I drive a GMC Sonoma truck and sometimes get a kick valet parking it at high-end receptions and dinners in DC -- but the bottom line is that I love my truck. . .or did until GMC just made an outrageous deal with Fox's Sean Hannity.

Being "a great American" is negatively correlated with the attitude, behavior, and norms of Sean Hannity.

GMC should be aware that it's attempt to appeal to the patriotism of those who use its GM Credit card, or use its financial services, or buy its automobiles and other products is deeply cynical -- and there needs to be consequences for those who see Hannity as a legitimate spokesman for this automaker's products.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm at a conference at the College of William & Mary but am also having a serious dental problem with a tooth fractured ten years ago -- and need to deal with that.

The thread is open.

But seriously, Kissinger advising Bush and Cheney on Iraq? Victory is the only exit?

Kissinger's realism has seriously withered.

Even James Baker, who is an annointed spear-carrier for both G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush would never make such a statement -- particularly privately as Kissinger reportedly has.

-- Steve Clemons

(Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter)

More than 400 academics, policy practitioners and journalists over two and a half years have contributed to a large-scale project, the Princeton Project on National Security.

The project was co-chaired by former Secretary of State George Shultz and former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake. Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter and Woodrow Wilson School Professor G. John Ikenberry co-directed the effort.

David Rubenstein of the Carlyle Group and the Ford Foundation funded it.

Yesterday evening, the New America Foundation hosted a fascinating exchange, pretty feisty in fact, at one of our popular dinner salons -- and today is the conference to punctuate release of the final report.

For those of you wandering by the Senate Dirksen building today, we will be in Dirksen Room 106 in the Senate. I will be MC'ing the entirety of the program.

Here is the schedule:

The last pre-election loophole through which John Bolton's confirmation might have snuck through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was at 2:15 this afternoon at a previously called "business meeting" of the Committee.

That meeting has been cancelled -- and with it even the dimmest chance of John Bolton being confirmed as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Some have said that another effort could be mounted during a lame duck session of Congress, but there are several Republicans who will not feel bound by the White House in that circumstance; Dems as well -- who will vote against cloture on the floor of the Senate were it to get out of Committee then.

So, it's over. Wow.

John Bolton might agree to serve as the uncompensated Ambassador to the UN in a second recess appointment, or might agree to serve as a recess appointed political deputy at the UN and made "acting Ambassador and Chief of Mission" at a pay cut.

Either way, Ambassador Bolton will fill his term as the only unconfirmed Ambassador at the United Nations in American history.

For the record, I do believe that John Bolton has strengths as a public servant. Those who have opposed him should in fact know that he has done some good things for this country. I strongly disagree with his international views and his brand of diplomacy, but there are other jobs in the Bush administration that I would support John Bolton for.

It is time to say that. I hope that Ambassador Bolton, in the next few months, works at trying to leave a legacy that is constructive regarding America's engagement with the UN.

But this battle seems now to be definitively, completely at an end.

Wow. I'm amazed that those concerned about this appointment have really won -- twice.

-- Steve Clemons

This has been a tough week. A prominent conservative pol knocked me around a bit in some private communications and caused some real stress because of the view by his staff memer that I am a "firebrand" -- a really good one in his view. And on the left, a prominent pol went "nuts" on me in an email because of positive commentary on the blog about Lincoln Chafee, John McCain, and ironically -- Bill Frist. This individual somehow thinks that my blog has more impact than it could possibly have and that my "centrism will tilt the election back towards a corrupt cabal of Republicans."

I am going to stand strong where I am -- and will be fair-minded with edges, hopefully being a firebrand at the right times and a fair interpreter and negotiator at others.

Folks that want to carve out space in the "principled middle" or the "radical center," as I like to call it, have a tough time. The world expects such centrists to be weak, squishy compromisers between the right and left -- but they sometimes don't know what to do when one vigorously works against John Bolton's confirmation but then applauds the President and some of his key architects for emptying America's black site prisons abroad.

We need people in the middle who still have edges. I have eges on John Bolton's UN confirmation, clearly -- but I will always deal with him respectfully if we find ourselves in a room together or even in an interview (could happen someday). I will wrestle with the politics and profile of prominent presidential pretenders, highlighting what I see as their deficits and their strengths.

Last year, after Senator Lincoln Chafee failed to align his many statements of concern about John Bolton with his confirmation vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was extremely tough on him. I thought he deserved the critique I offered, but I was also a bit over the top. Passion was running high that day.

But I am equally passionate about Chafee's show of strength of late -- and despite some readers of this blog who take serious exception to my views on the Rhode Island Senator -- I want to make clear that the Lincoln Chafee we have seen in the Senate these last few months is the kind of American senator I personally wish we had more of in BOTH parties.

AP reports today that John McCain is calling for "quick confirmation" of John Bolton.

Senator McCain seems to be doing something that I regretfully admit that I have done on some occasions. With a tail between my legs, I will admit that I too have invited people to dinner knowing they couldn't make it -- but happy to get credits in place for doing so.

It's not smart to do this often, but Senator McCain knows that even if the White House pulled off a miracle Tuesday afternoon and coughed John Bolton's confirmation out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there's no "quick confirmation" likely.

Senator McCain's support for Bolton has been steadfast, though not deep in the view of this blogger. I like the Senator, and in encounters I have had with him over the last year, he seems to respect my opposition to Bolton.

McCain seems to have just provided some off-the-cuff commentary that having Bolton at the UN to confront the nastiness of some world leaders who fly to the UN General Assembly would be a good thing.

McCain knows that a quick confirmation for Bolton is unlikely -- but calling for it gets him some credits. I understand how this works. (sorry to my friends out there who have declined invites)

-- Steve Clemons

(photo from Crooks and Liars)

After the Clinton Global Initiative had ended and in the hours that followed, I was doing some writing and organizing of notes in the CGI press room where Fox News' Chris Wallace was also hanging around -- looking pensive, waiting for what I didn't know then was an attempted mugging of President Bill Clinton.

