So, the "real state" of foreign policy 2006-What
"real" state department officials, currently employed there; are contributing? And the forum
lost all credibility-?Sidney Blumenthal? It's like
having Jack Kevorkian lecturing on ethics in medicine.

Steve,

Thanks again for organising this forum; ...and thanks for allowing Sidney Blumenthal to speak, as well. As a former advisor to President Clinton, Blumenthal shall offer important insights and real perspectives into the mind of this current President, whose negligence in national security and foreign policy, undermined our image, credibility and security interests, here and abroad.

I look forward to hearing Wes Clark's speech, especially. Thank you for C-Span! :)

To Glenda,
I think that the success of a democratic republic such as ours depends upon people(all people, not just "real state dept officials") who have the courage to speak out on their thoughts and ideas, especially when those people see large discrepancies between the government's policies and sensible policies. Certainly their ideas can't harm America's standing in the world any more than the Bush Administration's actions have to date.

Thanks for your comments. I think that this is going to be quite a good forum.

Steve Clemons

Glenda,

An Earl Stanley Gardner Case of "The Three Monkeys Sale the Golden Gate Bridge".

How much are you buying it for?

Steve, I drop by TWN regularly and think you do good work on the whole, but I have to say I was quite struck by the preponderance of Y-chromosomes in the speaker line-up. It's also very Washington establishment-centric--in future, would you consider expanding the boundaries a bit, and include people outside America with a more independent and international view? To state the obvious, American foreign policy has ramifications well beyond America--wouldn't it be informative, maybe even eye-opening, to hear some of those perspectives?

Jean -- Your point is one with which I completely agree -- but allow me to be slightly defenseive. I invited 15 different women to participate. In fact, I invited more women overall than men. Because of a combination of other obligations many of these women had as well as some just not getting back to me, we ended up with one. I was disappointed. I would have liked fewer Y chromosomes. So, your point is well taken -- but I want you to know how frustrating it was that despite very great effort, the women I had hoped to involve in this program were oversubscribed. I think that is the problem; there are still too few major women voices that they are under great demand. But that said, I will continue to work on this.

Steve Clemons

One last point Jean -- on the internationsl perspective...I've done that many times. In my last major conference, I had 8 international bureau chiefs speak. I've had Yosri Fouda on his own speak -- but this is a half day event, and such programs cannot be all things for all people. I will get at the international focus another time -- but Monday is about the American debate over the soul of U.S. foreign policy the day before the State of the Union address. This should be, mostly, an American debate -- but don't worry -- we will internationalize commentary in future sessions.

Steve Clemons

Steve,

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to do an entire day's program on our foreign policy and its impact on women including a myriad of topics from women's rights in Islamic countries to this Administration's not funding family planning and how that increases rate of abortion when not available in developing countries--Get some women journalists who have been in these countries or a woman from Al Jazeera--so many possibilities. You could even invite Condi and Karen Hughes if they aren't too busy. I'm sure there are a week's worth of possibilities for speakers and topics for you to contemplate.

Linda

Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate your efforts in getting women speakers, and certainly understand the rationale for Monday's event as an American debate. In the meantime I've had a quick browse through some of Anatol Lieven's recent publications, and my impression is that he will do a fair job of representing the perspective I feel is all too often lacking in these Washington-based discussions of national security/foreign policy. It's just kind of a pet peeve of mine as an American who has lived abroad and made an (amateur, but careful) study of U.S. foreign policy during most of my adult life.

Good luck and best wishes to you.

Re; "the women I had hoped to involve in this program were oversubscribed"

Is that a matter of there being too few women in foreign policy and national security studies? Or is it that there are not enough well-known women in foreign policy and national security circles? Did you want to have "brand names" at your talk or knowledgeable, thoughtful perspectives? After-all, how does one become well-known if one doesn't sell oneself and/or get invited to talking-head events?

Just asking.

observation:

I'm not familiar with the work of about half the panel but based on institutional affiliation, it definitely looks like a conversation between the center and the center-right of the American political spectrum. But perhaps that is one of your points--that a *serious* national security discussion is still one in which the primary voices are from the center and right of the American political spectrum?

