Read Nawaf Obaid today in the Washington Post. Read it carefully.

The preamble:

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.

Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn't meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn't attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.

Obaid is a personal national security advisor to Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Turki al-Faisal and what he is writing is no doubt the public version of what King Abdullah told Cheney when the VP was summoned to Riyadh.

What Obaid has articulated here is not offered as a threat if the US leaves Iraq, which the US must do in my view. This is the first robust declaration that the Saudis are willing to fill the vacuum left by the United State in the region and knock back some of the unchecked expansion of Iranian influence in the region.

It's not good to have rising powers with pretensions of future greatness clashing like this -- but there is NO CHOICE.

And frankly, it's much better to have the Saudis engaged that not engaged in Iraq. Iran must be balanced -- and while this may seem like an escalation, it actually is an important potential cap on a worsening of this increasingly ulcerous mess in Iraq.

But what the Saudis are doing and what they need to be do is not new -- it has been predicted for quite a while. And this is the consequence of the Bush administration's failure to think strategically. We have now drawn Saudi Arabia into a potential collision that could destabilize that nation and seriously harm our access to vital oil and natural gas supplies.

So don't blame the Saudis for seeing the world and their region as it is -- not as George W. Bush fantasizes.

-- Steve Clemons

I will be on the "Sam Seder Show" on Air America Radio at 10:30 am EST today -- chatting with Sam about all things foreign policy here from Vienna, Austria.

But on a less optimistic note, take everything that the normally unsentimental, cold-eyed Anthony Cordesman writes below and worsen it by an order of magnitude. Then you get my view.

Cordesman really does give the optimist's last hope in the report he sent out today -- and even that plants a bleaker than bleak picture. Cordesman is a must read.

I can't post the survey itself but am happy to forward to those who request it by email: steve@thewashingtonnote.com.

A Survery of Options for Iraq: The Almost Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Anthony H. Cordesman

Cover Note

The US needs to act or it will be defeated in Iraq. Iraq is already in a state of serious civil war, and current efforts at political compromise and improving security at best are buying time. There is a critical risk that Iraq will drift into a major civil conflict over the coming months, see its present government fail, and/or divide or separate in some form.

The US cannot simply "stay the course," and rely on its existing actions and strategy. It needs new options to reverse the drift towards a major civil war and political failure. The military and police development effort falls far short of Department of Defense claims, must be reinforced and will take years to make fully successful. the economic aid and development program has failed, and new incentives are needed to offer any serious hope of Iraqi political compromise and conciliation.

The US cannot wait to see if its existing strategy and actions will work. They will not. The situation is spiraling out of control, and the US must either strongly reinforce its existing strategy or change it. It also needs detailed plans and options for "Plan B," the possibility that it may have to withdraw its troops and possibly most or all of its civilian presence from Iraq.

The attached study surveys the options suggested to date, examines their risk-benefits. The options it examines range from options designed to make the current Coalition and Iraqi government strategy work to options for US withdrawal. Some options might well increase the odds of success. Many other options, however, set goals not only are probably unworkable, but would impose demands on US policy and Iraqi action that would make things worse and further erode the chances of success. The US must make hard choices between the almost good, the bad, and the ugly. to succeed, it must look beyond bright ideas, partisanship, and political rhetoric.

This survey also makes it clear that any meaningful level of success will be contingent on Iraqi actions, not those of the US or other outside powers. No mix of options will allow the US to succeed unless Iraqis can succeed in creating a more effective form of political compromise that wins the support of most Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds; that the successful development of Iraqi security forces will take three to five years and not 18-24 months, and new initiatives are needed to provide economic incentives for unity. It also suggests that the US should avoid unilateral options and seek to negotiate new incentives with the Iraqi government and its allies.

No mix of options for US action can provide a convincing plan for "victory" in Iraq. The initiative has passed into Iraqi hands. US and outside action can encourage progress towards political conciliation and compromise, and improved security, but cannot force it upon Iraq's leaders or the Iraqi people. The US must also face the fact that the real world chances of emerging from the present crisis with anything approaching Iraqi stability, security, pluralism, and unity on any terms are at best even. Stripped of both optimistic spin and dire pessimism, the realities in Iraq offer hope and opportunity, but they cannot promise success.

It's hard to imagine a worse picture than Cordeman paints -- but it is worse.

-- Steve Clemons

This news is partly good. Nancy Pelosi has dropped her bid for Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee.

It's unclear who she will now support, but it seems to me that Jane Harman must be the only genuine alternative and that moving to another potential chair could be quite politically dangerous for the new Speaker.

The failure yet to publicly support Harman means Pelosi is extracting a price from Harman.

One of the things Pelosi and others should be asking Harman to do is to become one of the leading Democrats to articulate a "new narrative" on the Middle East and to get out of the box that any broad gains on getting a new order in place in the region automatically means a net loss for Israel.

Harman would be wise to do this.

Just met my first TWN reader at a blog gathering at Cafe Central in Vienna. There now.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm rushing, but I wanted to share this email I scribbled out this morning. It's a bit blunt, says more than I perhaps should at this point -- but Philip Zelikow's departure as Condi Rice's Counselor is very bad for those hoping for a more enlightened Bush administration foreign policy course.

This email was a response to one from a prominent social leader asking me if Zelikow was forced outi:

I do not believe Zelikow was forced out. At some level, he probably does have legitimate expenses related to his family, but my hunch as to the real reason that he is leaving is that he is fed up with having all the reasonable/constructive ideas in the administration and having little clout to implement them with "Cheney's gang" shutting him and the Rice-team down so frequently.

This is not good news for our side. Zelikow leaving indicates a few things -- Cheney still has significant power; regional deal-making in Middle East is still more fantasy than real (despite Olmert's recent moves); and our 'chances' of finding a third option between bombing and acquiescing to Iran diminish significantly with Zelikow's departure (my take anyway).

Zelikow had faults as we all do -- but he really was the only master strategist left who might have played a historic role in reshaping the US's foreign policy future. I think Rice really needed him.

Stephen Krasner is very smart and would be a cool 21st century Kennan type, but he doesn't dominate the bureaucratic process in a way that can keep the State Department's efforts from being so regularly choked to death. This leaves John Bellinger who is terrific in my view -- but more of a legal strategist and architect than a foreign policy grand strategist. Nick Burns is also great -- but doesn't have Cheney's confidence. Condi's power depends on her one-on-ones with President Bush but that cannot get her where one needs to go on every issue, every hour, every day.