Fox News had secured the exclusive interview with Clinton to talk with him about how the $7.3 billion that the CGI had helped raise was going to be directed at various global problems.

Instead, Fox News was there to hit Clinton for his failure to deal effectively with bin Laden and pre-9/11 terrorism.

Watch the interview here.

Here is the full transcript.

Read the entire thing, or better yet, watch it -- but here is one of the many effective Clinton passages:

(Lincoln Chafee with former President George H.W. Bush and his late father, Senator John Chafee)

So far, there has been no sign that the Bush administration's considerable efforts to get Ambassador John Bolton confirmed are yielding any success in changing the environment currently blocking him.

But the White House has considered a shocking plan to keep the Ambassador in his position at the UN that may not involve a second recess appointment to his current position -- which would mean that he could not be compensated, may not be eligible for travel funds, may not be able to actually use government facilities for his work, and would possibly be time limited to a certain number of days that he could remain in this position, even if largely stripped of all taxpayer support.

The White House is studying appointing Bolton as one of the deputies at the United Nations, specifically the "political deputy." This position also carries the title of Ambassador, as do four other slots at the US Mission to the UN. Bolton would take a pay cut, and would then be made "Acting Ambassador" and chief of mission.

Those I have bounced this news off in the diplomatic community are stunned by even the conceptualization of this strategy and have a hard time believing that the administration would allow itself to appear in such a desperate position to retain Bolton.

I have no indication that this course is "likely." I only know that it is on the roster of options being considered about Bolton.

Senator Richard Lugar, according to some sources close to him, is irritated with the administration's failure to "service" this nomination appropriately and effectively. Bolton is not Senator Lugar's cup of tea so to speak -- but Lugar decided some time ago to support the administration's request and to do his best to get the nomination to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

But Lugar hates "messiness" and believes in thoughtful, deliberative legislative process that reflects honest debate about the nominees from the executive branch. Lugar reportedly believes that the administration was surprisingly sloppy in preparing the way for the Bolton nomination -- and the mere fact that two Republican senators have been the key road blocks to Bolton's nomination inside the Committee is all the evidence that Lugar needs that the administration belly-flopped on this one.

There was almost a third Republican voice poised against Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year -- and that was Senator Lisa Murkowski, whose statement and passionately articulated concerns about Bolton rivaled Voinovich's Committee statement opposing Bolton. My sources tell me that the administration has done nothing to assure that Senator Murkowski's position on Bolton has remained firm and to address concerns that she too had about him a year ago.

For the record, Murkowski has indeed reported that like last year, she would ultimately vote for Bolton -- but it is lukewarm support. The administration has not fully accepted the fact that even among its rank-and-file, enthusiasm for John Bolton continuing in his position is lukewarm.

That's not the kind of environment where "50% plus one" tactics work well -- and leaks that the White House is willing to endure virtually any cost to keep Bolton in place while not at the same time tending to the explicit concerns of Senators in anything other than ad hoc and highly reactive ways offends the sensibilities of not only Richard Lugar but of a good number of the Republican senators on the Foreign Relations Committee.

There are only a few legislative days left before Congress breaks before the November elections. It is still highly unlikely that the White House can engineer a quick vote on Bolton -- but it is not impossible.

The only time that this battle could lurch forward is if Senator Chafee does yield to the pressure from the White House and communicates his intention to Lugar that he will vote for Bolton.

There is a Senate Foreign Relations Committee business meeting on Tuesday, September 26, at 2:15 pm in S-116 of the US Capitol. In the public announcement of the meeting, there is an ominous line at the end of the announced agenda:

Additional items may be added. . .

I have no information on whether the administration's latest efforts to cook up a Middle East initiative have impressed Chafee or not.

After the back room shoving around of Palestinians by the White House after the President's speech at the UN this week, Chafee ought not to allow himself to get snookered by an administration that it is not ready to be fair-minded in efforts to get a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.

But one must consider all possibilities. The administration could secure a deal with Chafee and hold this as a closely held secret.

Lugar could add Bolton's vote to the business meeting next Tuesday afternoon knowing Chafee's possible switch -- and this could be voted out of Committee. It could then be brought to the Senate Floor as early as Wednesday or Thursday -- when a battle over cloture will ensue.

Those opposing Bolton on the floor have a number of tactics they can use to stall and delay a vote on him on the floor -- but Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would see this as a top priority and hold up much of the nation's other business to pound this through (we suspect).

The drama would be high, and the tension between parties intense. But the discomfort inside each of the parties would also be serious. Many Republicans don't like this kind of brinksmanship over someone with a track record like Bolton's. And Democrats will really pound Senator Chuck Schumer for his earlier stated position to support cloture on a Bolton vote and for his conflating the substantive concerns about Bolton with the question of American support at the UN for Israel's interests.

What Schumer has failed to understand is that Democrats and Republicans alike have been stalwarts for Israel's needs and interests at the United Nations. For Schumer to extend to John Bolton groveling praise for his Israel efforts over-personalizes what Bolton has done and robs his own party of its considerable level of commitment to Israel's security and place at the UN.

More later, but those interested in the Bolton battle must remain vigilant this week. There is a "sneak play" that could unfold on Tuesday, and it could happen before anyone knew the Bolton vote had been teed up again.

I don't think Richard Lugar will like such tactics. But despite the discomfort of all of this for him, he still sees his job as getting the administration's choice to the Senate floor to a vote.

Let's hope that Senator Lincoln Chafee does not get too easily seduced by the White House's late in the day Middle East talk.

As Chafee said during the July 27th hearing with Bolton, the Senator stated that despite Bolton's assurances that he believed in a viable, two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine standoff, Chafee argued that the distance between the administration's actions and rhetoric was great and that the administration had precious little credibility in this policy arena.

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

Yesterday, the Department of State sent a high level emissary to see if any deal-making could be done with Senator Lincoln Chafee regarding his opposition to John Bolton.