The 2 day conference on terrorism a while back was on c-span and it was fantastic. I recall it was standing room only which means people hunger for an opportunity for an honest discussion about these issues.

Steve, I apologize for the following off topic posting. But it can hardly be disputed that the key issue facing us, right now, is the Alito nomination.

I post this here now in the hopes that many of your readers will join, or continue, the widespread efforts to convince our Senators to filibuster Alito, and do everything in their power to block this man's placement on the Supreme copurt. Of note are the cases he will hear, not the least of which is..can Bush declare AMERICAN CITIZENS as enemy combatants, and hold them indefinitely without legal representattion or judicial oversight?? We already have an Attorney General who arguably committed FELONY PERJURY during his confirmation hearings, and has shown himself, through his comments about the illegal NSA wiretaps, to be little more than an advocate for the Executive Branch. Alito is part and parcel of that same machine, a mechanism by which to DISMANTLE the checks and balances that once served admirably to temper Executive power. His nomination MUST be stopped, and it is obvious that the turn-coat Reid has no intention of exercising strong leadership towards that end.

Buzzflash has it right. We the people must act, and we must act NOW, for our representatives have FAILED US MISERABLY.....

http://www.buzzflash.com/index.php?story=Story2

Harry Reid, What Will be Your Excuse for Defeat Next Time? The Democratic Leadership in the Senate May Not Fight for the Constitution, But We Will.

January 28, 2006

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Harry Reid, what will be your excuse for defeat next time?

For 5 years, we have taken some potshots at some people in the Democratic Party, as we should. But, generally, we stood in support of the Dem Party leadership because when you have had a choice between a party that -- in general -- claims to work for the common good and -- on the other hand -- a dictatorship run by incompetent law-breaking, torturing elitists, you go with the former.

Besides, we cherish the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy -- and the politically reborn Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

But we aren't going to give the benefit of the doubt to the current Congressional Democratic leadership anymore. We have had enough excuses.

And through Tom Daschle's repeated capitulations to Bush -- his occasional criticisms followed by quick apologies or retreats -- and now the same from Harry Reid, we were still promised that the Dems were only giving ground to the most heinous legislation and betrayals of the Constitution from the White House -- time after time -- in order to hold their fire to prevent the Supreme Court from being radicalized into a partisan right wing arm of the extremist Republican Party.

But now that time has nearly come and gone -- and Harry Reid, the highest ranking Democratic officer holder in America -- shrugs his shoulders and says that there is nothing he can do to prevent a man who believes that a Republican president is entitled to dictatorial powers, that there is nothing that Harry Reid can do to prevent such a man from being seated on the Supreme Court.

We have been betrayed by our own party.

From now on, our first and only priorities are citizen patriots who stand up for the Constitution, Democracy, Voting Rights, Justice, Honesty, Accountabilty -- Winning.

We have had enough excuses and "retreats to fight another day" to know that the Democratic leadership doesn't have the gut check to restore America to its Constitutional balance of powers, resist the Republican juggernaut to return us to a pre-Civil War era, the illegalities in the White House, exposing the truth behind the Republican lies, framing the issues at stake, supporting the likes of John Murtha who is speaking out for the military -- for Christ's sake -- in opposition to a ruinous war that is degrading our armed forces, and, most importantly, to do battle. To fight the good fight, and to win. The Democratic leadership is too busy wandering around dazed and confused to accomplish these tasks.

Their rare temporary win on Social Security is only testament to what they could do if they acted with strength, passion and conviction more than once or twice in five years.

From now on, it's up to us. Yes, by all means continue to bombard senators with phone calls demanding that they defend the Constitution and support the filibuster. (We have several headlines on BuzzFlash that link to senate office and fax numbers. Here is one from Democrats.Com: http://www.democrats.com/we-can-stop-alito)

Remember, it's your government. These people are elected by you and their salaries and perks are paid with your hard-earned tax dollars.

But, also remember this, we, the citizens of America with passionate commitment, are the last hope. We will fight for America and our rule of law -- as Harry Reid won't, and Tom Daschle, before him, didn't.

We are tired of being shown speeches that criticize Bush. That is not putting up a fight. That is providing an alibi.

Hasta la vista to the likes of Joe Biden. We are holding Bush accountable and we are holding the Dems who function as enablers accountable, the Dems who shrink from a fight and then hold forth with political babble on Sunday morning talk shows.