This departure, and the administration's obsession with John Bolton say something -- and that is that while Bush is flirting with Baker-Hamilton, the interest from the White House is extremely thin.

I just can't believe Zelikow would leave if he knew there was a genuine chance of being the architect or leading deliverer of a new and healthier equilibrium of interests in the region.

I have to write about this -- and do so in a constructive way about Zelikow -- but it's very, very hard not to be very depressed by his departure.

More later -- from Vienna.

-- Steve Clemons

It will probably be a small gathering -- but those who want to meet me tomorrow morning in Vienna, Austria -- I will be meeting some folks at about 11 am (at Cafe Central) (I might be a little late as I will be coming directly from the Airport).

Political junkies, caffeine addicts, and Trotsky followers feel free to show up. There will be a table reserved -- under Clemons, The Washington Note, or Embassy -- not sure which.

Got to catch a plane. . .

-- Steve Clemons

I hear that Leon Trotsky used to hang out at the Cafe Central in Vienna.

I will be arriving Wednesday morning in Vienna and departing Friday to participate in a conference on "The Role of Think Tanks in the Political Process of the EU and the US" sponsored by the Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation.

I don't have a firm place or time yet, but I would be happy to join political junkies and blog-types on Wednesday afternoon or sometime Thursday.

One friend has recommended either Cafe Central, Cafe Landtmann, or the American Research Center -- which has offered to provide the coffee. If you have recommendations and are in Vienna. Let me know.

I will need to meet somewhere convenient to the Hotel am Stephansplatz.

-- Steve Clemons

Edward Luce and Demetri Sevastopulo have a thoughtful piece in the Financial Times anticipating the impact of the Iraq War narrative on the American psyche, particularly as of Sunday when the "Iraq War will enter its 1,347th day, thus overtaking the US's involvement in the second world war."

Some key excerpts. The first on Bush's unflagging self-delusion about the Iraq War:

President Bush has made it plain that he still seeks victory in spite of almost universal scepticism that such an outcome can be achieved. To many, the US president's stubborn faith in a war that has so far belied almost all of its reasons raises fears about how much longer it will last -- and whether worse will follow. "To almost everybody except Mr Bush, Iraq is a tragedy," said Kurt Campbell, former national security advisor to Bill Clinton and now vice-president of the Centre for Strategic International Studies. "We are probably only in act two or three of this tragedy -- there may be many more to come."

On the Bush administration's success at buffering the American public from the true costs and impact of this war and a seering comment from former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson:

Much of the human cost of the war has been kept out of sight, including the return of the dead given the Bush administration's ban on the televising of bodybags.

But the extended tours of duty imposed on volunteer part-timers in the National Guard and Reserves as well as regular units has ruptured military morale, according to Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, Mr Bush's first secretary of state.

As a result the Pentagon has been forced to dilute recruitment standards -- waiving academic requirements and lifting the age limit from 35 to 40. "This is a war that is being fought by poor people while the rest of the country drives round in its SUVs barely noticing it is happening," said Mr Wilkerson, who served in Vietnam.

And on the as yet unrealized costs of this war and the possibility of revived American isolationism:

"If you think of the Iraq war as a pool then it is still on the [US] surface," said [Kurt] Campbell. "But beneath it there are many concealed rocks." One such hidden cost could be a diminished appetite for international engagement -- an "Iraq syndrome" to match the US's reduced self-confidence following Vietnam is more likely this time, says Steve Clemons at the New America Foundation in Washington.

"It is too early to be sure what effect Iraq could have on the America public," he said. "It could be anger, it could be isolationism or some longer-term malaise. There is still a lot that we cannot anticipate."

Because of the Bush administration's choices and style of management of America's national interests, the nation is facing NO good options. So much will need to be rebuilt and recrafted by the next President, and the international system will be highly suspect of this nation -- no matter who is elected.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

The Financial Times' Philip Stephens published a very useful and interesting take on he rise of realism and fall of democracy-focused international idealism in U.S. foreign policy.

Regrettably the article, "Democracy Falls Victim to Foreign Policy Realism," is not available without registering and/or subscribing -- but I still want to link it. (here is a link that does not require registration)

Stephens characterizes "classic realism" quite well:

Realism has many dimensions. At its simplest, it implies no more than a willingness to treat the world as it is rather than as you might like it to be. That is what foreign policy practitioners mean when they say that the US should engage with enemies as well as friends. It talked to Moscow during the cold war; why not Tehran and Damascus now?

A little way along the spectrum of meanings, realists take a Westphalian view of sovereignty. Governments, democratic or otherwise, must be free to do as they please within their own boundaries. The authoritarian nature of a useful ally should not be seen as an obstacle to co-operation.

Further still, realism merges into cynicism, promoting a realpolitik indifferent to the nature of a regime. Dangerous tyrants are fine as long as they are on the right side. The arming of Saddam Hussein against Iran during the 1980s comes to mind.

During the cold war it was this last form of realism that saw the US jump into bed with some of the nastiest regimes in Latin America, Asia and Africa -- a policy that appalled as many Europeans then as does now the pro-democracy "imperialism" of the Bush administration.

Stephens, however, sets up a bit of a false straw-man here because I believe it is unlikely that "classic realism" will ever be back in the same doses we saw in the latter half of the 20th century.

This is a fascinating, sober piece by Harvard University's Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou on Israel-Palestine problems that looks at Hamas as an evolving, "astute" political player that needs to be engaged one way or another in any new effort at regional deal-making in the Middle East.

Here's one section:

Ignoring the general disposition of Hamas and its dogged political determination merely tells a story of intransigence feeding intransigence.

For the insistence on treating this organization as a terrorist group obscures the central fact of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.

In that context, a militant group that emerges as a resistance movement; grows into a social-support organization efficiently operating schools, health-care centers and welfare services; suspends its resort to force; and agrees to abide by the rules of democratic contest cannot be termed terrorist.

As it is, Hamas has unilaterally declared since March 2005 a self-imposed cease-fire (tahdiya), which it respected for 15 months until the Israeli killing of the picnicking seven-member Ghalya family, following which the group's armed wing led a commando operation on an Israeli army base.

On Nov. 9, Israeli forces again killed 17 individuals also members of a same family, the Althamna of Beit Hanoun.

All along, the Israeli government failed to reciprocate the cease-fire declaration and multiplied near-daily military incursions invariably resulting in casualties.