President Bush's speech yesterday at the UN seemed nearly a tailor-made response that the White House might begin to take seriously a new round of credible diplomacy in the Middle East.

On Palestine/Israel, Bush stated:

The world must also stand up for peace in the Holy Land. I'm committed to two democratic states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side-by-side in peace and security. I'm committed to a Palestinian state that has territorial integrity and will live peacefully with the Jewish state of Israel. This is the vision set forth in the road map -- and helping the parties reach this goal is one of the great objectives of my presidency. The Palestinian people have suffered from decades of corruption and violence and the daily humiliation of occupation. Israeli citizens have endured brutal acts of terrorism and constant fear of attack since the birth of their nation. Many brave men and women have made the commitment to peace. Yet extremists in the region are stirring up hatred and trying to prevent these moderate voices from prevailing.

This struggle is unfolding in the Palestinian territories. Earlier this year, the Palestinian people voted in a free election. The leaders of Hamas campaigned on a platform of ending corruption and improving the lives of the Palestinian people, and they prevailed. The world is waiting to see whether the Hamas government will follow through on its promises, or pursue an extremist agenda. And the world has sent a clear message to the leaders of Hamas: Serve the interests of the Palestinian people. Abandon terror, recognize Israel's right to exist, honor agreements, and work for peace.

President Abbas is committed to peace, and to his people's aspirations for a state of their own. Prime Minister Olmert is committed to peace, and has said he intends to meet with President Abbas to make real progress on the outstanding issues between them. I believe peace can be achieved, and that a democratic Palestinian state is possible. I hear from leaders in the region who want to help. I've directed Secretary of State Rice to lead a diplomatic effort to engage moderate leaders across the region, to help the Palestinians reform their security services, and support Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their efforts to come together to resolve their differences. Prime Minister Blair has indicated that his country will work with partners in Europe to help strengthen the governing institutions of the Palestinian administration. We welcome his initiative. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt have made clear they're willing to contribute the diplomatic and financial assistance necessary to help these efforts succeed. I'm optimistic that by supporting the forces of democracy and moderation, we can help Israelis and Palestinians build a more hopeful future and achieve the peace in a Holy Land we all want.

What the President has outlined does not constitute a credible policy or even really a new direction. It simply signifies that he is beginning to get the sense that there are some "really important issues" over there that need attention.

The President is at least talking about Israel/Palestine and has not backed away from his encouragement of a two state outcome. But he has not put together a plan that makes the rhetoric believable as of yet.

Our advice to Senator Chafee -- keep your powder dry.

John Bolton is the wrong person to handle America's diplomacy at the UN -- and is the world's best expert in setting the UN up for failure. One only has to remember Bolton's promises that he would conscientiously approach reform at the UN in an above the board manner. But succeeding at actually getting the UN back in good shape or getting the kind of Human Right Council the US could support -- something that should have been the absolute highest priority for Ambassador Bolton to accomplish -- would not be good line items in John Bolton's resume as the nation's poster-person for "pugnacious Americanism."

On the Middle East, beware, the administration is also pretty good at setting up Middle East diplomacy for failure -- embracing one side at the expense of the other, over and over again. A real program will lay out the ground rules of fair and just negotiations and not leave the environment one that Vice President Cheney and his team can easily tip at the end.

Stand strong on Bolton.

-- Steve Clemons

Ed Note: I had a great time at the Birmingham Committee on Foreign Relations last night after an excellent evening discussion with members of the Nashville Committee on Foreign Relations the night before. Today, I am flying to New York to attend and blog the Clinton Global Initiative.

-- Steve Clemons

Greetings folks. I've been giving talks in Nashville, Tennessee (yesterday) and Birmingham, Alabama today -- primarily for the respective Committees on Foreign Relations in these cities.

More later on that -- have to run. But will be back with the latest on John Bolton, the President's speech at the UN General Assembly, gaming with Iran, and the resurgence of interest in the Palestine/Israel two-state process.

-- Steve Clemons

I am struggling with a computer crash -- an APPLE G4 17" Powerbook -- that I thought would never go bad, but it has. The computer won't even boot from the disk. The apple just appears and a little whirling circle just whirrrrs. I don't have time to sit for hours in the Apple store -- so, I'm temporarily using my old Dell, which I grew to dislike long ago.

That said, I thought I would post three short pieces for your perusal.

The first is a nice write-up by John Farrell of the Denver Post of our Iran conference last Thursday.

The second is from the Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal with some comments on Khatami and Iran by yours truly in a very good piece by Douglas Savage.

The third is a comprehensive round-up by Stephen Schlesinger of the many reasons to oppose John Bolton. I still think the nomination is dead in committee and cannot move to the floor, but Lazarus and Bolton do have a few things in common. And while I think it would be complete political suicide for Chafee to re-open this matter, I see signs that the administration is cobbling something together on Israel-Palestine, though its still very embryonic and Chafee would be mistaken to get seduced by the talk of action.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Recently, I wrote an article for the Washington Post about a disturbing trend in Japan in which prominent voices on the journalistic right, intentionally or unintentionally, are animating the activities of ideological zealots and thugs. Right wingism in Japan has been around for a very long time, but recently they have successfully achieved censorship, both overt and self-imposed, of some of Japan's blue chip intellectuals, business leaders, and think tanks.

My article used as one of its vignettes a battle between the Sankei Shimbun's well-known editorialist Yoshihisa Komori, based in Washington and someone I have known for many years, and a set of public intellectuals and retired government officials at the Japan Institute for International Affairs. Not only I have written about this, but many others including Roger Pulvers in today's Japan Times and a couple of weeks ago under the authorship of Sheila Smith and Brad Glosserman.

I am involved with two liberal arts colleges founded in the revolutionary era. One of these is Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania and founded in 1783 where I'm on the Board of the Clarke Center.

The other is Washington College in Chestertown, Maryland founded in 1782. At Washington College, I am on the Advisory Board of the C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience.

If you are a history junkie and want to read a new blog launched by one of Washington College's recent graduates, John Bohrer, check out Revolutionary College Blog.

