I think what ive seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where were at than we currently are. And i think thats not just my assessment but the assessment of our military as well. We need to make sure that weve got clear plans so that were developing them. To have a press conference to say we dont have a strategy was really shocking, given the severity of the threat. Watch the webcast extra, gwen white house officials immediately began to explain what the president meant, which is never a good thing are we getting mixed messages here, alex sis . Sitting in the room and listening to the president , i was struck also, because we have been hearing him a lot more, speaking in these short bursts about the situation. And i thought part of the challenge he was having was describing clearly two strategy he is has in mind and also the goal. He neglected to talk about what is the goal here. And i think if we understood better the goal, it would have been clear what the strategy is. So the two strategies he was laying out really, the range of options, the near term which hes talking about in iraq, what do we need to do in iraq. He was talking about his focus on that part of it. Then he kept saying, theres this longer term, the idea of what should we do with isil, the Islamic State group, over the longer term and he talked about political aims, building a coalition of regional partners. Gwen thats what he means by strategy. Exactly. What he was saying is, i believe i have the authority now in terms of using air strikes in iraq, under my own power as commander in chief, to do that range of things. And he talks about that as rooting out, he was also trying to explain yesterday, if you listen carefully, that its unrealistic in his mind to expect that were going to perpetually defeat isil, the one of the acronyms for the group, isis or isil. In that range of listening to a president talk out loud, almost, you can see why there was a level of confusion. Hes really talking, i think, without saying whats the goal really clearly. Goal to defeat, goal to contain, goal iraq, goal syria. Gwen so thats the long term. Lets talk tactically for a minute, hanna. Assuming air strikes are on the table, which has been broadly hinted from the pentagon, from the state department, from the u. N. , whats to argue against that . How long do we have . You hear a lot from some of the policymakers that they dont know if they can make things better. They know they can make them worse. And not least by this perception that the enemy of my enemy issue with assad where if we strike against isis, the u. S. Strikes against isis in syria, this is a common enemy with assad, whose regime we have, the president has called illegitimate now for several years and gwen and did again. And did again. And not only assad but also the al qaeda affiliate thats also on the ground and fighting isis. So youve got this, any sort of strike there, the administration repeatedly has tried to say, these are two separate issues, we dont have anything in common with the assad regime, we might overlap, we might have a mutual enemy in isis, but thats it. I dont think theres, it would be hard to argue that any strike any strike against isis wouldnt help these other groups to gain move, the rebel movement. Gwen were using the terms isis, isil ander is the Islamic State group interchangeably. A week ago the pentagon leaders basically described this group as a terrible, terrible threat including to United States security and suggested that dramatic action will be needed. How do we get from that point to where the president was yesterday and at least not acknowledging that in the way he was talking about it and understanding that what our actual options to take it into syria that would do what general dempsey was talking about . Thats where you get some of the deepest divisions. You strike isis inside of syria, which by the way the assad regime has said thats unwelcome unless you coordinate with damascus and the u. S. Said we dont feel the need to coordinate with damascus, its territory they dont control anyway. But say you degrade isis capabilities inside syria, thats ungoverned territory. Who steps in to fill the vacuum . Theres a dire assessment they have of the free syrian orme, the so called moderate rebel forces, of their capability of holding and defend egg that territory and you have the actual al qaeda affiliate roaming around and looking for a foothold now that isis has overwhelmed and roulted it. And routed it. Youve had these situations all year where the situations in iraq and syria has exposed the president to withering criticism from members of congress. Are we seeing a different role, a more supportive role from republicans in congress . And would that extend to the appropriations process where the president said he needs more money to carry out some of these goals . Its interesting that youre talking about that. One of the things that i think struck a lot of reporters was the relative quiet commentary about the operation in iraq, the air strikes that had already begun and there was not a lot of pushback. There was a lot of discussion about what kind of authorization it should be if it should be expanded, that kind of thing. But the idea of striking in syria has energized the political element, certainly of the president s opponents, or opponents of democrats on the campaign trail to talk about the president s weak Foreign Policy or his vacillation and the press conference yesterday fed right into that line of discussion and but by the same token, you notice a lot of candidates are not begging, there arent a lot of them saying, please, lets cast a vote on this. So theyre going to be coming back into town, the president has reassured said reassuring things. He hasnt said hell seek their approval but candidates will continue to weigh in on his weakness, i think. Gwen the president heads to a nato summit this week coming up. One of the issues thats going to be on the table front and center is ukraine because we saw more aggressive moves being made by russia. What i found interesting, samantha power, the u. S. Ambassador, was much strong in denouncing it than the president was. I wonder if thats a piece as well. The president said the nato summit, which is taking place in wales, is going to be one of the most important meetings it was not supposed to be about talking about these issues, it was supposed to be about the end of the afghan war. Its got a whole new set of subjects. The president said on the ukrainerussia issue, that he does not see this as anything but an extension