TONY JONES: It's clear that in the final stages of the campaign the issues of national security, the war on terrorism and the ongoing conflict in Iraq have come to dominate.
Our guests tonight are both expert commentators on those issues.
Frank Gaffney is the president and founder of the Centre for Security Policy, a leading neo-conservative think tank.
Harlan Ullman is a senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and co-author of 'Finishing Business: Ten Steps to Defeat Global Terrorism'.
He's also an occasional advisor to John Kerry and, like the Democratic challenger, a Vietnam veteran who served in swift boats.
They both join me now live from Washington.
Thanks to both of you for being there.
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTRE FOR SECURITY POLICY: Thank you.
TONY JONES: Frank Gaffney, first to you, if you were to judge George W Bush solely on the handling of post-war Iraq, you'd have to question whether he deserved a second term, wouldn't you?
FRANK GAFFNEY: Well, of course I think that that would be an inappropriate basis to make any judgment, but I think on balance, while things have not gone as well as we would have liked, it's, I think, still the case, you would rather have a man who had the vision to take down Saddam Hussein and run the risks associated with doing so, running the presidency of the United States and running its very prominent important role in the war on terror, than a man who, clearly, was unable to stay on a single course - he talked, John Kerry, at one point talked about the need to do just what President Bush had done, embraced early on, frankly, back in 1998, the need to make it US policy to remove Saddam Hussein.
Made it very clear that he thought Saddam Hussein and his ties to terror and weapons of mass destruction were in fact important threats to this country and yet, subsequently concluded that that was politically inexpedient, decided especially in light of difficulties in Iraq that he really he would have done it altogether differently.
I think that that's more important than the tactical situation day to day on the ground, which will improve if we stay the course and provide the proper leadership.
TONY JONES: Harlan Ullman, let me come to you on that point.
Does George W Bush deserve a second term?
HARLAN ULLMAN, CENTRE FOR STRATEGIES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Well, in my mind he doesn't, but, look, the issue is larger than that.
The issue is that we now have a strategic catastrophe on our hands in Iraq.
Everything is going very badly.
It's very unlikely there's going to be an election in January.
As a matter of fact, there's not even potable water throughout most of Iraq.
We have failed miserably, and the story of the ammunition that disappeared, by the way that's old news, this has been happening since the invasion started in March of 2003.
The fact of the matter is that the Administration for better, for worse, just flunked in terms of dealing with the peace.
The problem is no matter who wins they have three bad choices - worse, worser or worsest, because as Frank Gaffney says and I agree, we have no alternative but to stay the course, but to do that the question is - how do you do that?
Do you put more troops in, which may be very, very difficult to do domestically?
Do you try and take out the Sunni and the uproar if you fail, precipitate a civil war?
Do you put your faith in Sistani, the radical cleric, who might be a Democrat, might be a demagogue, or might be an ayatollah?
We have very difficult choices and the problem is that no matter who is elected President he'll have to deal with them, and quite frankly I do not see much difference between John Kerry and George Bush in terms of what they will do.
Having said that, for better, for worse, I think we need a new president because we need a fresh start, but I will say publicly, whether John Kerry, if he's elected is up to the task, remains to be seen.
TONY JONES: We're not going to pick up Harlan Ullman on his grammar, but let me go to Frank Gaffney on this question of the mismanagement and this unexplained loss of hundreds of tonnes of explosives.
Should people be worried about that?
FRANK GAFFNEY: I think there's a lot to be worried about in terms of what Saddam Hussein had in the way of weapons, explosives, and I believe, frankly, weapons of mass destruction.
We went into Iraq under the distinct impression that were we to leave them in place they would be more dangerous than if we went in there to dispose of them, to secure them, and otherwise to deny them from Saddam's terrorist friends.
I still think that was the right choice.
Was it messy?
Absolutely.
Were we very lucky, in fact, that more of this ordnance was not used against our forces and our Australian allies.
I think the world is a safer place.
I disagree with some of Harlan's characterisation of Iraq as a strategic disaster.
I do not see it that way.
I think it is a challenge.
There wasn't potable water throughout the country before we got in there.
