on how we're doing there in terms of security. It is on the modalities for elections, the kind of local elections that we hope to have, and that kind of thing is necessary.

Listen, this is really hard work, and I think that we have to realize it's tough flogging on something like this. To have it turn out well is difficult, but I think that there's a chance that it can. It has been difficult and God knows it may be more difficult as time goes on. You just got to do it.

MARGARET WARNER:

Finally, also comment on something Mr. Holbrooke said and we heard John Kerry say, which is really only a new president will be able to internationalize this effort, if only because President Bush has too much baggage and too much enmity to…

KENNETH ADELMAN:

That's the advantage of being an outsider and not an incumbent. You can promise everything. Are they really talking about the French, are they really talking about the French and the Russians are going to go along?

Listen, Margaret, the French and Russians wanted to keep Saddam Hussein in power. They wanted to do the opposite that Richard Holbrooke says he wanted to do, which was get rid of Saddam Hussein. They're not going to come along and cooperate. I don't want an American president to hinge our foreign policy on what the French foreign policy is going to do. I just don't think that's acceptable.

MARGARET WARNER:

All right, gentlemen, we have to leave it there. Ken Adelman, Richard Holbrooke, thank you.