Since June, close to 300 Palestinians have been killed, 30 of them children.

Regarding the other two demands of the international community, Hamas had offered in January 2004 -- and reiterated as late as Nov. 1 -- to enter into political negotiations leading to a 10-year truce (hudna), and the movement has been part to discussions, in September, on a draft document for a program that would "respect previous agreements in a manner that protects and safeguards the higher interests and the rights of the Palestinian people."

An opposing view has been published by the Council on Foreign Relations' Steven Cook.

This debate, and others, are being promoted by the Rosenkranz Foundation and a new policy debate organization called "Intelligence Squared".

-- Steve Clemons

Here is a decent UPI article capturing the essential themes of a program I participated in on Monday at the Hudson Institute titled "Is Democracy Good for the Middle East?" (audio version available here/MP3 download)

I said a number of things which can be seen on C-Span's coverage of the program, and which has been running this week -- but essentially, in my view it is important to remember that democracy promotion needs to be organic and come from within a country.

Also democracies are not ballotocracies, as Richard Haass calls them. Civil institutions, courts, the media, and other elements of civil society, the rights of minorities are as important if not more important than popular voting and should not be minimized or detached from political choice.

The word "democracy" is interpreted by many in the Middle East to be a trojan horse for "regime change." I think it's important to either modify our language or to reconstruct what genuine democracy means -- which must build off the aspirations of those in the Middle East for self-determination and justice.

(Blogger Steven Clemons poses question to 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Muhammad Yunus who stated "democracy cannot be achieved at gun point", 19 Nov 2006, photo credit: Jennifer Willis)

Lastly, as I said in this meeting, the first thing I said actually, our obsession with democracy in America will not undo or fix our real problems in the Middle East -- which are anti-Americanism, anti-Israel sentiment, and terrorism.

Terror masters exploit unmanaged, untended, ulcerous grievances to fuel popular support for their causes -- and America and Europe seriously undermine their mutual interests in the Middle East and fail to squelch the strong currents fueling terrorism by not "stealing the audience" from terrorists and working harder to resolve serious grievances.

And I did say that "democracy at gunpoint turbo-charges grievances in the Middle East."

Here's a bit more:

'The obsession with "democratization at gunpoint" is turbo-charging grievances in the region,' and the grievances must be addressed, said Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation. Long-term success will take decades, he contends, but is not an impossible feat.

'Of course democratization can take hold. But it will need to be organic, not implemented,' Clemons said.

Also necessary will be extensive framework in the form of foreign investments, and a change in language that reflects a transcending of cultural barriers. Western ideas fall on deaf ears because they don't correlate with regional beliefs such as self-determination, according to Clemons, who also proposes an idea similar to the Alaska Permanent fund for Iraq as an economic incentive.

'We have not set up an environment for opportunities to take hold,' said Clemons.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This is interesting. Seven hours before I posted my piece on Marshall Wittman as the midwife of a McCain-Lieberman tie-up, Mark Schmitt had something similar up at Tapped.

I suggest that McCain will win the Republican primary and bring Lieberman into the dance. Schmitt, on the other hand, sees McCain losing the Republican primary race and then "pulling a Lieberman" by running independently of both parties -- and with Lieberman on the ticket, running as faux centrists.

Mark Schmitt says this won't be a centrist party but will instead be a true neocon party. Interesting. Not sure I see it the same way, but serious strategists should pay attention to these possible maneuvers.

-- Steve Clemons

There are some TWN readers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, despite the comments of one student I met recently at the colonial era college, Washington College, who first asked "What's a blog?" after a lecture I gave there. After I responded, he said, "I don't think we have blogs on the Eastern shore."

Nice guy actually, but he's wrong. There are bloggers out here -- and today, Mark Schmitt of The Decembrist is allegedly in Chestertown too, though not here at the premier town coffee shop, "Play it Again Sam."

Here's some news. John Bolton cancels an appearance he had planned today at Syracuse University. Maybe he know I had a few questions planted in the audience about how far he was willing to be used in the evolving battle over his UN appointment as a measure of faux bipartisanship.

The Bolton Battle has achieved "high art form status" at this point.

He will never be confirmed by the Senate. But outgoing Senate Majority Leader and presidential hopeful Bill Frist hopes to make some points with America's pugnacious nationalist voters by crowing from the Senate floor how outraged he is that Bolton won't be confirmed by Democrats with an assist from some Republicans, particularly Senator Lincoln Chafee. (actually Frist won't mention the anti-Bolton Republicans; he'll be going after Dems full board).

But let me remind Bill Frist of what just happened to incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She got measured by both her decision to support John Murtha as Democratic Party Leader and then her failure to deliver him.

Frist's zealous support of John Bolton with no obvious means of getting him through the Senate simply punctuates his impotence -- even in a chamber that he and his party controlled. If Frist makes Bolton the parting shot of his time in the Senate -- rather than delivering successes and achievements -- Frist's portfolio (political rather than stocks, in this case) will seriously deteriorate.

Just something for Bill Frist and his close national security aide, Stephen Rademaker -- also a former close aide of John Bolton -- to consider before orchestrating yet another chapter in John Bolton's confirmation battle.

Frist is a man of science, a rationalist, from the South. Pushing Bolton at this point doesn't square with Frist's long record of rationalism as a way forward. Rather, it's a play for those who revere Jesse Helms -- one of the most anti-international, anti-modern, anti-Enlightenment senators to serve in the modern age.

I'm not sure where the investigation into his alleged manipulation of stocks and other investments in a blind trust stands, but Frist will be leaving the Senate with a roster of both achievements and stumbles. There has been no news on the matter for a very long time -- so I imagine that the case has either been closed or is inactive. HCA stockholders just got a nice 18% jump in their stock shares last week when their company was sold -- so all's well that ends well for the Frist family.

Why add John Bolton to the stumble list?

But if Frist thinks he really does want to take a run at the presidency -- which I think he does -- then he needs to give Americans a snapshot of constructive, principled political and policy achievements. He can do a lot in the next couple of weeks pushing spending bills through that need to be addressed and usher forward more support for those Americans wounded and families harmed by the loss of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do good stuff, Senator Frist. Leave the politically outrageous acts for others.

-- Steve Clemons

My good friend, Matt Stoller of MyDD, has scolded me just a bit for some minor swipes I took at the leftish blogosphere. I probably deserved the swat.