The weapons that are missing at the moment I'm almost certain were missing before we took charge, before we certainly got to that particular compound.
My guess is that we will find some of that ordnance as we continue to secure caches all over the country.
Unfortunately, some of it will be used I'm sure in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere against us and innocent Iraqis most especially.
TONY JONES: Harlan Ullman, the President can't be expected to micromanage everything from his position in the White House right down to what's happening on the ground as to who in the Pentagon failed to find these weapons or not find these explosives, I should say.
Why should he take the blame for this as John Kerry wants him to in the final stages of the campaign?
It's just rhetoric, isn't it?
HARLAN ULLMAN: Well, I don't think it is.
At the end of the day the commander-in-chief, the President, is in charge and he has the responsibility.
And the fact of the matter is, a lot of these things were known.
I, for one, before the war as you well know and during the war were making these arguments.
In fact, I really had grave doubts that there were weapons of mass destruction present.
And I think one of the problems was that there was really nobody in full charge at the end of the day.
The New York Times has run some very interesting articles about the disconnects between the Coalition Provisional Authority, the White House and the Pentagon.
And so I think that there was really no disciplined leadership that looked at these things in toto because I think the assumption was that we would win quickly, which we did, that the Iraqi National Congress and other Iraqis would rally to our side and that we would be able to get out very, very quickly.
Therefore we did not anticipate what happened.
But the fact of the matter is that it's President Bush's administration and had we had a roaring success and had we democratised the Middle East he'd be winning this election by 20 points.
The other thing that we have to bring in mind and one of the reasons I think that we are in terrifically grave difficulty here has to do with Iran.
The chances Iran will become a nuclear state are not insignificant.
So we have a Middle East now possibly with Arafat's death, the Arab/Isreali/Palestinian conflict could hit possibly a new high, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain troubled states, Iran.
And what do we have in Iraq?
An insurgency that's getting worse and worse.
Some of the most senior members of this government are afraid that right now we are losing the insurgency and will have to do things differently if we're going to turn it around.
Which - I repeat - we have no alternative.
We must stay the course in my judgment.
TONY JONES: Let me go back to Frank Gaffney.
Frank, I made a short list of things that could be described as mismanagement.
The Abu Ghraib scandal, the worsening insurgency, a new focus appearing for Islamic terrorism, daily kidnapping and bombings, the regular massacre of police and army recruits, continuing US casualties, the delayed assault on Fallujah and now real yes of whether elections in January are even feasible.
Do all these things go to the competency of the President and his Administration?
FRANK GAFFNEY: I think inevitably if things don't go brilliantly anybody who's in charge bears some responsibility.
I think in answer to the earlier question and some you have just posed, clearly issues of individual command decisions in Abu Ghraib or at certain sites in Iraq, I think it's very hard to lay that directly at the feet of the President, but here's the real point, the President's management will be judged ultimately by whether he succeeds in creating a climate in Iraq whereby the people of Iraq recognise the future lies with freedom and the kinds of consolidation of the liberation of Iraq that the President has tried to bring about but if they conclude otherwise, then many of the dire things that Harlan has talked about are certain to come to pass, and with very profound effects, I think, throughout the region.
So I'm happy to say we agree on the importance of staying the course, I think frankly that we disagree mostly perhaps on the question of does that signal to the Iraqi people that we are going to stay the course, we are reliable, they are right to invest their futures, their security, in the cause that we are supporting, will be profoundly more difficult a case to make if John Kerry is elected on the very platform that this was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time and it's a complete hash up and we're going to start pulling out troops as soon as six months into his administration.
That's not going to conjure the right ideas on the part of the Iraqi people nor I think be conducive to success there or elsewhere in the region.
TONY JONES: Harlan Ullman, John Kerry has suffered tremendously from the advertisements which portray him as a flip flopper on these issue and all those things that Frank Gaffney is now saying will come to play as people cast their vote, how seriously can he be taken if he hasn't made his position absolutely clear on what he intends to do in Iraq?
HARLAN ULLMAN: Well, let me make two points here, because I think to some degree John has gotten himself in trouble by his use of nuance - but I think Kerry is a much more consistent and a much more courageous fellow.