I try to get to both colleges as often as possible, and this morning I find myself blogging at "Play it Again Sam's," the central town funky coffee shop where the locals hang out and tell me who they think REALLY should have won in the recent local primaries -- but that's not the topic today.

What is in part the topic is a fascinating book of which I am only in the first fifty pages -- and which I recommend to you. Pick up and read Stacy Schiff's A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France and the Birth of America.

These pics should inspire some "open thread" chatting.

The first is clearly a comment on "body languange." The next below misinterprets canine-eze as my read of "grrrrr, bark, woof" is that the dogs are just excited about the likelihood soon of new representation at the UN.

Open thread.

-- Steve Clemons

Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer write:

President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations appears increasingly endangered in the Senate, prompting the administration to explore other ways to keep him in the job after his temporary appointment expires in January, officials said yesterday.

The situation represents a sharp turnaround from two weeks ago, when the White House was confident it could finally push through Bolton's long-stalled nomination. But last week's surprise move by Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) to delay a vote convinced Republicans on Capitol Hill that the nomination may be doomed, prompting a search for alternatives.

Administration officials said they have not given up. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Chafee yesterday to kick off a lobbying campaign that will continue today when he returns to Washington after his hard-fought Republican primary victory in Rhode Island on Tuesday.

Bush and national Republicans pulled out the stops to help Chafee win the primary, and they expect a payback. But with Chafee now preparing to face a strong Democratic challenger in a Democratic state in November, many Republicans said he has less incentive to support a firebrand figure such as Bolton.

"It's dead as far as the Senate is concerned," said one Republican official at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Chafee holds the decisive vote. "Chafee made it a 9 to 9 vote, and that's not going to change." A Senate Republican leadership aide added: "Chafee holds Bolton's future in his hands, and people are very worried he's going to squeeze and never let go." [emphasis added]

This article validates what I posted right after last Thursday's failed effort by the administration to secure a vote on John Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

-- Steve Clemons

Today, 14 September, at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill (400 New Jersey Avenue, NW; Washington, DC), a conference titled "U.S. Strategy Towards Iran: Thinking Through the Unthinkables -- Beyond a Binary Choice?" will take place from 10:30 a.m. sharp til 2:00 p.m.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will kick off the meeting at 10:30 am sharp. If you can join us, feel free. No time to confirm your RSVP -- so just come over and mention The Washington Note.

Here is a draft of the schedule:

10:30 am

Welcoming Remarks

STEVEN CLEMONS
Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation

Beyond False Choices: A Call for a Credible Strategy in Middle East and Towards Iran

THE HON. HARRY REID (D-NV)
Senate Democratic Leader

Bombing, Appeasing, Bad Consequences, Possible Opportunities: American Options Towards Iran

FLYNT LEVERETT
Director, Geopolitics of Energy Initiative, New America Foundation
Former Sr Staff Member, National Security Council; State Department, and CIA
Author, “Illusions and Reality: The Case for Negotiations,” American Prospect (September 2006)

THE HON. ROBERT BLACKWILL*
President, Barbour Griffiths & Rogers
Former Deputy Director for Strategic Planning, National Security Council
Former Presidential Envoy to Iraq
Former U.S. Ambassador to India

DAFNA LINZER
National Security Correspondent, Washington Post

DIMITRI K. SIMES
President, The Nixon Center
Publisher, The National Interest

DANIEL LEVY
Senior Fellow & Director, Middle East Policy Initiative, New America Foundation
Former Senior Policy Advisor to Israel’s Prime Minister

11:30 am
America's Brewing Iran Challenge: An "Other Options" Discussion

DAVID SANGER
White House Correspondent, New York Times

GEORGE SOROS
Chairman, Soros Fund Management
Chairman, Open Society Institute
Author, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror

JUAN COLE
Professor of Middle East History, University of Michigan
Blogger, Informed Comment at www.juancole.com

GUY DINMORE
Diplomatic Correspondent, Financial Times

GEORGE PERKOVICH
Vice President for Studies -- Global Security & Economic Development
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

12:30 pm
The Fear and Mistrust Problem in the US-Iran Standoff: Framing Public Discussion

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON
Former Chief of Staff, Department of State
Former Director, US Marine War College
Adjunct Professor, College of William & Mary

CHARLES KUPCHAN
Professor of International Relations, Georgetown University
Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations

CHRISTOPHER PREBLE
Director, Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute

AFSHIN MOLAVI
Fellow, New America Foundation
Author, The Soul of Iran

STEVEN KULL
Director, Program on International Policy Attitudes
Editor, www.WorldPublicOpinion.org

HOOMAN MADJ
Freelance journalist, GQ Magazine; New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker
Advisor and Interpreter to former Iran President Mohammed Khatami during Sept 2006 US Trip

moderator
PRISCILLA LEWIS
Director, US in the World Initiative -- New America Foundation
Former Senior Program Officer, Peace & Security, Rockefeller Brothers Fund

2:00 pm
Next Steps and Concluding Remarks

Food will be served at lunch (no brown bag this time), and it's an interesting roster of personalities and perspectives for a good discussion about Iran.

Moee later.

-- Stheve Clemons

(photo credit: Serge Giachetti)

I really enjoyed the meetings today in Iowa City. About 180 people showed up at the Iowa City Public Library and another dozen or so at the Prairie Lights Bookstore where TWN had a blog salon.

Three impressive guys -- a philosphy student, aspiring photojournalist, and future culture maven, all from Grinnell -- really made the afternoon interesting. Serge Giachetti shot the pic above.

That's me -- in prairie grunge.

-- Steve Clemons

As I reported earlier, I am getting the full outside the beltway treatment in Iowa and Wisconsin. I'm actually having a great time and have met some fascinating folks out here -- but because I had some toothpaste, deoderant, shaving cream and all that, I checked in my small bag. United Airlines lost my bag and thus far has not been able to find it.

