Bush Administration Takes Page from Obama's Playbook
BLITZER: To our viewers, you're in THE SITUATION ROOM. Happening now, talking to Iran, bringing troops home from Iraq. Is the Bush administration right now taking a page from Senator Obama's playbook and what does it mean for the campaign? Also, Planned Parenthood turns John McCain's own words against him. Will the new ad cost him votes from women? And JibJabbing the candidates, a new animated video mocking Barack Obama and John McCain, among others. All this, plus the best political team on television. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM. But, first, a developing story we're tracking right now. Pilots from U.S. airways are complaining they're being pressured to save fuel, possibly jeopardizing safety. Let's get details. CNN's Deborah Feyerick is working the story for us. Deb, what do we know?</s>DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, take a look at page five of the "USA Today." A full-page ad by the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, it accuses U.S. Airways management of pressuring captains to reduce fuel levels in order to save money. Eight pilots filed complaints with the FAA, as did the union. They accused the airline of trying to infringe on the captain's authority by making them fly with less fuel than they're comfortable with. Prior to filing the complaints, the eight pilots, all senior captains who normally fly international flights, were called in by U.S. Airways to do fuel conservation training. But the union says the pilots were carrying only 10 to 15 minutes worth of extra fuel. They call the training intimidation and harassment. U.S. Airways says the eight pilots were way above average in terms of amount of fuel they had when the plane landed. A spokesman for the airline says, if you carry too much fuel, you burn too much fuel and that, with the high price, it's a balance between having enough to travel safely, but also fly efficiently. Today, the Department of Transportation's chief, Mary Peters, said that the fuel levels are always up to the pilots.</s>MARY PETERS, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: The pilot is the last authority that determines how much fuel that plane takes. And pilots have that discretion and are routinely given that discretion. So if a pilot doesn't feel that a plane has enough fuel in it for the trip that he or she is about to make, then they -- they have the discretion of not flying that flight.</s>FEYERICK: Now, the captains are fearful that their jobs are now in jeopardy because of this training. But US Airways says the training is not punishment. The jobs are safe. US Airways says it's going to pay $2 billion more in fuel costs than it did last year. The FAA is looking into the allegations -- Wolf.</s>BLITZER: At least some of that money is going to trickle down to customers buying airline tickets. All right. Good work, Deb. Thanks very much. When it comes to Iraq and Iran, is the Bush administration right now taking a page from Senator Barack Obama's playbook? Let's discuss that and more with our senior political analyst, Gloria Borger; Jack Cafferty and Stephen Hayes, the senior writer for "The Weekly Standard" here in Washington. All of a sudden, in the past 24 hours, Jack, we learned that for the first time, the Bush administration will send the number three official at the State Department to meet with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in Switzerland this weekend, even though the Iranians have not stopped enriching uranium, which had been, at least now, the condition for such a direct level of exchange. As you know, Senator Obama's been calling for this kind of dialogue for some time. What do you make of it?</s>CAFFERTY: Well, I was going to say Senator Obama has been calling for this dialogue for some time. He's been saying for months that you don't just negotiate with your friends. And the timing of this probably couldn't be a whole lot worse for John McCain, because John McCain has been in Obama's face over this idea that you would go and meet with Iranian officials about their nuclear program. Now the Bush administration is saying well, that's not a bad idea, let's send somebody over there and see if we can do a little let's make a deal.</s>BLITZER: They did it with North Korea. Steve, why not talk directly to the Iranians?</s>STEPHEN HAYES, SENIOR WRITER AT "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, I think, for one thing, because the Iranians are killing American soldiers in Iraq and have been for years. For another, Condoleezza Rice and President Bush and others in the Bush administration have said repeatedly we will not engage directly with Iran until they stop enriching uranium. And it's been -- it's been sort of the red line for the Bush administration...</s>BLITZER: So how do you explain the change?</s>HAYES: Well, you just explain it by a complete capitulation. I mean it's a disastrous complete capitulation. You know, I interviewed Condi Rice...</s>GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But isn't it the recognition of the reality, though, that there may be some divisions over in Iran that we could exploit and possibly get them to stop making this kind of uranium?</s>HAYES: You know, there may be. That may be the Bush administration's line at this point. But you can't have a red line and then simply drop it. They've done this with North Korea. They've done it repeatedly with Iran. And when I interviewed Condoleezza Rice back in May, I asked her specifically about this and said, you know, is this something you envision backing off? And she said, look, we're not going to negotiate with Iran until they stop enriching uranium. She was very clear about it. So this is just a</s>BORGER: Well, but the administration...</s>CAFFERTY: Any idea, Steve, why...</s>BORGER: The administration...</s>CAFFERTY: Any idea why they would decide to do this now?</s>HAYES: Well, I think she...</s>BORGER: Because...</s>HAYES: ...she's been pushing for this behind-the-scenes for a long time, for many, many months.</s>BORGER: And there may be an opening. And they are saying this is a one time deal and they're going there to tell the Iranians what they think and to listen. But, obviously, they think there's an opening, just as they did with North Korea. And maybe they're thinking about their legacy</s>BLITZER: All right, Jack, how does this play out politically...</s>HAYES: Yes, that's right.</s>BLITZER: ...because as I said earlier, Senator Obama has been calling for a direct dialogue for some time.</s>CAFFERTY: Well, of course. And, you know, when you engage in diplomacy and it doesn't work and you don't achieve the results that you set out to achieve, then you consider other options. But you don't just go around and bomb everybody and go to war with everybody and engage in military conflict with everybody who is doing something that you don't happen to approve of. You know, let's see what we can do.</s>BLITZER: The only thing I can imagine...</s>CAFFERTY: If you can't...</s>CAFFERTY: If you can't do anything, there's always the other option.</s>BLITZER: Either it's -- either it's, as Steve says, it's just a unilateral capitulation or, Steve, does the possibility exist maybe there's something out there? Maybe the Iranians, at least the so-called relatively decent or good Iranians who are involved in these negotiations, did offer some sort of signal that, you know, talk to us and you might get something. Maybe there's something out there we don't know.</s>HAYES: Well, that's always a possibility and it's good that you raised that. I guess I don't have much confidence in that because I've seen the Bush administration do this on North Korea. I mean, you know, they said we will not negotiate directly with North Korea and then they did secretly in Berlin...</s>BORGER: Right.</s>BLITZER: Right.</s>HAYES: ...in the middle of the night and once again capitulated, capitulated, capitulated.</s>CAFFERTY: Is this...</s>BORGER: And by the way...</s>CAFFERTY: Could this just be some phony attempt at a legacy, the whole announcement with North Korea?</s>HAYES: Yes.</s>BORGER: Well, it is...</s>CAFFERTY: And not a...</s>BORGER: It is part of that. But, also, the announcement on Iraq, that now there's going to be some -- some withdrawals in Iraq. Well, that plays into Obama's hands, as well, because everybody's talking about how we need more boots on the ground in Afghanistan. And the American public believes you can't win the war on terror without more boots on the ground in Afghanistan. And that is what the Bush administration is talking about now. And, by the way, that's what Obama is talking about. And now John McCain is talking about it, too.</s>BLITZER: They're talking about moving some of those troops maybe from Iraq to Afghanistan. Again, this is a point that Senator Obama has been making for some time.</s>BORGER: Right.</s>BLITZER: All right guys, stand by. We're going to continue this conversation and also talk about a question that caught John McCain caught off guard involving Viagra and birth control. Now, one advocacy group is using a brand new attack ad against him. Could it cost Senator McCain some support among women? Plus, on a very, very different note, jib jabbing Senators McCain and Obama. Is it OK to mock the candidates? Stay with us.