of the aggression moscow had already embarked on. But his u. N. Ambassador was talking about this in much caustic term re bus both are saying russia and putin are paying a price. The president is saying it wont be military, it will be sanction. Gwen they have different audiences too. To build a coalition, the president is trying to get the western alunes to take the next step on tougher sanctions and hes going to be working on that in wales. What does that next step ctually look like . The president believes and keeps arguing that however much moscow and putin are saying that the sanctions are not harming, hes saying that isolation and the price theyre paying in terms of trade and financial repercussions, banking, etc. , finding capital, are working. And that this will continue, this is a longterm situation. So the next tier would be perhaps gazprom. In other words, economic sanctions moving up. But there is an argument that the sanctions should move away from, or escalate beyond economic to maybe military contracting. A tougher range of things that russia depends on for trade. Gwen i also dont want to leave this topic without talking about an interesting new development, at least not new but to us it was new, the evidence that there are foreign fighters from the u. S. , citizens, who have gone to syria to fight on behalf of isis. We heard the pentagon spokesman this week talk a little bit about that. Lets listen. Not just the United States government but many western governments are concerned about these foreign fighters leaving their shores, going over there, getting radicalized, trained, and coming back, and executing attacks, which is not out of the realm of the possible. Gwen one thing we heard this morning is that britain in particular has raised its terror alert and perhaps is more worried about this than even we are. Thats right. Weve known for a while that european jihaddists have been streaming into sir yasm now we have this report that into syria. Now we have this report that an american has been killed and we have reports that a second american has been killed, maybe in that same operation, we dont know all the details yet. This is of a piece for isis, releasing slick recruitment videos in english and french and you know, clearly trying to appeal to the west to maybe Second Generation immigrants and converts, for example, as we know, i think, of the, what is it, mcarthur king. A minnesota kid, went to san diego and ended up with a group so radical al qaeda kicked it out. And now, there is some worry about those guys returning in some way to the west but i should say that from all the recruiting videos that ive seen, all the propaganda videos, you see rows of young westerners, europeans, holding up their e. U. Passports and tearing them on camera and burning them. They have no desire, at least on camera, to return. To die there. Gwen the layers and layers upon things percolating at the white house now. But were going to move on to a couple of domestic issues. It took a couple of fast food joints to finally help us understand a bit of arcane but important tax policy this week. Burger kings buying tim hortons, a canadian donut chain and for tax purposes, will become a canadian corporation. But the home of the whopper is not alone. Other u. S. Companies are also eyeing the exits, and almost nobody likes it. This is what the president had to say about it last month. Theyre not actually going anywhere. Theyre keeping most of their business here. Theyre keeping usually their eadquarters here in the u. S. They dont want to give up the best universities and the best military, and all the advantages of operating in the United States. They just dont want to pay for it. So theyre technically renouncing their u. S. Citizenship. So the question is, what are they going to do about it . In the 1980s, the u. S. Tax rate was 39 , combined federal and state, was one of the lowest in the world. Since then almost every country in the world has lowered their rate and america is now the highest. So American Companies are looking at that saying, were pay manager taxes than our british competitor yoss. So burger king pays taxes not just on their American Stores but on their foreign stores. No other major country forces their companies to do the same thing. By essentially changing Corporate Citizenship they buy another company and adopt that companys citizenship, they have to pay the 35 tax rate at home for anything that goes on in the United States but no long ver to pay that tax rate for the rest of the world. Thats an important tax advantage and why youll see more of this in the coming years. So what are the ways to stop it . There are a couple of proposals. From the administration and congress and democrats in congress, when these socalled inversions, these companies would up and move to the Cayman Islands and bermuda. Gwen what type of companies . One that made alarms and fire systems and so forth and the government shut that down. They said unless if 80 at least 80 of the company has to change hands or excuse me, 20 of the company has to change hands or its not valid. What some democrats in congress have proposed is raising that to 50 . If its still the same folks in charge of the company, you dont qualify. Another possibility the treasury is exploring is saying, some of these companies after they move headquarters abroad pile all this debt onto the u. S. Branch and they deduct the interest on that debt from their u. S. Profits so they pay almost no tax in the United States. Were going to try to find a way to prevent them from doing that. Its not clear whether they have Legal Authority to do that. But apparently theyre looking into it. A bunch of other folks, the republicans in particular say, enough with all these sort of tweaking things and whackamole when they do that, lets reform the Corporate Tax system altogether, lower the u. S. Rate, broaden the base to capture that revenue were losing and move to a system where we dont tax incomes based on the income no matter where they earn it. How did warren buffett, who i think of as an ally of president obamas effort to try to talk about equity in taxation, how did he get involved in this deal and is he a little bit of a turncoat kind of here in this . Buffett, the one who was obamas favorite multimillionaire, calling for higher taxes on the rich, now involved in a tax reduction scheme he came by this through for different reasons. He had a preexisting relationship with a private equity company, a Brazilian Company, that controls burger king and is steering this buyout. The Brazilian