Nonetheless, Stoller has an excellent follow-on article to my post about Marshall Wittman and the effort to shape the centrist cosmetics of a McCain-Lieberman 2008 White House run.

He saw this same dynamic in the Lamont-Lieberman Senate race in Connecticut, and what Matt Stoller understands that sizeable chunks of the left-progressive blogosphere don't is that just saying something is so, over and over and over again, just doesn't make it so.

We need real strategies with traction -- not hyperventilation, and not self-delusion.

-- Steve Clemons

Oakley says happy Thanksgiving to all -- and the good news is that his sister Annie will soon be in town, right around Christmas. Here she is:

Happy holidays from this blogger too.

-- Steve Clemons

The politically ambidextrous king of one-line political zingers Marshall Wittman has made bloggers and traditional style journalists go bonkers the last couple of days. He's going back to work in the Senate, but this time for an Independent.

I wondered what was going on when Wittman moth-balled on November 17th his thoughtful blog, The Bull Moose, which frequently seemed to be tracking issues similar to what I was writing and thinking about (or I him) -- with us occasionally on quite opposite sides of an issue.

Today, the New York Times' Mark Leibovich penned a quite harsh treatment of Wittman's political profile and work career on the occasion of Senator Joseph Lieberman hiring "the bull moose" to be his new communications director.

Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman have been on a collision course for some time. They are both very tough-minded, opinionated, media savvy Democrats on the rise, and they have been knocking into each other for some time while still feigning mutual admiration.

None of us -- or them -- come with a perfect package of policy views and perspectives. I admire Nancy Pelosi a great deal, but her views on China concern me, and her tendency to promote loyalists and friends at the expense of "experts" is very GW Bushian and disconcerting.

That said, I'm impressed by Pelosi -- even with her decision to support Jack Murtha which I believe was pre-cooked with Hoyer's understanding. Those who think it was an incredible misstep turned out to be more accurate than I because I failed to see how the media would turn this decision into a measure of Pelosi's power to manipulate her caucus. I also failed to see that Pelosi could be duped by the media in trying to make the Murtha campaign a real, rather than a politically contrived, one.

(Nobel Peace Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus, former President Bill Clinton, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; UN Foundation Dinner, 19 Nov 2006, photo credit: Jennifer Willis)

Last night, Washington's political stars turned out to pay homage to the banker who started in 1976 lending $27 to 42 people in one village in Bangladesh.

Muhammad Yunus and many of his colleagues from the Grameen Bank were feted at an extraordinary reception and dinner gathering -- on a Sunday night -- at the Willard Hotel in Washington and hosted by the United Nations Foundation.

(Blogger Steven Clemons, Muhammad Yunus, and Ted Turner, 19 Nov 2006, photo credit: Jennifer Willis)

Among the guests were former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Congressman and Mrs. Tom Udall, Senator and Mrs. Paul Sarbanes, Pew Research executive and former Washington Post "Outlook" Editor Jodie Allen, Ted Turner and his companion Kathy Leach, Bruce and Hattie Babbitt, former Senator and UN Foundation President Timothy & Wren Wirth, former State Department Legal Adviser William Howard Taft IV, former Senator Donald Riegle, Ashoka founder William Dreyton, Kathy Bushkin, Kenneth Adelman, John Cochran, Diane Rehm, John Henry and Ann Crittendon, and many others.

(Former US Trade Representative Carla Hills and New America Foundation/American Strategy Program director Steven Clemons -- Muhammad Yunus Dinner, 19 Nov 2006, photo credit: Jennifer Willis)

I sat next to and had a fascinating political and trade policy discussion with Bush 41 US Trade Representative Carla Hills (who told me that former Ambassador and Boeing Executive Thomas Pickering was joining her firm, Hills & Co.)

It was also Ted Turner's birthday. Tim Wirth shared with us that when America was more than $1 billion in arrears on its UN dues, many worked to get that debt paid -- and when the last gap was $31 million, and the US government would not close it, Turner wrote a personal check to the US treasury for $31 million to apply to America's UN obligations.

Turner was impressive last night and started the dinner off noting that it was rare to see "so many do-gooders" in one place, "no one who wanted to go do someone harm." Neocon fellow traveler Kenneth Adelman was in the room last night and continued to stand by the mea culpas he had been offering for his "Iraq would be a cake walk" comments -- and unlike Joshua Muravchik was not advocating bombing anyone, at least last night.

Yunus's impressive and charming daughter, Monica, was at his side most of the evening. She sings operas at the Met in New York.

(New America Foundation American Strategy Program Director Steve Clemons and former President Bill Clinton, UN Foundation Dinner, 19 Nov 2006, photo credit: Jennifer Willis)

But the night was not about gossip about Washington's most well-heeled. It was about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank for their hard work and magic in bringing economic opportunity to the world's poorest and lifting so many out of poverty -- not through grants but through micro-lending and banking.

I mentioned to Muhammad Yunus that when the Nobel Committee announced that he had won the Peace Prize, I was with George Soros in Tokyo. Soros instantly said that it was "an excellent choice." And last evening, Yunus confided that Soros had really helped provide critical support for the Grameen operation and had always supported them.

Yunus and the Grameen Bank are what transformational diplomacy ought to look like -- and Soros, Yunus, Turner, Carla Hills, Tim Wirth and others there last night are the world's real transformational diplomats.

One of the interesting tidbits Yunus conveyed last night is that while micro-lending in a single village began in 1976, the program in Bangladesh now covers more than 80% of impoverished families in that country.

The Grameen Bank was founded in 1983, and In 1986, then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton invited Yunus to Little Rock and together they helped establish a Grameen micro-lending operation in Arkansas, which Hillary Rodham Clinton chaired. Yunus said that people would start asking "What is this Grameen?" And when told that it was a bank operating in Bangladesh, they'd say "What is Bangladesh?" Sadly, one can still imagining that happening today -- but perhaps less so after the awarding of the Nobel.

Yunus' most important comments last night explored the links between poverty and peace. He said that "there is no military solution to terrorism," that "poverty is a threat to peace" and "poverty fuels feelings of humiliation and injustice, which feeds terrorism."

He said that the world's biggest problems -- whether "real or imagined injustices" -- were driven by economics. He said that the best way to turn around those factors that fueled the hopelessness that terror masters exploited was to give people an opportunity at entrepreneurship. Yunus said that if society got out of the way, "all human beings are entrepreneurs."