You know why half the public still thinks Bush is strong on national security when he is really undermining our nation at every turn and putting our lives at risk with his dreadfully misguided policies?

There are two reasons: the Democratic leadership doesn't know or doesn't care to expose how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld endanger our national security (and we're not talking about press releases from Harry Reid here as being sufficient); and half of the American public doesn't care that Cheney and Bush were cowards during the Vietnam War. Why? Because Cheney and Bush are Sons of Bitches now -- and half of America wants a Son of a Bitch in the White House when they are living in a state of fear, because the Democrats are too scared to challenge the Bush lies about his failed "war on terror."

Franklin Roosevelt said, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." The Republicans say, "Live in a state of fear and vote for us." The Democratic leadership sits on their haunches and lets the political shakedown go unchallenged -- and Roosevelt died more than 60 years ago, so we can't bring him back to set the Party straight.

No one cares about politicians who talk about strength and then roll over like doormats whenever the highly vulnerable and corrupt Republicans intimidate them. If the Democrats want to be perceived as strong, then stop backing down from almost every fight in the Senate. Not one Democrat in the Senate -- not one -- should be leaving Kerry and Kennedy hanging in the win.

This should not be a symbolic filibuster. This should be a filibuster to keep the Supreme Court as one independent branch as specified in the Constitutional balance of powers, not as an extension of the monarchal, dynastic goals of Bush and his one-party government.

If you can't beat a White House that should be in jail instead of occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then you are not perceived as strong. You are perceived as weak, and rightfully so.

The excuses are over. We'll finish up what Howard Dean tried to start (and is continuing at the DNC largely without the support of the Democratic Congressional leadership). We'll have to take back our party before we can get back our Constitution.

Odd, isn't it, the DLC Democrats spend more time fighting off patriotic, grassroots Dems than they do fighting the Republicans. They capitulate to the GOP, but battle their own base. What idiots!

So, on Monday morning, don't stop calling your senators. They still legally represent us -- and we aren't giving up on a filibuster, even if it looks grim. The Republicans always talk up their vote, even when they are losing and create an air of inevitability. That's what they did to pull George Bush through the Florida vote in 2000, long enough to fool the public and get him illegitimately installed as President.

Harry Reid and his predecessor, however, talk down their vote, thus signaling defeat before a vote has even been taken.

We say to the Democratic Congressional leadership, "Enough!"

The time for excuses is over. If the Democratic leadership wants a battle, they got one -- from the patriots of America.

The Constitution comes first. We'll fight through the entrenched Washington Dems if we have to.

We believe in the Spirit of 1776 and the legacy of the American Revolution.

We believe it's worth battling for.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

BuzzFlash Afternote: The vote for cloture will probably be on Monday. The White House wants Bush to triumphantly announce Alito's confirmation during his State of the Union Address on Tuesday. It's all part of the big Republican show.

If the Democrats filibuster this it will just grease the skids for the next TWO Republican Supreme appointees. And won't that be devine!
I've got a guy feeling Bush is going to be making more appointees.

make that "gut" feeling ... Janice Rogers Brown next up

gee if Robert is against it, it must be a good idea!

This filibuster issue is an absolute crock.

I wish someone, perhaps you Steve, would have the willingness to call out all of the special interests groups and their vice grips on certain senators and politicians, and its on both sides.

We all know with many of the Republicans its the Halliburton and Defense Contractors as well as Oil Cos and the Christian Right.

But on the Dems side, its NARAL and Moveon.org and such, who easily pressure Kerry, Clinton, Reid etc. into taking a flagrant measure such as a filibuster by threatening a campaign against them if they do not support it, and of course candidates with an eye on re-election or presidency are going to accede to this.

This filibuster has no premise, either in this case, or really as a constitutional issue, considering its open-ended use, although it is provided in these circumstances.

If Alito is conservative as a jurist, who cares?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was as liberal as they have come, are coming, or will ever come.

Was she filibustered? Answer: NO

I wish people would recognize, that you dont have the right to knock someone down just because you have different personal ideologies. Thats exactly what the Dems are trying to do. "We have to take a stand they say, against a man who is strict in his interpretation and not progressive enough." No you dont, first, you have no basis for such a stand, and second, you lost the presidential election. Win one, and you can pick your own candidates.