Company needed financing and offered buffett a chance to buy special shares and pay a high dividend to finance it. Is he being a hypocrite . I would say no. Hes always said he doesnt think he or his company should pay more taxes than the law says, he wants the law to change. The second is that for complex reasons i wont bore you with, he will pay more taxes on this deal as a consequence of the headquarters being moved to canada. Though it gets abstrute, when you look at it carefully you dont see that what hes doing is at odds with what hes been saying. Gwen one final question for you, whether there are any incentives other than changing the entire Corporate Tax code which we dont anticipate appening soon, are there other ways to persuade these companies to stay . Not really. They have been told over and over by wall street they have to put stake holders first, minimizing taxes and maximizing profits. One of the ironic things here, obama and his republican adversaries agree the Corporate Tax system should be reformed and how. They would like to low they are top rate and pay for it by closing loopholes but theyve attached conditions to that sort of reform that the other finds intolerable. Obama would like to raise additional revenue, the republicans arent going for that. So theyve allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good and allowed this to continue. Gwen never seen that happen before. Thanks, greg. Its been a pretty sleepy summer when it comes to politics. The iowa state fair came and went. Most incumbents survived primaries without a scratch. But yost labor day and you know what that means, campaign ads. And a test for voters who have to be persuaded that any of it matters in washington or at home. So we asked dan, why are we watching . What are you watching . I think everybody is watching he senate. The house of representatives is in republican hands and will stay in republican hands. We saw their reference to Charlie Crist winning the nomination in florida for the democrat party, though he had been democratic governor there before at one point before. Gwen hes been republican governor. Im sorry, republican governor. Switched parties. There are a number of governors races we will be watching but the big fight is over control of the senate. If the republicans, who need to win six seats, take control of the senate, it will have a dramatic effect, conceivably, on president obamas final two years in office. It will have a significant effect on putting pressure on republicans to demonstrate an ability to govern. And will set the table in many ways for the 2016 president ial campaign that were already anticipating. Gwen take us on a little tour. Say im watching missouri. Watching it because mitch mcconnel, senator minority leader is in a tough race to hold on to his seat or because its truly, truly a tossup . Kentucky, im sorry. Mcconnel is very unpopular in his home state. Hes lived his entire life as a senator to become the Senate Majority leader, hes minority leader now. Theyre within range of having that majority. Its possible, im not saying its likely but it is possible his race. Uld lose i think at this point, people believe that he is a tough enough and wiley enough campaigner that he will get through this but not without a very tough battle. So thats one people are watching. There are three states we give to republicans right off the bat. South dakota, montana, and west virginia. Then there are about seven states where control of the senate is going to be decided. There are four red states with mocrats, alaska, arkansas, louisiana, north carolina, where you have the situation in which the National Mood favors republicans, the map favors republicans, but democratic incumbents are running good races in these states. Thats where the real fight is. Then there are a few other states, iowa, colorado, maybe new hampshire, that are also competitive. Dan, the issues that have been talked about on the campaign trail, whether theyre national or local, immigration is one that we have been talking a lot about and the president yesterday reaffirmed his desire to move ahead using his own executive authority. He didnt say when and he didnt say what but he said he still intends to do this if he can and congress doesnt act. To what extent on the trail, especially with the senate races, is immigration a nail bait nail biter for democrats who think the president may be doing this or is it a wash . I spoke to a democratic strategist who is deathly afraid the president will act before the election on this. This persons feeling is that this would inject a very volatile and controversial issue into these races, particularly for these red state incumbent democrats and its feeling was, why not wait until after the election . I know there is some feeling on the republican side and two of my colleagues wrote about this this week, theres some concern on the republican side that if the president were to do that, it would generate too much of a backlash among republicans who would then overreact and draw attention to their extreme right wing on some of these issues. So i think both sides are nervous but i think democrats are more nervous that it would come before the election. Are there any more wild cards or unknowns . The known unknowns . Or the unknown unknowns. What you all have been talking about is certainly an unknown that, depending on how things go, it could have an effect. It was interesting to me that we know that Public Opinion is certainly opposed to the idea of getting back in any military way, in any place and i was struck by what the president did yesterday which seemed to pull us back from the notion that something is imminent in terms of military action and i took that as a sign that he wanted to slow things down. Gwen well be watching to see if he does that. Thank you. Thank you to you all. Were going to get out of your way so you can get on with your Labor Day Weekend but if you ant get enough, log on to our Washington Week webcast extra where the conversation continues online where we left off on air. Including more on dans take on politics. Keep it with keep up with daily developments on the pbs news hour and well see you right back here around the table next week on Washington Week. Ood night. Captioned by the National Captioning Institute www. Ncicap. Org Corporate Funding for washingtonweek is provided by prudential. Brigham womens hospital. Additional funding is provided by the annenberg foundation. The corporation for public broadcasting. And by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. Thank you