I look pretty grungy -- but adding a bit of humor to the day, Keith Porter sent this to me a short while ago:

HOSTAGE RELEASE DATEThe Stanley Foundation has enlisted Governor Bill Richardson and Rev. Jesse Jackson to lead negotiations for the release of your luggage from United Airlines. They will be carrying messages of mercy from former President Jimmy Carter and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama has agreed to lead global vigils on behalf of the missing bags and prayers calling for United Airlines to respect compassion and justice. Gov. Richardson said United Airlines has developed an unusually strong bind with your luggage... and he expects his diplomatic skills will be sorely tested as he approaches the bagage handlers who have thus far issued only denials and misinformation regarding even the simple whereabouts of the items in question. Rev. Jackson said, "We must negotiate, not manipulate. United must now RE-unite these men with their belongings. Only then will justice rush down like mighty water....which of course cannot be carried onto an airplane."

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation and CNN's terrorism analyst Peter Bergen is broadcasting live intermittently today on CNN from the Afghanistan/Pakistan border from a U.S. base camp there.

I just received word an hour ago from Peter that the camp is under fire -- most likely from Taliban/al Qaeda forces. He has learned much and has much to say on the current state of play with al Qaeda, bin Laden, the Taliban, and Afghanistan's and Pakistan's political stability.

He will be broadcasting live tonight 10 pm - midnight ET on CNN, live from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Just wanted to give an alert.

-- Steve Clemons

Vice President Cheney has come out of the shadows to defend his role as hardliner-in-chief in the so-called "war on terror."

AP's Tom Raum reports in his article:

"Part of my job is to think about the unthinkable, to focus upon what in fact the terrorists may have in store for us," Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked about his "dark side."

Cheney didn't think the unthinkable -- he did the predictable. He sorted out who he thought were the good guys and the bad guys -- lumped the bad guys together in ways they should not have been -- and focused American military power recklessly at the wrong targets connected to 9/11, thus puncturing America's mystique in the world and exposing before our allies and our foes both our military and financial limits.

Sensing American weakness, our allies are counting on America less and our foes are advancing their agendas. That is what Cheney's predictable behavior and lack of strategy has done to undermine American interests and our basic security.

The "Unthinkable" (and the smarter strategy) would have been Cheney crafting a grand bargain with Iran after the Iranians had helped the U.S. temporarily stabilize post-Taliban Afghanistan.

The "Unthinkable" would have been maintaining and exploiting America's well-developed thug management system of influencing the behavior of the world's thugs with both carrots and sticks. After release of the recent Senate report indicating no tangible connection between Saddam and al Qaeda -- in fact finding that Saddam was concerned about and opposed al Qaeda -- the "unthinkable" thing to do would have been to ally with Saddam (temporarily) in eliminating both the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

While dictators are deplorable, America does not have the will or resources to topple all of them in one large effort -- no matter the dreams of the Project for a New American Century -- and must make hard choices. The fact that dictators are usually not bent on self-destruction but are rather shrewdly calculating self-dealers gives America an edge in manipulating them through their own rationality. To some degree, America's invasion of Iraq has undermined this thug-oriented calculus and now made it harder for us to compellingly influence other global thugs.

Thinking the "Unthinkable" would have been sidelining Ahmed Chalabi when we learned what a conniving, duplicitous rip-off artist he was and instead considering alternatives for regime change in Iraq short of invasion and occupation. One of these plans was a British-hatched effort to support the former Baathist Iyad Allawi -- himself someone who has played all sides off the other but still someone who could have secured the support of many leading generals in Iraq and potentially led a coup against Saddam -- decapitating the leadership and then installing a brand of leadership that would have walked Iraq away from fascism while not disbanding the military and re-educating and re-branding as acceptable the least ideological and most competent people in Iraq's national and regional bureaucracies.

This last option has clear problems -- moral clarity being only one -- but that kind of thinking is what Cheney should be told is "thinking the unthinkable."

If only Cheney had spent more time on the "unthinkable" -- and putting his zealotry behind thinking through every option, every possibility, every complex strategic cost and opportunity -- America would not be on the brink of a fundamental loss in international stature and military capacity.

Someone please get Cheney on the line. The Vice President definitely needs to take some courses on "thinking the unthinkable."

-- Steve Clemons

It's taken a bit of doing. I flew into Chicago. Connecting flight to Cedar Rapids was cancelled. Told there were no more flights until tomorrow. Rented the last car they had available for a one-way trip to Iowa City. Drove four hours. Now United Airlines has lost my bags, and I'm pretty scuzzy looking as all my "gels" are packed in a bag that easily could have been carried on the plane.

But hey, it is the fifth anniversary of 9/11 and we must be vigilant against deoderants and toothpaste. That and some cruise missiles will keep us safe. You can probably tell that I'm not thrilled about the lost baggage thing.

In any case, I will be more reflective at noon at the Iowa City Public Library and at 2 p.m. at the Prairie Lights Bookstore.

For other locals, I'll be at the Java House on Washington Street this morning, hammering out details on an Iran Conference this morning. I'll be the scuzzy looking guy.

We've now been "at war" for longer than we were during World War II and are no closer to pulling the plug on bin Laden's style of terrorism than we were on September 10, 2001. It's connecting with the people, stupid. . .connecting with them and their aspirations for a better future.

To get to the reasons why this is the case, remind yourself of the answers implied in Donald Rumsfeld's "Global War on Terrorism Memo."

-- Steve Clemons

When I recently met Mohammed Khatami, Iran's former President, one of the first things he said was no one more than Iran applauded the fall of Saddam Hussein and the routing of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He ticked through a long list of strategic priorities and concerns that he suggested were overwhelmingly similar to the U.S. position. Leaving Iran's nuclear ambitions aside for the time being, Khatami is right.