I've known him for a a very long time but Frank Gaffney is right.
What happens in Iraq will determine really what was right and what was wrong.
The other point is that this is not only a failure of the presidency.
It is a failure of Congress.
I am outraged with Congress.
There has been no oversight, a year ago they passed $US18.4 billion on an emergency basis to reconstruct Iraq.
We have spent pennies.
There has been no oversight, there has been no outrage on the part of Congress and I think that this is something that really is testing our Government.
I also thing that both political parties are at blame here.
They're talking about trying to get even against the other one when the fact of the matter is we have a huge problem here.
I hope Frank is right, that things are better than they look.
We really need our best and most serious people on a non-partisan basis looking at Iraq, reviewing the options, saying, "Listen, we're there, we have no alternative except to make this a success.
What do we need to do and quite frankly, no matter who's elected President, I'm not sure that will happen.
TONY JONES: Frank Gaffney, let me ask you how you think this is going to play out politically.
We saw a small piece from a small town in Pennsylvania which has lost five young men to the war in Iraq, but the issue of patriotism, in fact, seemed stronger in that town than anywhere else.
People obviously didn't want to lose their young men to a war which had no meaning and so they tended to be supporting Bush.
How do you think this will play out?
FRANK GAFFNEY: I'm not in a very good position to judge.
By all accounts, it's a very close election.
My guess, and it's really nothing more than a guess, is that when people go into that voting booth, the question that will be uppermost in their mind is, is the world I live in, more generally and even my own community and family, likely to be more secure under President Bush who is a known commodity, with all of his defects, is nonetheless a known commodity, has demonstrated certain skills and leadership in a difficult period.
Or is it going to be better under a guy, who as Harlan says, it's not clear how he'll perform in these very challenging times.
If that is the judgment that they make, my guess is they'll re-elect President Bush and probably by a fairly significant margin.
TONY JONES: Harlan Ullman, what do you think American voters actually want in a time of war like this.
Do they want someone with flaws that they've gotten used to, they know how he's going to respond or do they want to take a risk and go for someone promising to take the pressure off?
HARLAN ULLMAN: Well, I think it's going to be more complicated and much broader than what's happening in Iraq.
The public will in its own mind determine whether they feel more comfortable with either President Bush or Senator Kerry, domestically, economically in terms of a lot of other things.
You haven't raised health care, social security - a lot of hot issues.
You maybe focusing just a wee bit too much on the issue in Iraq.
I believe, however, at the end of the day if I had to make a guess, President Bush is likely to win because I do not think that Senator Kerry has gotten his message out in a way that was bold enough and broad enough to paint a vision that Americans could really respond to.
We will see, the race is extremely close.
Who knows how it will turn out?
Who knows what will happen with all the changes in the voting procedures, with new machines in one place and old machines in others.
It's probably too close to call, but I think at the end of the day if I had to bet a dollar I think Mr Bush will probably be re-elected.
If he is, whether he will understand the difficulty we're in in Iraq and make sweeping changes is really the issue and I see very, very little evidence of that.
Of course, he's busy campaigning, not dealing with other things.
Another point here - right now the Congress has been deadlocked on this intelligence Bill to create a national intelligence director.
There are some very good reasons why that is the case, but those reasons really have not come out into the open.
I think no matter what happens, the next President has got to exert leadership, bringing the real issues to bear so that the weight of public opinion can be felt and we can sort a lot of these things out.
Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to be in irons and I think the situation in Iraq will get a lot worse before it gets better.
TONY JONES: Now we're just about to lose our satellite, Frank Gaffney, a quick response to that from you if I can and we'll have to leave you there after that?
FRANK GAFFNEY: Well, I agree, I think President Bush is likely to win and I agree with Harlan, I guess, that the intelligence bill that is not going to be passed in a hasty, ill considered way is a very good thing.
We will see whoever is elected having to deal both with Iraq and intelligence and frankly, the much broader war against what I would call Islamo-fascism against whoever wins.
TONY JONES: We'll talk about that in the future no matter whoever wins.