It was an uplifting, fascinating evening.

Yunus completed his remarks by committing Bangladesh to build the first "poverty museum" when there was no poverty any more and people needed to look back and remember what poverty once looked and felt like.

He reported that 58% of Grameen families had crossed over the poverty line and that 100% of their children were being educated.

Uplifting, noble -- clearly, much left to do -- and Yunus acknowledged that.

But as Ted Turner said, it felt great to be in a room of "do-gooders" whose results were in the black.

Norway's Ambassador to the United States Knut Vollebaek told us that the December 10th Awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize will be aired live over the internet for the first time ever. And following up, Bangladesh's Ambassador to the United States Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury said that the embassy would be having a huge gathering that night to watch the award presentations live.

TWN will post the link when it is up.

-- Steve Clemons

According to Bob Woodward's recent book State of Denial, Henry Kissinger reportedly advised the Bush administration that "victory was the only way out of Iraq."

Now, according to this AP report, Kissinger seems to be changing his tune.

In an interview Sunday with the BBC, Kissinger stated:

If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible.

Note that Kissinger has dropped the semantic idiocy of debating whether a civil war is underway in Iraq. He finally acknowledges that it is.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE: EVENT MAXED OUT

The Hudson Institute does not have this event noted on its website, but Richard Weitz has assembled an interesting panel discussion regarding Democracy in the Middle East on Monday, 20 November, noon-2 pm that will take place at the Hudson Institute's offices in Washington.

C-Span will cover the event. It will be taped and broadcast later. C-Span will post the broadcast times on its website.

The speakers include:

Steve Clemons, New America Foundation and The Washington Note

Joshua Muravchik, American Enterprise Institute

Marina Ottaway, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Lee Smith, Hudson Institute

S. Enders Wimbush, Hudson Institute (moderator)

Although he can't accept any more RSVPs, Richard Weitz is happy to put TWN readers on Hudson's event distribution list. You can contact him at weitz@hudson.org.

-- Steve Clemons

(IISS Director of Studies and former Bush administration US AID official Patrick Cronin)

Patrick Cronin, Director of Studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, has sent me a new publication from the IISS Armed Conflict Database titled "Flashpoint".

I "think" I have permission to link it here, but may have to take this down if Patrick Cronin tells me that this is a 'members and friends only' document. (please note that the order of the pdf pages is off by one page -- read page 2 first, then 3, then 4, then page 1)

But it's very good, and folks should read it. The first issue, "Halting Iraq's Descent into Chaos," sets a sober, realistic tone for the mess in which America has tragically displayed real limits to its power:

It seems that the United States and its allies were blinded by possibilities in Iraq: freeing the Iraqi people of a brutal regime; ensuring that a hostile dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction; and creating a democratic government in the Middle East. The US-led coalition was determined to pursue those ambitious objectives despite a lack of broad support for pre-emptive military action and warnings that state-building would be fraught with difficulties. Those have now become painfully clear and the lofty aims have given way to a desperate effort to arrest a downward spiral towards chaos across much of the country.

Hope has been eroded among Iraqis by the collapse of institutions, the coalition's lack of preparation, a vicious hybrid insurgency, hostile external influences, the partial fragmentation of society into competing armed groups and the Iraqi government's inability to foster reconciliation. The will to persevere appears to be diminishing among coalition nations and the international community -- a perception reinforced by the outcome of the US mid-term elections. The coalition and Iraqis both want the occupation to end but there is agreement that a premature withdrawal of forces would be likely to lead to an even more devastating civil war that could destabilise the entire region.

Getting the analysis of the current environment right is key before any prescriptions can be considered. This issue of "Flashpoint" provides a great roster of incentives and disincentives for the component pieces of Iraq's political and military schema to either collaborate or devolve further into anarchy, vicious power struggles, and genuine civil war.

This report also provides a breakdown of military strength of various players:

IRAQI AND COALITION FORCES

Total Iraqi (including police) 320,000

US 148,000

Non-US 16,000 (including 7,000 UK)

INSURGENTS

Active: 20,000-30,000

Including: al-Qaeda up to 1,000; Ansar al Sunna up to 1,000

Support network 80,000-100,000

SHIA MILITIA

Badr Corps. up to 10,000

Mahdi Army 30,000

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I certainly missed this earlier in the week.

CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck interviewed the first Muslim Member of Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MT) and said: "Sir, prove to me you are not working with our enemies."

First of all Glenn, Muslims are not our enemies. Secondly, what do you think about other leading Muslims in America?

Really disgustingly out of line. . .

-- Steve Clemons

10:35 a.m. EST -- Sam Seder and I will discuss America's Middle East mess.

-- Steve Clemons

I participated in a study group last night -- and one of the scenarios discussed was the increasing probabability of a psychology-altering event having enormous impact on the vast majority of Americans.

One of the scenarios was the prospect of Iraqi police and troops in a gun conflict with U.S. soldiers in which many of the Americans died.

Read this on the death of an American in Iraq today by Iraqi police. Not quite the scenario discussed -- but eerily tilting that direction.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

It's late. I should be asleep -- but I was reading the Stars and Stripes tonight online and ran across a couple of letters to the editor by Spc. Khai Krumbhaar.

I don't know this soldier -- but see that he has folks praying for him in St. Andrew's Parish in Western Mexico.

He is a very thoughtful guy given the tenor of two fascinating letters that he published in the military newspaper -- one on gender issues in the military and the other on attitudes towards homosexuality. This individual is a high quality thinker who really deserves a position counseling the military on how to instruct soldiers on 21st century norms.

Here are the two letters. The first a response to an anti-gay letter by a soldier stationed in Baghdad:

15 November 2006 -- Stars and Stripes Letter to the Editor

A reason for EO training

After I read "Why run article on gays?" (letter, Nov. 1), I realized why we endure long hours of Equal Opportunity training every quarter: Some people still don't get it.

The letter writer was so offended by the mere mention of homosexuality that he took time out of wartime duties to write. He offered two weak excuses: that it has no military relevance and that he resented the "attempt to push the homosexual agenda on the military population." Neither holds any water.

If the author reads Stars and Stripes, he's noticed the many articles that have nothing to do with the military. I've seen pieces on Britney Spears, celebrity divorces and self-aware elephants. As for the assertion that homosexuality is inconsistent with the military lifestyle, the same could be argued for articles on competitive eating or increasing beer sales. At least being gay won't make you die of a heart attack at 30, like downing 97 Krystal burgers in one sitting.

