White House Week
Think Baghdad Is Tough? Try This King and His Kingdom
Having visited Baghdad last week to shore up Iraqi resolve, Vice President Dick Cheney then headed off to Riyadh, where his meetings with the Saudi Arabian monarchy posed an even more considerable-or, at least, diplomatically more complex-challenge. The United States needs the support of Saudi Arabia for its Mideast policies, but King Abdullah has already taken several positions that make life difficult for the Bush administration. First, he does not think the American "surge" strategy for securing Iraq will work. Second, Saudi Arabia, populated largely by Sunni Muslims, worries that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tilts too far in favor of Iraq's Shiites. Third, Abdullah sees a linkage between Maliki's government and that of Saudi Arabia's rival, Iran. Could Cheney persuade him otherwise? The administration hoped a visit by its No. 2 would carry some real weight.
They Ought to Debate Risk Vs. Reward
There's a growing consensus among the Republican presidential candidates on at least one thing: Having all 10 White House hopefuls share the same platform and try to get a word in edgewise for 90 minutes isn't the best way to run a debate. But that happens to be the GOP presidential debate formula (story, Page 34). The sheer number of candidates makes it difficult for anyone to explain his views in detail, so everyone is forced to develop one-liners, which inhibits serious discussion. "It's hard to win this kind of debate but easy to make a perceived mistake," says one candidate's aide. Case in point: Rudy Giuliani's confusing explanation of his pro-choice views on abortion in the May 3 debate-an attempt that was portrayed by pundits as a weak response.
An Attack That Could Easily Backfire
President Bush and his advisers are eager to draw what one West Wing insider calls "sharp divisions" with congressional Democrats in an effort to recapture the House and Senate-and keep the presidency-in 2008. Among the likely options: Ratchet up attacks on Democrats for being "defeatist" in the war in Iraq; brand them as untrustworthy in the overall war on terrorism as they try to limit domestic surveillance and other antiterrorist methods; blast the Democrats as eager to raise taxes. Bush would be portrayed as resolute in war and eager to veto tax hikes. On the positive side, White House insiders still hope for legislation overhauling immigration laws, strengthening Bush's No Child Left Behind education law, and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The problem is that the attack strategy might alienate enough Democrats to make the positive strategy impossible.
If Only It Were All About Ideology
Rand reports that alliances are emerging between regional terrorist groups to exchange dangerous "technology and know-how." Groups have passed along development and training expertise on everything from remote-detonation devices to "barracksbuster" mortars, Rand says. In one case, trainers from the Provisional Irish Republican Army spent time in Colombia to help the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, improve its urban warfare capabilities. One key finding: Operational needs were more important than ideological concerns in determining whether or not terrorist groups would cooperate.
PHOTO OP: Midday, May 9, Greensburg, Kan.
With 95 percent of their town of 1,500 leveled by a tornado, Greensburg residents Cloriene and Kenneth Smith were in the mood for a little levity. So they were pleased to share a joke with President Bush , who had dropped by to join them in prayer and to hand out sympathy. Bush declared parts of Kansas a disaster area, freeing up federal aid.
With Kenneth T. Walsh and Kevin Whitelaw
This story appears in the May 21, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.
advertisement