Frank Gaffney and Harlan Ullman we thank you both for coming in so early to join us tonight.
Our guests tonight are both expert commentators on those issues.
Frank Gaffney is the president and founder of the Centre for Security Policy, a leading neo-conservative think tank.
Harlan Ullman is a senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies and co-author of 'Finishing Business: Ten Steps to Defeat Global Terrorism'.
He's also an occasional advisor to John Kerry and, like the Democratic challenger, a Vietnam veteran who served in swift boats.
They both join me now live from Washington.
Thanks to both of you for being there.
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTRE FOR SECURITY POLICY: Thank you.
TONY JONES: Frank Gaffney, first to you, if you were to judge George W Bush solely on the handling of post-war Iraq, you'd have to question whether he deserved a second term, wouldn't you?
FRANK GAFFNEY: Well, of course I think that that would be an inappropriate basis to make any judgment, but I think on balance, while things have not gone as well as we would have liked, it's, I think, still the case, you would rather have a man who had the vision to take down Saddam Hussein and run the risks associated with doing so, running the presidency of the United States and running its very prominent important role in the war on terror, than a man who, clearly, was unable to stay on a single course - he talked, John Kerry, at one point talked about the need to do just what President Bush had done, embraced early on, frankly, back in 1998, the need to make it US policy to remove Saddam Hussein.
Made it very clear that he thought Saddam Hussein and his ties to terror and weapons of mass destruction were in fact important threats to this country and yet, subsequently concluded that that was politically inexpedient, decided especially in light of difficulties in Iraq that he really he would have done it altogether differently.
I think that that's more important than the tactical situation day to day on the ground, which will improve if we stay the course and provide the proper leadership.
TONY JONES: Harlan Ullman, let me come to you on that point.
Does George W Bush deserve a second term?
HARLAN ULLMAN, CENTRE FOR STRATEGIES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Well, in my mind he doesn't, but, look, the issue is larger than that.
The issue is that we now have a strategic catastrophe on our hands in Iraq.
Everything is going very badly.
It's very unlikely there's going to be an election in January.
As a matter of fact, there's not even potable water throughout most of Iraq.
We have failed miserably, and the story of the ammunition that disappeared, by the way that's old news, this has been happening since the invasion started in March of 2003.
The fact of the matter is that the Administration for better, for worse, just flunked in terms of dealing with the peace.
The problem is no matter who wins they have three bad choices - worse, worser or worsest, because as Frank Gaffney says and I agree, we have no alternative but to stay the course, but to do that the question is - how do you do that?
Do you put more troops in, which may be very, very difficult to do domestically?
Do you try and take out the Sunni and the uproar if you fail, precipitate a civil war?
Do you put your faith in Sistani, the radical cleric, who might be a Democrat, might be a demagogue, or might be an ayatollah?
We have very difficult choices and the problem is that no matter who is elected President he'll have to deal with them, and quite frankly I do not see much difference between John Kerry and George Bush in terms of what they will do.
Having said that, for better, for worse, I think we need a new president because we need a fresh start, but I will say publicly, whether John Kerry, if he's elected is up to the task, remains to be seen.
TONY JONES: We're not going to pick up Harlan Ullman on his grammar, but let me go to Frank Gaffney on this question of the mismanagement and this unexplained loss of hundreds of tonnes of explosives.
Should people be worried about that?
FRANK GAFFNEY: I think there's a lot to be worried about in terms of what Saddam Hussein had in the way of weapons, explosives, and I believe, frankly, weapons of mass destruction.
We went into Iraq under the distinct impression that were we to leave them in place they would be more dangerous than if we went in there to dispose of them, to secure them, and otherwise to deny them from Saddam's terrorist friends.
I still think that was the right choice.
Was it messy?
Absolutely.
Were we very lucky, in fact, that more of this ordnance was not used against our forces and our Australian allies.
I think the world is a safer place.
I disagree with some of Harlan's characterisation of Iraq as a strategic disaster.
I do not see it that way.
I think it is a challenge.
There wasn't potable water throughout the country before we got in there.
The weapons that are missing at the moment I'm almost certain were missing before we took charge, before we certainly got to that particular compound.
