ALL THE ROOM IS TO THE LEFT:

Candidates' Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities: When it comes to Iraq, it is getting harder every day to distinguish between President Bush's prescription and that of Senator John Kerry. (ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON, 5/26/04, NY times)

They both support the June 30 deadline for the beginning of the transition to civilian power. They both say they would support an increase in United States troop strength, if necessary. Neither has supported a deadline for removing United States troops.

Mr. Bush's gradual shift away from what many Democrats have long denounced as a go-it-alone stance is an adjustment to the surge in violence in Iraq, as well as the deterioration of domestic support for the occupation in the wake of the prison abuse scandal.

But there also is clearly a political component at play here, as the White House seeks, while managing its own problems, to create a predicament for Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent. Mr. Kerry this week is beginning a series of speeches in which he will lay out some of his most detailed foreign policy pronouncements.

The fact that Mr. Bush has moved close to Mr. Kerry on some of these questions makes it much more difficult for Mr. Kerry to take advantage of what Democrats and Republicans view as the biggest political crisis of Mr. Bush's presidency, by emphasizing differences between them. Mr. Kerry is left to argue that while both men have similar ideas about what to do, he has more credibility to do it, given the breakdown in relations between Mr. Bush and many world leaders over Iraq.

Mr. Kerry has negotiated the shifting sands of Iraq for more than a year now. Some Democrats said that their candidate would just as soon stand back and not engage Mr. Bush on the war, allowing the president to struggle with setbacks, while avoiding making himself a target should Mr. Bush attempt to suggest that he is not supporting the troops.

But as Mr. Kerry is well aware, there is a growing antiwar segment of the American electorate. And there is likely to be an antiwar candidate on the ballot, in the person of Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who has called for an withdrawal of American forces.

In another sign of the complication Mr. Kerry faces, Al Gore, one of the party's severest critics of the war, is to deliver a speech in New York on Wednesday that is expected to call for the dismissal of top administration officials and assert that Americans have been put at risk at home and abroad by Mr. Bush's foreign policy.

"He's caught between what would be politically advantageous, declaring a timetable for getting out, and what he knows is the reality on the ground, which is that we need more troops," said one adviser who Mr. Kerry relies on heavily.

He won't do as well as Ross Perot--because he's a candidate of the disgruntled Left, not Right--but there's every reason to believe that Mr. Nader could do as well as the last similar third party candidate, John Anderson, who polled 6% in 1980. That would put Mr. Kerry perilously close to 40% and create the environment for a truly transformative election.

MORE:
The Bush and Kerry Tilt: On one issue, John Kerry is no alternative to George Bush:
Both of them embrace Ariel Sharon. (NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, 5/26/04, NY Times)

As for Mr. Kerry, he has generally been sensible on the Middle East. But in recent months he has zigged and zagged away from his record (he used to oppose the Middle East fence, for example) to plant his own wet kisses on Mr. Sharon. It's too bad he doesn't have the leadership to acknowledge what 50 former U.S. diplomats wrote in an open letter to President Bush last month:

"You have proved that the United States is not an evenhanded peace partner. . . . Your unqualified support of Sharon's extrajudicial assassinations, Israel's Berlin Wall-like barrier, its harsh military measures in occupied territories, and now your endorsement of Sharon's unilateral plan are costing our country its credibility, prestige and friends. This endorsement is not even in the best interests of Israel."

The Bush-Kerry Nondebate: In contrast to the heated arguing about Iraq in the media,
George Bush and John Kerry seem to see eye to eye on it. (WILLIAM SAFIRE, 5/26/04, NY Times)

Four weeks ago, at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo.,, Kerry laid out three basic options: (1) "continue to do this largely by ourselves" (would never work); (2) "pull out and hope against hope that the worst won't happen" (worst would happen); or (3) "get the Iraqi people and the world's major powers invested with us in building Iraq's future" (that's it!).

In his address the other night, President Bush agreed with Kerry's unassailable Option 3 by recounting his own five-step plan:

(1) Turn over sovereignty as promised in a month, the date O.K.'d by Kerry; (2) help establish security (like Kerry, Bush is ready to send over more troops if our generals ask, and they'd better not ask); (3) "rebuilding that nation's infrastructure," echoing Kerry's call for "tangible benefits of reconstruction in the form of jobs, infrastructure and services"; (4) "Next month at the NATO summit in Istanbul," Bush promised to "discuss NATO's role in helping Iraq build and secure its democracy." As Kerry said last month: "He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission."

Only on the fifth step can we find daylight between the two men's positions. The neomultilateral Bush boasted that "a United Nations team headed by Karina Pirelli is now in Iraq helping form an independent election commission that will oversee an orderly, accurate national election."

But Kerry prefers a "high commissioner . . . charged with overseeing elections . . . highly regarded by the international community." Sorry, Pirelli; step aside, Brahimi; we need a celebrated heavy hitter like Nelson Mandela or Jimmy Carter to order those so-called sovereign Iraqis around. (Who'd a-thunk it: Bush caving in to the U.N., while Kerry gives Kofi Annan's envoys the back of his hand.)

Aside from this minor divergence of views — which could be rectified the moment Bob Shrum reads this — the speeches of the two candidates show that they see eye to eye not only about staying the course, but about what course to pursue. "If the president will take the needed steps to share the burden," said Kerry, ". . . then I will support him on this issue." And the Bush five-step plan takes those steps.

PATRIOT 'MISSILE' BLASTS KERRY (BRIAN BLOMQUIST, May 26, 2004, NY Post)

The Bush campaign yesterday launched a new TV attack ad blasting John Kerry for voting for the anti-terror Patriot Act and then speaking out against it.

"John Kerry? He voted for the Patriot Act, but pressured by fellow liberals, he's changed his position," the narrator of the ad says.

"While wiretaps, subpoena powers and surveillances are routinely used against drug dealers and organized crime, Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools against terrorists."

"John Kerry: playing politics with national security," the commercial concludes. [...]

The Kerry campaign called the ad "completely false," saying Kerry himself used wiretaps when he was a prosecutor in the Boston.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 26, 2004 8:47 AM