The "pushing agendas" comment made even less sense. What about the blatantly biased political cartoons? Only a couple of them are entertaining; some are anti-military. Where's the captain's outrage over Stripes pushing the baby boomer agenda with stories or financial problems among the elderly? Where's his outcry against cartoons mocking the government? Where is his concern for review of racist, violent music?

You know where mine is? Nowhere. I understand that free speech and the right to pursue happiness mean I won't always like what is said or done by others within the bounds of law. The article was tastefully and compassionately written. If he was so offended by it, he could have turned the page. Free speech also means he doesn't have to listen to or read opinions he doesn't agree with.

Spc. Khai Krumbhaar

Camp Buehring, Kuwait

The other responds to an article suggesting that women don't belong in the infantry:

25 January 2005 -- Stars and Stripes Letter to the Editor

Women wouldn't slack off

I wish I was surprised by "Women don't belong in infantry" (Dec. 15), but frankly I'm not.

The writer said he would leave his personal opinions aside, then expressed them in a very narrow-minded manner. I agree that women who want to join the infantry should meet the same physical training requirements. However, the reason weight and body fat regulations are different is because women are naturally supposed to carry more body fat than males. Feel free to ask your medic if you're skeptical.

As for the claims that women would slack off, any woman tough enough to pass the male PT standards and infantry training is probably at least as motivated as the males. While in Iraq I have seen women carry heavier loads to prove themselves more than I've seen them loafing, and several of the females in my unit carry the heavier M249 light machine gun while the only M4 assault rifle is carried by the tallest man in our unit.

Decency requires that opposite genders have separate places to dress and shower when available. This is not preferential treatment but common sense. Remember in Kuwait where the whole unit shared one tent? The men kept to one side, the women to the other, and people changed their underclothes in the showers.

To prevent accidental pregnancies, infantry females could be required to be on birth control in the field. At other times, do remember that men can have children while in the military and women should be able to, as well.

The bottom line is, soldiers who can pass the same training should have the same opportunities, regardless of gender. Period.

Spc. Khai Krumbhaar

Baghdad

The incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ought to arrange a meeting with Spc. Khai Krumbhaar and figure out how this person's sensibilities might be spread throughout the military network.

-- Steve Clemons

Sometimes in Washington after years of networking and bridge-building, doors are opened to some extraordinary meetings where elite political players and policy makers really do discuss how to govern the world while sipping wine.

I really can't discuss the participants or venue of a dinner I attended last night but suffice it to say that some of America's and Europe's leading current and former political personalities were there -- 60 people only -- and among them a few former Secretaries of State and foreign ministers, top intelligence officials, think tank chiefs, Senators and House Members, former National Security Advisors and Secretaries of Defense. The attendance list was extraordinary.

And the conversations -- on the whole -- were about the crappy condition of America's national security position. The guests in this dinner probably represented key participants in any new strategic consensus for the country. If there were brlliant, silver bullet ideas that might help this country move quickly beyond its problems, it would have been in such a crowd where such notions might be taken seriously and have impact.

But nothing. Absolutely nothing. People were depressed and dismayed about current conditions. One very, very senior Bush administration official when asked by me what ideas he had to stabilize Iraq and stop our slow bleed situation said he had exhausted what he felt was possible.

Another top tier official when another guest pushed him to move the President into some rational deal-making that might trigger a more fruitful trend, ominously said "don't hold your breath."

Many TWN readers have already known and posted commentary on how screwed America is in its current situation -- but still, it's a different thing when actually dining and drinking with folks in mega-power positions who concur.

-- Steve Clemons

Desperate and frustrated detainees, US soldier/guards who were children just months before the hard core roles they are playing on the front line of this affair on behalf of the American taxpayer, and other shocking but illuminating images are worth reading in this sober piece (the first of two parts) in The Globalist by my friend Markus Ziener, Washington Bureau Chief of the German business daily, Handelsblatt.

-- Steve Clemons

(President George and Laura Bush at casket of President Ronald Reagan)

Ms. Dowd has a strong, smart piece on the battle between Bush administration insider realists and idealists and juxtaposes Bush's inflexibility with Reagan's dramatic turns.

Read the whole thing, but here's the best:

Bush junior cast himself as the Reagan heir. But as President Reagan showed in Lebanon, when he pulled out troops after 241 servicemen were blown up, and in Reykjavik negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev on nuclear arms, he was incredibly flexible -- an effective contrast with his inflexible rhetoric. He pursued openings and even radical diplomacy.

If the Gipper was wood, the Decider is stone.

Voters rejected W.'s black-and-white, good-and-evil, incompetent foreign policy last week. The president got the message that some shades of gray were desirable and brought in the family fixer with the bright green ties, who is perfectly positioned to come up with a solution that will fly in Washington and flop in Baghdad.

As the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr taught, morality without realism is naïvite or worse, and realism without morality is cynicism or worse. Morality should open your eyes, not close them.

Let's hope the President gets to reading the papers today.

-- Steve Clemons

Another controversial recess appointment made by President Bush was C. Boyden Gray, White House Counsel in the Bush 41 administration and Director of the Transition Team for Bush 43, who now serves as the unconfirmed Ambassador of the United States to the European Union.

A Senator's "procedural hold" has blocked Gray's nomination from proceeding through the confirmation process, but according to the Senate Executive Calendar, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar is reporting that his committee now plans to take up Gray's nomination -- though no hearing date has been announced.

Gray is widely recognized as one of the key architects of a rightward swing in America's federal court system.

Despite many on the left viewing Gray suspiciously, he is privately quite hostile to what neoconservative influence has done to undermine America's prestige and position abroad. He gets high marks from Europeans, and while supportive of President Bush which he must be in his role, he thinks America needs to get back in the alliance-building business.