JS- IIRC- Ruth Bader Ginsberg was recommened to President Clinton by none other than Trent Lott. See, President Clinton really did confer with the Senate unlike Bush who thinks conferring with someone means telling them what he is going to do.

But back to the topic of this post. Thanks Steve for all your hard work. I'll be watching on my computer Monday morning. Good Luck.

We have a right to do ANYTHING fuckin' THING as American citizens who KNOW two elections were stolen by plain CRIMINALS who devolved into WAR CRIMINALS.

A filabusta is the least of harsh initiatives WE must take.

FU JS

JS haven't you gotten a clue yet?

Buy one if you need to.

First, the coming vote was supposed to be about Harriet Miers, who would have gotten approval of a majority of the Senate, but a smaller minority that is conceivable just plainly refused to let her be considered.

Wait a minute though, JS. I bet you don't even know that a majority of Americans are represented by the Democratic Senators.

What we need to do is decide if we want to be a democratic society or something else.

Otherwise we need to respect that.

If we aren't going to be a democratic society, but instead the extreme right wing's little fiefdom, I know a lot of people in my state want out.

This is for sure: If a Dem ever reclaims the White House and tries to appoint a justice, not one Republican senator will vote for anyone close to being Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer who thinks "international law" - whatever that is - has a place in US Supreme Court decisions.
So I do hope the Democrats slit their wrists on this one and do decide to filibuster Alito. I agree Alito does have some problems with defering to the executive branch too much, but compare this to way the liberal justices have used the bench like it was a legislature. The brakes are about to be put on this.

Good heavens, what happened to this comment space since I was last here? Long, totally off topic comments and spam.

If I may return to the issue of "the American debate over the soul of U.S. foreign policy": I think "i" makes some good observations. First, about women--indeed, how do you become a well-known brand name talking head if you don't get the exposure, and anyway, are thoughtful, knowledgeable perspectives available only from such brand names? (my opinion: no. On the contrary, I think the freshest and most original perspectives are more likely to come from outside that circuit.) And second, about the narrow parameters of the debate, between center/center-right. Was Phyllis Bennis one of the women speakers you asked? Is it really so radical a proposal that American foreign policy be constrained by international law and show respect for human rights, as America (though only very selectively) demands of other nations? Will anyone at this conference argue that position?

Finally, on Clark as keynote speaker--it is debatable at best to describe NATO's attack on Yugoslavia as having "saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo." (I am writing from Slovenia, where I have lived since the mid-1980s.) Moreover, Clark penned a gushing, enthusiastically pro-war editorial in the London Times a few weeks after the invasion of Iraq (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm)--in which he, among other things, openly threatened Syria and Iran as being "'next'if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns."

This, it seems to me, is the true face, if not the soul, of American foreign policy for the past half century or more: Do as we say (and not as we do), or we send in the bombs. Or if not bombs, sanctions, bribery, arm-twisting, covert action... It's not a pretty sight. Will anyone address this? Will fighting for the soul of American foreign policy include some real soul-searching?

General Wesley Clark on Your World with Neil Cavuto 1/25/06
http://securingamerica.com/node/549

Excerpt:

Neil Cavuto: But you know, those same polls General, with all due respect and I know we've talked about his in the past, blame your party for not having a consistent voice on terror. How would you respond to it?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think the Democrats have been very consistent on the problem of terrorism. I think that what they recognize is that you've got to have a policy in the world that not only uses military force, but first uses diplomacy, then uses international law enforcement, but only as a last resort-

Neil Cavuto: But sir, I don't see that, I don't see that consistency. I see, you know, Joe Lieberman saying one thing. You're saying another, John Kerry, I don't know what he's saying. So, I think the rap against Democrats, fairly or not, when they're asked, Americans are asked on this issue of security who best to protect us, your part doesn't come out well, because that is the perception.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's deeper than that.

Neil Cavuto: You agree, right. It's the eye of the beholder. Would you ever want to run for President because your party seems to be too far to the left.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'm in the business community right now. I haven't said anything about my political future one way or the other.