What Mitt Romney and many who are recklessly demonizing Khatami have totally wrong is that there has been significant collaboration between Iran and the U.S. for years -- including in Bosnia and Kosovo, but most recently in Afghanistan. In fact, before President Bush's famous "axis of evil" speech, most in the administration were appreciative of Iran's assistance inside Afghanistan, with which Iran has had a close working relationship with the Afghan military. The United States could not have successfully pacified Afghanistan without Iranian help behind the scenes.

Today, Afghanistan is coming undone as the Taliban are back big time. My colleague Peter Bergen has a very important and disturbing piece on this, "The Taliban: Regrouped and Rearmed" in today's Washington Post.

Truth in advertising. I consider myself a friend of Eli Lake. He's a hard-working journalist whose sympathies are with the neoconservatives, but he doesn't let them get away with vapid thinking or positions that are completely beyond sensibility.

That said, Lake has a piece in the New York Sun on the Lincoln Chafee-Stephen Laffey race that could have been much better, and he used the Bolton battle as a major hinge in his article.

Lake paints Chafee to be the Republican's version of Lieberman, i.e., somewhat politically ambidextrous.

(Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner is going to miss his traveling dad)

Marwan Kraidy of American University and I are going to be spending time in Iowa and Wisconsin the next couple of days.

And this time, the TWN public sessions have been planned in ADVANCE (by some very good and well organized folks at the Stanley Foundation).

The topics will be US foreign policy, Middle East issues, media myths and the Muslim world, and just good old American politics -- good gossip, bad gossip, all of that. (Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner will be taken care of while I'm getting my outside-the-beltway therapy)

September 11, 2006 -- Iowa City

Iowa City Public Library, 12 pm - 1:30 pm

Prairie Lights Bookstore, 15 S. Dubuque Street, Iowa City, 2:00 - 3:00 pm

September 12, 2006 -- Milwaukee

Schwartz Books & Coffee, 4093 N. Oakland, Shorewood (map here), 12:00 - 1:00 p.m.

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee/Student Union, 7:00 - 8:30 pm

It will be fun. Join us. I just hope folks in Iowa and Wisconsin believe in lots and lots of wifi.

-- Steve Clemons

The first ever public assembly of ALL candidates to succeed Kofi Annan as UN Secretary General will shortly be announced. (Well, TWN is actually announcing their event before they are. . . )

Sadly, the normal process of choosing the UN's chief has traditionally not been transparent and is usually a function of last moment deal-making. However, transparency is in, and the back room stuff out.

This event will get all of the candidates together on one state and will take place from 6:30-8:30 pm on Tuesday, September 26th at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York.

Ambassador John Bolton is likely to attend as he lives upstairs in the same building but also has been actively meeting all of the Secretary General candidates. A key insider in Bolton World has told me that the Ambassador very much likes Jordan's Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein -- and I find myself at an uncharacteristic moment of agreement with John Bolton. However, I still need to meet and review the work and profile of the other candidates.

The UN Security Council has attempted to put forward a slightly more transparent selection process in which all nominations are now made formally and in public. According to one observer with whom I have beein in contact, "this level of sunshine and transparency is unprecedented. . . and much needed."

Should be an interesting session. Now, I wonder how TWN can get the right press credentials.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

This is seriously interesting -- and just demonstrates how rich the blogosphere can be.

A reader of The Washington Note who is in the UAV business was watching a YouTube video of an F16 flying with the "Hunter UAV payload." I recommend you turn your volume down when you watch the clip.

But this reader understands telemetry and was interested in the telemetry overlay in one of the segments. The lat/lon reading on the video is N35.077 by E57.99.

He then looked up the coordinates on Google Maps. And low and behold, the spot is over a portion of Iran.

[See Update below, it turns out that the telemetry data needs to be modified before getting correct lat/lon points, and a number of clever readers have found that the spot the film was taken was near Fort Huachuca.]

As this clever analyst suggests: "Unless they have falsified the coordinates as part of a training exercise, does this mean that we're flying fighter aircraft and UAVs over Iranian airspace?"

I know my limits, and I don't know the answer to this question, but I am asking some friends of mine in the "intelligence community" to check this out and give me a read on whether America is war-gaming in Iran already.

I suspect that this may somehow have telemetry for a war game with virtual rather than real coordinates, but let's hear from the experts.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Arms Control Wonk has more on the story.

Update 2: Jeffrey Lewis of Arms Control Wonk has just gotten back to me with a report that we screwed up reading the "UAV easting/northing".

Well, he's right -- as I just see the numbers on the screen and don't know how to properly read any of this. Turns out though that the site where the film was shot is about 20 kilometers from Fort Huachuca. Thanks Jeff.

I had no idea that one of the proliferating political fundraiser ideas out there was getting a bunch of progressive, liberal, democratic, and occasionally dissident Republican voices to offer recipes for cookbooks.

Occasionally, the Senator or Congressman or TV anchor offers something philosophical rather than edible, but I just offered my very first cookbook contribution for the Coles District Democratic Committee's "Cookbook for Democracy" Project.

The Coles District is in Prince William County, Virginia.

Here is my entry:

Steve Clemons' "Preparing for the Daily John Bolton Battle Smoothie"

1. First, each morning, watch this video of the still unconfirmed US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton

2 Then do 40 push-ups, run 3 miles -- plan your daily Bolton strategy

3. Read a section from your "John Bolton Journal" -- everyone should have one. My Bolton Journal has several years of notes compiled after I decided long ago that Bolton's brand of foreign policy was dangerous for the nation. My favorite line from one of his staffers, "If my boss had had his way, we'd be dropping bombs on North Korea now," offered casually on a Dupont Circle street corner.

4. Gather the following:

one banana

one 6-8 oz container of peach or vanilla yoghurt

one nectarine -- quartered with pit removed

ten ice cubes

one half cup of juice -- best is mango orange but you can use cranberry or orange juice -- but not lemon

5. Grind all these on high -- in blender

6. It's a happy drink. Now go do something positive. Make a call, write a blog post or letter, interview a close Bolton aide for a kiss and tell story -- do anything that is designed to help Ambassador Bolton move on to his next job and free his current position for someone who will "deliver" on America's diplomatic needs in the UN.