My guess is that we will find some of that ordnance as we continue to secure caches all over the country.
Unfortunately, some of it will be used I'm sure in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere against us and innocent Iraqis most especially.
TONY JONES: Harlan Ullman, the President can't be expected to micromanage everything from his position in the White House right down to what's happening on the ground as to who in the Pentagon failed to find these weapons or not find these explosives, I should say.
Why should he take the blame for this as John Kerry wants him to in the final stages of the campaign?
It's just rhetoric, isn't it?
HARLAN ULLMAN: Well, I don't think it is.
At the end of the day the commander-in-chief, the President, is in charge and he has the responsibility.
And the fact of the matter is, a lot of these things were known.
I, for one, before the war as you well know and during the war were making these arguments.
In fact, I really had grave doubts that there were weapons of mass destruction present.
And I think one of the problems was that there was really nobody in full charge at the end of the day.
The New York Times has run some very interesting articles about the disconnects between the Coalition Provisional Authority, the White House and the Pentagon.
And so I think that there was really no disciplined leadership that looked at these things in toto because I think the assumption was that we would win quickly, which we did, that the Iraqi National Congress and other Iraqis would rally to our side and that we would be able to get out very, very quickly.
Therefore we did not anticipate what happened.
But the fact of the matter is that it's President Bush's administration and had we had a roaring success and had we democratised the Middle East he'd be winning this election by 20 points.
The other thing that we have to bring in mind and one of the reasons I think that we are in terrifically grave difficulty here has to do with Iran.
The chances Iran will become a nuclear state are not insignificant.
So we have a Middle East now possibly with Arafat's death, the Arab/Isreali/Palestinian conflict could hit possibly a new high, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain troubled states, Iran.
And what do we have in Iraq?
An insurgency that's getting worse and worse.
Some of the most senior members of this government are afraid that right now we are losing the insurgency and will have to do things differently if we're going to turn it around.
Which - I repeat - we have no alternative.
We must stay the course in my judgment.
TONY JONES: Let me go back to Frank Gaffney.
Frank, I made a short list of things that could be described as mismanagement.
The Abu Ghraib scandal, the worsening insurgency, a new focus appearing for Islamic terrorism, daily kidnapping and bombings, the regular massacre of police and army recruits, continuing US casualties, the delayed assault on Fallujah and now real yes of whether elections in January are even feasible.
Do all these things go to the competency of the President and his Administration?
FRANK GAFFNEY: I think inevitably if things don't go brilliantly anybody who's in charge bears some responsibility.
I think in answer to the earlier question and some you have just posed, clearly issues of individual command decisions in Abu Ghraib or at certain sites in Iraq, I think it's very hard to lay that directly at the feet of the President, but here's the real point, the President's management will be judged ultimately by whether he succeeds in creating a climate in Iraq whereby the people of Iraq recognise the future lies with freedom and the kinds of consolidation of the liberation of Iraq that the President has tried to bring about but if they conclude otherwise, then many of the dire things that Harlan has talked about are certain to come to pass, and with very profound effects, I think, throughout the region.
So I'm happy to say we agree on the importance of staying the course, I think frankly that we disagree mostly perhaps on the question of does that signal to the Iraqi people that we are going to stay the course, we are reliable, they are right to invest their futures, their security, in the cause that we are supporting, will be profoundly more difficult a case to make if John Kerry is elected on the very platform that this was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time and it's a complete hash up and we're going to start pulling out troops as soon as six months into his administration.
That's not going to conjure the right ideas on the part of the Iraqi people nor I think be conducive to success there or elsewhere in the region.
TONY JONES: Harlan Ullman, John Kerry has suffered tremendously from the advertisements which portray him as a flip flopper on these issue and all those things that Frank Gaffney is now saying will come to play as people cast their vote, how seriously can he be taken if he hasn't made his position absolutely clear on what he intends to do in Iraq?
HARLAN ULLMAN: Well, let me make two points here, because I think to some degree John has gotten himself in trouble by his use of nuance - but I think Kerry is a much more consistent and a much more courageous fellow.