Neil Cavuto: You did okay.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I-

Neil Cavuto: First time out. No political experience.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I am, I am proud of it.

Neil Cavuto: Would you- Would you like to be President?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'm proud of being a Democrat.

Neil Cavuto: Would you like to be President?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: But here's the thing Neil on the, on the-

Neil Cavuto: You're not going to answer me, are you?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I want to talk about the issues you're raising, because I think, you know, I know political speculation's a lot of fun, but I think this country's got some very serious issues in front of it.

Wes Clark in 2008 !!!

Wesley Clark is a military man. He will be eaten whole by the monster of politics.

Trent Lott did not "recommend" Ginsburg, despite what may be written or what you may be fabricating. He recommended six other candidates, all of whom Clinton shot down. Clinton mentioned Ginsburg, and while Lott mentioned he disagreed heavily with some of her liberal views, she had a solid record of legal understanding and interpretation, although it was liberal and Lott said provided there was nothing otherwise, she would see a polite and positive reception.

I dont understand some of this badgering on the left. It makes no sense, and comes off as being whiny and babyish. You had your chance to grill Alito, and you came off like blathering idiots (see Ted Kennedy). No need for Filibuster.

Ahhh JS I love the smell of fear....if Wes Clark elects to run for Pres. he will wipe the floor clean against any candidate your totally corrupt GOP party will put forth.

Wow Wow Wow!

Guys and Gals, our very own Steve Clemmons was the top of the show on George Stephanopolous this morning. George Steph. asked Barack Obama whether he was the Senator referred to in Steve Clemons' report on Sentor Reid's comments about strategy on the ethics issues.

So cool -- Steve's name and TWN were full screen for a long time.

I've been reading this blog for a long time, and I have to say that some days it can make me crazy it's so sensible -- and sometimes I don't want to be sensible.

But Clemons, you are on tv -- and GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS is using your stuff, you have Clark and the president of the Nixon Center at a conference in the Senate. Wilkerson is your pal. You hang with Peter Bergen. Senators tell you things.

You are a force of nature dude, and I'm damned glad to be one of TWN's early fans.

Ok, back to serious. Go dig some stuff up Mr. Clemmons.

Fucking awesome today man! Thrilled here....in case you couldn't tell.

I need my fix. post some stuff soon so George can use it again.

very impressive line up Steve and being stuck out here in Ca I was pleased to read you will be shown on Cspan....my first pick for 2004 was Clark,sigh,still have my baseball cap from his website....and I think having Sidney Blumenthal is fantastic! He is such a great writer.

It wasn't Trent Lott who recommended Ginsburg, but Orrin Hatch. And he did actually recommend both her and Breyer, at least according to his biography. Both had liberal sentiments (Ginsburg moreso than Breyer) but moderate judicial records.

Wes Clark cant even win a primary.

JS you ignorant slut. Wes Clark won the Oklahoma primary. Ever heard of FACTS?? I didn't think so.

I don't really know who the frat boys are who post to their comments to this blog, but I really thought Jean's comments made the most sense:

"Is it really so radical a proposal that American foreign policy be constrained by international law and show respect for human rights, as America (though only very selectively) demands of other nations? Will anyone at this conference argue that position?"

I watched your event on C Span last night and really appreciated the frankness with which most of the speakers expressed themselves, particularly on economic issues we seem, as a country, to be avoiding. But still, all the discussion was predicated on the notion of American dominance and pre-eminence in the world, and was generally directed to the concerns of the investor class, rather than those of ordinary citizens, and by that, I mean citizens of the world.

And to hear Gen. Clarke talk about Vietnam as part of our successful war on Communism is truly disturbing.

You seem seem like a bright, thoughtful, tremendously likable guy with plenty of good connections. Why don't you run for office?

Hi Steve,

... I'm sure you probably got dvd copies of the event by now,.. but just wanted to let you know that some pics of the event are posted at
webshots

Thanks for hosting this event! :)

Steve, for those of us who could not catch the forum on C-Span, is there a link available to the video?

I can't find one on their site, but me not finding one does not mean much.

How do I get a transcript of The Real State of US Foreign Policy 2006

How do I get a transcript of The Real State of US Foreign Policy 2006 and will it be rebroadcast ?