-- Steve Clemons, publisher of The Washington Note

John Aravosis will be in this cookbook -- as well as Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, Jay Rockefeller, Hillary Clinton, Ned Lamont, blogger Steve Gilliard, Kevin Drum, Martin O'Malley, James Webb, and a lot of other people. Sounds interesting.

I've been thinking of learning more about cooking.

-- Steve Clemons

The following is Senator Lincoln Chafee's letter to Condoleezza Rice, implying in the first paragraph that if a vote had been held on September 7th, Bolton would have received a "no" vote from the Senator.

The pdf of the letter is here.

Chafee writes:

September 7, 2006

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice

Secretary of State

US Department of State

Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice:

I write to you with regard to the nomination of John Bolton to be US Representative to the United Nations. Today, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was scheduled to have a vote on Mr. Bolton's nomination. The decision on whether to hold that vote is in the Chairman of the Committee's hands. Chairman Lugar decided to hold the vote over to a later date, and I support that decision.

It is no secret that I have serious questions about this Administration's policies in the Middle East. As we tackle enormous problems in the region, most notably with Iran and Iraq, I believe we need to be successful in forging alliances. A critical part of that work is accomplished by our Ambassador to the UN.

Several well-placed sources close to the Bolton nomination process have reported to me that the Bolton confirmation process is now dead.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is "highly unlikely" to reconsider Bolton's confirmation again as things now stand.

One insider reported, as far as the Committee is concerned, "we consider the confirmation over. It's dead."

American diplomacy may get a boost in January. She's tough and not a darling of many progressives, but my vote for Bush's next nominee to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations is Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky.

Senator Lincoln Chafee gets this week's 'Conservative with a Conscience' Award for his principled stand on the importance of America's Middle East diplomacy and for making the Bolton confirmation process an appropriate vehicle to express his concerns.

-- Steve Clemons

(State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger III outflanks Cheney Chief of Staff David Addington)

George Bush has just taken a first step, a big step in my view, in bringing America a notch back towards democracy by bringing all of America's "off the books" prisoners into the daylight and towards a more transparent legal process.

Much of the political left has missed the importance of what happened when President Bush interrupted soap operas on the networks on Wednesday and announced that America's secret prisons around the world would be emptied and fourteen highly significant prisoners tried for their crimes.

What much of the left has not realized is that the Cheney wing in national security circles -- including personalities like David Addington, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, and others -- is seething at some of the better souls in the administration. Real right wingers who would love to see a return of arbitrary justice, vigilanteism, and secret executions for those accused of terrorism are quite angry with the President and with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for the enlightened steps they are now taking.

John Bellinger III, the legal adviser to the Secretary of State, and a person Cheney chief-of-staff David Addington has on a regular attack hit list, has scored a huge and important victory over those in the administration who were the primary torture advocates and believers in non-transparent and arbitrary justice. Bellinger as well as State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow and Policy Planning Staff Principal Deputy Director and detainee legal issues expert Matthew Waxman and others have been working on a nine month campaign to bring America out of the secret gulag business -- and get the United States back on the path of legal process and legal norms.

What kind of Republicans do Rhode Islanders want? Pugnacious, anti-internationalists who despise global institutions of all sorts? That sounds like Lincoln Chafee's primary challenger in the Rhode Island Republican primary -- Steve Laffey.

I'm hoping that Lincoln Chafee is disgusted enough by Bolton's views and antics that have undermined American diplomatic objectives that he does vote firmly no when given that opportunity finally. However, I respect a thoughtful, deliberative person who -- from his perch in the legislative branch -- expects that his questions be answered by the executive branch.

Steve Laffey just sent out this criticism of Chafee:

Mayor Laffey Takes Chafee to Task for Vacillation on Bolton

According to the Associated Press today, Senator Chafee "pulled the plug" on John Bolton's confirmation as UN ambassador, "saying he had more questions that needed to be answered." Once again, Senator Chafee has demonstrated how indecisive he is on the critical issues. Whether it is his vote on Justice Alito, or his vote in the 2004 Presidential election, or his vote on Bolton, Senator Chafee clearly lacks the decision-making skills required of a US Senator.

Over the past year, John Bolton has demonstrated that he is a capable and effective representative of America's interests in the United Nations. It is because of him that the U.S. has achieved unanimous Security Council resolutions condemning North Korea's missile tests and ending the Israeli-Lebanese war, as well as a near-unanimous resolution setting a deadline for Iran to suspend its nuclear program. Even previous critics of Ambassador Bolton have admitted that the Ambassador has proven himself over the past year as an effective leader and defender of U.S. interests.

"All the other Senators have made up their minds on how to vote except Lincoln Chafee, who, like always, can't figure out where he stands," said U.S. Senate candidate and Mayor Steve Laffey. "It is outrageous that a vote had to be postponed because Senator Chafee can't make up his mind. Rhode Island and America deserve better."

Well, Laffey doesn't get it -- and if he wants to criticize a guy for thinking things through, asking for more material that he needs to make a decision -- then I support the guy with a mind rather the one that wants to follow blindly, which is what Steve Laffey would have done in that position.

Besides -- Laffey needs to be told by someone quickly that LINCOLN CHAFEE WOULD HAVE VOTED "NO" TODAY AGAINST BOLTON if Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar had not postponed the vote.

That would have been decisiveness and independence that Steve Laffey doesn't come close to exhibiting.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Lincoln Chafee impressed just about everyone during the recent testimony of John Bolton before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He pushed Bolton for hard answers to important questions, and did not yield when Bolton tried to duck and swerve Chafee's queries.

Chafee is worried about American foreign policy and the absence of a clear plan in the Middle East. He thinks that the administration has done nothing credible in recent years to push forward a "viable, two state solution" in Israel-Palestine affairs.

Today, Chafee told Senator Lugar that he would not support John Bolton as things stood. He would vote no if pushed. This has been glossed over now by Senator Chafee's staff and others as being a prolonged period of purgatory for Bolton because Chafee has "unanswered questions".