I've known him for a a very long time but Frank Gaffney is right.
What happens in Iraq will determine really what was right and what was wrong.
The other point is that this is not only a failure of the presidency.
It is a failure of Congress.
I am outraged with Congress.
There has been no oversight, a year ago they passed $US18.4 billion on an emergency basis to reconstruct Iraq.
We have spent pennies.
There has been no oversight, there has been no outrage on the part of Congress and I think that this is something that really is testing our Government.
I also thing that both political parties are at blame here.
They're talking about trying to get even against the other one when the fact of the matter is we have a huge problem here.
I hope Frank is right, that things are better than they look.
We really need our best and most serious people on a non-partisan basis looking at Iraq, reviewing the options, saying, "Listen, we're there, we have no alternative except to make this a success.
What do we need to do and quite frankly, no matter who's elected President, I'm not sure that will happen.
TONY JONES: Frank Gaffney, let me ask you how you think this is going to play out politically.
We saw a small piece from a small town in Pennsylvania which has lost five young men to the war in Iraq, but the issue of patriotism, in fact, seemed stronger in that town than anywhere else.
People obviously didn't want to lose their young men to a war which had no meaning and so they tended to be supporting Bush.
How do you think this will play out?
FRANK GAFFNEY: I'm not in a very good position to judge.
By all accounts, it's a very close election.
My guess, and it's really nothing more than a guess, is that when people go into that voting booth, the question that will be uppermost in their mind is, is the world I live in, more generally and even my own community and family, likely to be more secure under President Bush who is a known commodity, with all of his defects, is nonetheless a known commodity, has demonstrated certain skills and leadership in a difficult period.
Or is it going to be better under a guy, who as Harlan says, it's not clear how he'll perform in these very challenging times.
If that is the judgment that they make, my guess is they'll re-elect President Bush and probably by a fairly significant margin.
TONY JONES: Harlan Ullman, what do you think American voters actually want in a time of war like this.
Do they want someone with flaws that they've gotten used to, they know how he's going to respond or do they want to take a risk and go for someone promising to take the pressure off?
HARLAN ULLMAN: Well, I think it's going to be more complicated and much broader than what's happening in Iraq.
The public will in its own mind determine whether they feel more comfortable with either President Bush or Senator Kerry, domestically, economically in terms of a lot of other things.
You haven't raised health care, social security - a lot of hot issues.
You maybe focusing just a wee bit too much on the issue in Iraq.
I believe, however, at the end of the day if I had to make a guess, President Bush is likely to win because I do not think that Senator Kerry has gotten his message out in a way that was bold enough and broad enough to paint a vision that Americans could really respond to.
We will see, the race is extremely close.
Who knows how it will turn out?
Who knows what will happen with all the changes in the voting procedures, with new machines in one place and old machines in others.
It's probably too close to call, but I think at the end of the day if I had to bet a dollar I think Mr Bush will probably be re-elected.
If he is, whether he will understand the difficulty we're in in Iraq and make sweeping changes is really the issue and I see very, very little evidence of that.
Of course, he's busy campaigning, not dealing with other things.
Another point here - right now the Congress has been deadlocked on this intelligence Bill to create a national intelligence director.
There are some very good reasons why that is the case, but those reasons really have not come out into the open.
I think no matter what happens, the next President has got to exert leadership, bringing the real issues to bear so that the weight of public opinion can be felt and we can sort a lot of these things out.
Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to be in irons and I think the situation in Iraq will get a lot worse before it gets better.
TONY JONES: Now we're just about to lose our satellite, Frank Gaffney, a quick response to that from you if I can and we'll have to leave you there after that?
FRANK GAFFNEY: Well, I agree, I think President Bush is likely to win and I agree with Harlan, I guess, that the intelligence bill that is not going to be passed in a hasty, ill considered way is a very good thing.
We will see whoever is elected having to deal both with Iraq and intelligence and frankly, the much broader war against what I would call Islamo-fascism against whoever wins.
TONY JONES: We'll talk about that in the future no matter whoever wins.
Frank Gaffney and Harlan Ullman we thank you both for coming in so early to join us tonight.