-- Steve Clemons

Issued today by Senator Harry Reid's office:

AGRICULTURE -- Tom Harkin

APPROPRIATIONS -- Robert Byrd

ARMED SERVICES -- Carl Levin

BANKING -- Chris Dodd

COMMERCE -- Daniel Inouye

ENERGY -- Jeff Bingaman

ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS -- Barbara Boxer

FINANCE -- Max Baucus

FOREIGN RELATIONS -- Joseph Biden

HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR & PENSIONS -- Edward Kennedy

HOMELAND & GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS -- Joseph Lieberman

JUDICIARY -- Patrick Leahy

INTELLIGENCE -- John D. Rockefeller IV

BUDGET -- Kent Conrad

AGING -- Herb Kohl

VETERANS -- Daniel Akaka

SMALL BUSINESS -- John Kerry

RULES -- Dianne Feinstein

JOINT ECONOMIC -- Chuck Schumer

INDIAN AFFAIRS -- Byron Dorgan

-- Steve Clemons

Here are copies of two letters that Congressmen Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jim Walsh (R-NY) have distributed today to Members of Congress calling for the President to nominate Congressman Jim Leach as US Ambassador to the United Nations "in the event that Ambassador Bolton's term is not extended."

Here is the "Dear Colleague".

Here is the letter that they are asking Members to co-sign.

So far, after a jog along the mall today, Congressman Blumenauer ran into both Representatives Chris Shays (R-CT) and Jim Marshall (D-GA) who agreed on the spot to be the first co-signatories after Blumenauer and Walsh.

It's a good start.

-- Steve Clemons

(House Speaker Dennis Hastert, former Prime Minister of Japan Junichiro Koizumi, and former US Ambassador to Japan Howard Baker)

Sources have confirmed to TWN that outgoing House Speaker Dennis Hastert tops the list of possible alternatives to succeed George Bush's Texas Rangers baseball buddy Tom Schieffer as US Ambassador to Japan, a role that Hastert admittedly covets. (Ambassador Schieffer is newsman Bob Schieffer's brother.)

A senior White House source stated that "Hastert wants the job, and Hastert will get the job -- barring anything unexpected."

One must wonder if anyone has told Tom Schieffer that he needs to start packing.

-- Steve Clemons

Congressmen Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jim Walsh (R-NY) have begun to float a "Dear Colleague" letter asking members to sign on to an appeal to the White House to nominate outgoing Iowa Congressman Jim Leach as Ambassador to the United Nations "should the Bolton nomination expire."

On a conference call with reporters and bloggers, Blumenauer made clear that this effort was not an anti-Bolton effort but was rather a constructive exercise designed to highlight the merits of Jim Leach serviing as America's UN Ambassador should John Bolton's term come to an end with adjournment of this Congress and without confirmation by the Senate.

Jim Leach was asked at the Citizens for Global Solutions Annual Conference today whether he would be interested in serving as US Ambassador to the United Nations and if he was aware of the Blumenauer/Walsh effort, and he stated that he was aware of it -- but at this time he was planning to go back to Iowa City.

However, TWN spoke to someone very close to Jim Leach who said that if asked by the President to serve in such a role, "he would be delighted to accept." This individual also reminded me that Leach started his career in the Foreign Service with a stint at the United Nations -- and resigned in protest after Richard Nixon's "Saturday Night massacre," which he found to be unethical and behavior by government officials he could not accept.

Some in the administration are suggesting that Zalmay Khalilzad, America's current Ambassador to Iraq, is favored by the higher echelon to succeed Bolton if the White House's last gasp Bolton effort finally collapses -- but so far there has been no public relations campaign of any sort endorsing Khalilzad, who is reportedly frustrated with his role and position in Iraq and on the edge of quitting government service all together.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

A few days ago, I suggested that outgoing Iowa Congressman and House International Relations Committee Member Jim Leach be made John Bolton's successor as a "100% Sure Senate-Confirmed" US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Actually, my pal Keith Porter wrote the suggestion to me -- and though I was already thinking it -- I need to give him credit for the nudge.

Today, Congressman Earl Blumenauer gave a "morning hour" speech on the House floor commending Jim Leach, his leadership in international affairs, and the valuable role President Bush should ask him to play as America's next Ambassador to the United Nations. Republican Congressman Jim Walsh is partnered with Blumenauer in this effort -- and later today, the offices of Earl Blumenauer and Jim Walsh will release a "Dear Colleague" to Members in the House and Senate advocating Jim Leach as US Ambassador to the UN.

There are a number of good choices of people we could send -- including in my book, current Under Secretary for Global Affairs PAULA DOBRIANSKY, current US Ambassador to Iraq ZALMAY KHALILZAD, RAND strategist JAMES DOBBINS, Legal Adviser to the Secretary of State JOHN BELLINGER, outgoing Senator LINCOLN CHAFEE and numerous others.

But JIM LEACH would fit the bill and bring heft and talents that few can match. I just learned that Leach actually started his career in the Foreign Service and had a stint at the United Nations.

The President would demonstrate that he's genuinely on a more constructive path if he punctuates the end of the Bolton battle with the nomination of Republican Congressman Jim Leach.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Harry Reid's office just released this roster of the new management team of the Senate:

Robert C. Byrd, President Pro Temp

Harry Reid, Majority Leader

Dick Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader

Barbara Boxer, Chief Deputy Whip

Thomas R. Carper, Deputy Whip

Bill Nelson, Deputy Whip

Russell D. Feingold, Deputy Whip

Charles E. Schumer, Vice Chair of the Conference

Patty Murray, Secretary of the Conference

Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of Campaign Committee

Byron L. Dorgan, Chairman of Policy Committee

Debbie Stabenow, Chair of Steering and Outreach Committee

Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of Committee Outreach

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice Chair of Committee Outreach

Blanche L. Lincoln, Chair of Rural Outreach

OTHER APPOINTMENTS FOR THE 110th CONGRESS

In other news concerning the 110th Congress, Reid also announced today that Nancy Erickson, current Democratic Representative to the Sergeant at Arms, will serve as Secretary of the Senate, and former Chief of the U. S. Capitol Police, Terrance Gainer, will serve as Sergeant at Arms.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm sure that many will see Judith Miller's comments in this report as an enormous "make-over".

Miller was speaking at Kansas State University's "Community Readiness Communications: Accurate Messages in Times of Crisis" conference.

Nonetheless I think it's important to hear what people like Miller are saying -- even if they are trying to reframe their role in the Bush administration's massive expansion of Executive authority and the hyping of the WMD threat used in part to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Some of the highlights from Jan Biles' interesting article:

Judith Miller, a former New York Times investigative reporter who went to jail to protect a confidential source, said the balance between national security and civil liberties has been tipped, allowing the Bush administration to become secretive about its decisions, intrusive into public lives and reluctant to share information the public has a right to know.

Miller said many Americans don't understand how their access to information and the freedom of the press have been affected in the past few years.