But the vote was delayed -- and it is now certain to be delayed beyond the September 12th primaries in Rhode Island. After Senator Chafee wins, which TWN hopes he does, the Senator's hand is even freer to vote his views and conscience on Bolton.

There is still uncertainty among the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members as to whether Chafee's opposition to Bolton is "hard" or "soft", but clearly the administration did not read this blog's perception that Chafee was deeply troubled by Bolton's diplomatic failures and did nothing to respond to Chafee's articulated concerns.

If the vote on Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee occurs on September 14th, or the following week, and passes through Committee to the Senate floor, there will be a new range of concerns deployed by Senators who are not members of the Committee. This may involve a filibuster.

The Senate wants to go out of session by September 27th -- so thus far, for those who remain steadfast in their opposition to Bolton, things are looking good.

-- Steve Clemons

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will take up the matter of John Bolton's confirmation today. He has been working at the United Nations without the blessing of the U.S. Senate for the past year as a recess appointee.

The administration did not like losing this battle, but until now the Dems and a few Republicans had kept Bolton's confirmation in purgatory until the administration complied with the Senate's request for documentation about his inquiries into the American names in secret National Security Agency intercepts. The administration still has not provided this information, but the vote will proceed in any case.

Senator Schumer, on this issue, is the enemy inside the tent.

I learned last night that President Bush will be speaking today, and the White House may ask networks to break into programming to run his remarks live.

Word is that he will be addressing the Supreme Court decision on Hamdi and military commissions.

I don't know anything more than this, but expect the Bush speech shortly.

-- Steve Clemons

Ed Note: This link sent by TP has more.

Sidney Blumenthal holds forth on yet another (regrettably believable) Cheney-esque insult to Americans in his effort to whitewash and propagandize his place in U.S. history.

Cheney has chosen neoconservative columnist Stephen Hayes -- the biggest promulgater, beyond James Woolsey and Laurie Mylroie, of the Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda link rationale for invading Iraq -- to be his official biographer.

During the Revolutionary War and during the founding years of the United States, many states required "loyalty oaths" to be sworn by those who joined a state militia. It was important to declare oneself a dependable patriot when so many in the then colonies might have otherwise been loyal to Great Britain, or to France in some cases. Loyalty oaths have made comeback appearances at various points in American history -- during the Civil War, again after WWII during the dawn of the Cold War, and perhaps again today.

We had an interesting discussion about patriotism and loyalty in a forum at the American Political Science Association annual meeting in Philadelphia this morning. This meeting was organized by Christopher Preble, Director of Defense Studies at the Cato Institute. On the panel we had the blogger you are reading now as well as Seyom Brown of Brandeis, Michael Desch at Texas A&M, and Peter Feaver who is now on President Bush's National Security Council staff and has been on the faculty at Duke University. The session was ostensibly about bipartisan foreign policy, a topic which brought out mostly civil but still pointed long knives politely but effectively carving up the notion.

To be quick on the bipartisan bit, I believe that we have had a bipartisan foreign policy, achieved largely through the leadership (or crusades) of Bush and Cheney in the national security decision making process and substantial complicity or abstention by both the Republican and Democratic conventional foreign policy establishments. The real debate is not between parties right now -- it is inside them.

Senator Chuck Hagel is the leader of alternative thinking inside the Republican tent. And the Democrats are deeply divided between faltering liberal internationalists, a rising crop of enlightened realists, and of course the neocon-lite crowd -- of which Senator Joseph Lieberman was one of the heaviest hitters.

During my own comments, I suggested that trust between competing camps between parties and within parties has so broken down that it's hard to just imagine a kiss-and-make up compromise that yields in the near term a broad consensus on what America's national security and foreign policy strategies should be. But I said that one of the early characteristics of the Bush administration during what should have been a time of discussion and inquiry about America's global objectives and great purposes is that the Bush team made critics or those who raised uncomfortable questions pay a serious price for their independent positions or queries.

People who demonstrated their independence often lost access to people in the White House or administration with whom they had long had contact. The large sprawling network of Republican influence also worked to reward loyalists and to block those disloyal -- in jobs, contracts, all sorts of fronts.

Feaver had two well constructed memoranda that he showed me and which I hope he will email me to post on the site. One of these was a roster of leading Democratic voices including John Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and others who had questioned the loyalty of the administration or some agent of the Bush White House. He also had a clever roster of quotes from President Bush, Bill Frist, and many others calling for a polite bipartisanship. I really do want to post these here.

And then he challenged the some 20 or so people in our audience to send him by email clear cases -- in quotes -- of instances where senior administration officials, the President, or the Vice President, or other Republican party officianados had actually questioned another American's loyalty or patriotism. He said that they might have questioned their "wisdom" -- but hardly ever their patriotism.

He made this request publicly, and I think it's an interesting challenge for the blogosphere to embrace. I would like those who can find the quotes and clear references to cases where Cheney and others have questioned the patriotism of their critics to post them on the comments section. Please stick to the empirical -- we don't need fabrications, innuendo or interpretations of what people meant. I'd like to see if we can compile a record here that the White House can consider.

Just a quickie.

I heard a rumor recently and have subsequently confirmed through White House sources that the administration is gearing up to get serious again about charting out a new course on Israel/Palestine.

I have no idea what steps are being considered or whether this is more form than substance, but I was able to confirm that the first "deputies meeting" in more than a year is being called on Israel/Palestine policy. I don't have the date, but my White House source confired the rumor, stating within "a couple of weeks".

The bummer is that the State Department still does not have a Deputy. Bob Zoellick starts his new job at Goldman Sachs next week.

But WHOMEVER Condi and Dick Cheney finally choose for Deputy, MAKE SURE IT'S NOT NICHOLAS BURNS. (I hear that my opposition might actually help him to get the job. . .please, please, please DO NOT APPOINT NICK BURNS! )

More later.

-- Steve Clemons