"We are less free and less safe," she said, explaining that there is a "growing secrecy in the name of national security."

Miller continues to seriously decry the secrecy obsessions of this government:

Miller said "no one can deny lives haven't changed since 9/11" and that national security is a concern, but the federal government has used that fear to justify eavesdropping on phone conversations and tapping into e-mails without warrants and classifying information that once was available to the public.

"More than 15 million documents were classified last year," she said, explaining that translates into 125 documents a minute. "It's intimidation by classification."

And American citizens are paying for it, she said, to the tune of $7.2 billion in fiscal year 2004.

How can an electorate be free and informed if it is denied information? Miller asked. Without a free press, such stories as the torture of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, warrantless wiretapping and CIA prisons in Eastern Europe wouldn't have been reported, she said.

"People need to know what the government is doing in order to debate," she said.

I couldn't agree more with Miller.

However, one part of Miller's commentary did irritate. She takes on bloggers:

"I'm worried about bloggers," she said. "(A post) starts as a rumor and within 24 hours it's repeated as fact."

While she advocates a federal shield law to protect mainstream journalists from divulging their sources, she doesn't favor extending that to bloggers who don't follow the standards and ethnics of the journalism industry.

Still, she wouldn't restrict a blogger's right to publish online. She said some bloggers have been invaluable in uncovering government flaws.

"I'm glad to welcome them as long as they agree to the standards," she said.

I'm glad that Miller sees some positives among blogs -- but not enough in my view.

Turn the tables around, Judith.

The level of sloppy journalism, follow-the-leader journalism, and misreporting in the mainstream media has also increased dramatically in these times -- and Miller's reports were part of that trend.

This blog's reporting on John Bolton proved to be among the most accurate and richly detailed among blogs and mainstream media -- but the mainstream media has at nearly every step of the Bolton confirmation process continued to parrot the line that Bolton would successfully be confirmed.

This blog, The Washington Note anticipated and reported every time their would be a hiccup or stall in the process -- anticipated George Voinovich's objections to Bolton in the first confirmation attempt -- and anticipated Lincoln Chafee's objections the second time.

The mainstream media was largely absent in that kind of reporting.

Blogs need to maintain humility -- but when someone like Judith Miller comments on the notion that blogs are essentially turbo-charged tabloids, she needs to reflect on her failings and those of her industry.

-- Steve Clemons

I read Tony Blair's speech, given a few hours ago. It's getting some whopper attention, but I think it's a far less robust declaration that America should wrestle "directly" with Syria and Iran than the press thinks it is -- but that said, I agree completely with the 'perceived' sentiment.

So Bravo, Tony -- the press seems to want to move us towards direct deal-making with Syria and Iran. I'm willing to tag along (but think that Blair could have been less oblique).

Hopefully, he'll be blunt and direct with the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group tomorrow.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

For those at their internet terminals now, Daniel Levy -- who has been a whirling dervish in Washington changing the currents of opinion and possibility on Israel-Palestine negotiations -- and I will be on Radio Open Source with Christopher Lydon (Boston National Public Radio) from 7 pm until 8 pm EST.

The show is also archived. More later.

-- Steve Clemons

The President's team 'has a plan' regarding the seemingly irrational obsession with keeping John Bolton working at the United Nations.

We just don't know what that plan is. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote Bolton down, decisively and definitively, if called to vote this week.

Senators Bill Frist and Norm Coleman will probably then stomp around on the floor of the Senate bemoaning what Dems and a wayward Republican voice, calling for a revived centrist ethic, did to their poster child for crude, pugnacious nationalism.

Then, the White House -- angry at the rejection of Bolton -- could call an end to the bipartisan dance, accuse the Dems of obstructionism and try to "re-appoint" Bolton to his current job as a recess appointee -- thwarting not only the Senate that the White House strongly controlled this past year -- but also thwarting the next Congress that they control less well and with which they will have a tougher time finding common ground with this type of strident behavior.

Scott Paul has posted a useful short synopsis of a legal analysis of the President's options on Bolton -- prepared by Arnold & Porter. The analysis is here -- and should be read carefully.

Steny Hoyer will most likely be the next Democratic Party Leader in the House of Representatives despite Nancy Pelosi's support of John Murtha today.

But Pelosi's move is gutsy -- and diplomatic. She needs to build bridges between different factions in the House -- including traditional liberals like Hoyer and realist hawks against the Iraq War like Murtha. She's also got quite a few neo-con lite types among Dems that need to be handled.

By not favoring favorites and promoting competition, Pelosi is kick-starting the Democratic Party to start serioiusly debating how it defines itself and what message and objectives it wants to transmit to the public.

I'm impressed with the move -- even if the Murtha campaign fails. It's extremely smart to do. Even Hoyer seems to think so and accept what she has done.

-- Steve Clemons

Aspen Institute Berlin Director Jeffrey Gedmin has an interesting and useful piece, "Even Happier than the Democrats," in the Weekly Standard today. Gedmin previously directed the New Atlantic Initiative at the American Enterprise Institute.

Gedmin basically argues that he knows no Europeans who will publicly state that they admire or respect George Bush -- and that a collective sigh of relief has been expressed throughout Europe that Americans have seemingly come back to their senses and knocked the Bush machine back.

Something strange is cooking on the John Bolton nomination. . .

First of all, John Bolton's nomination was formally sent to the U.S. Senate yesterday, Thursday, between 10:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. when the Senate was called to order for a pro forma session designed just to exhange letters and paperwork between the various branches of government.

In other words, correspondence from the White House to the Senate was received during this time.

Remarkably, House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi was caught off guard by the Bolton nomination. The nomination is a Senate matter -- but it is also a political matter -- particularly when the theme of the President's lunch yesterday with Pelosi was "trust-building behavior" and "bipartisanship."

Tomorrow I am taping a show at CNN's studios in New York on the process by which big decisions about stand-out "personalities" -- heroes and villains -- are made.

This show will be a special segment on Time's "person of the year" decision-making process.

One of CNN's interests is what the blogosphere thinks about a person of the year?

Who would your choice be?

John Murtha? John Bolton? Nancy Pelosi? Lincoln Chafee? Hillary Clinton? Dick Cheney?

Harry Reid? John McCain?

Al Gore??

Bill Gates? Jeff Sachs? George Soros? Bono? Kofi Annan?

Nasrallah? Al-Sadr? bin Laden? Shinzo Abe?

It's tougher than you might think. I'm going to stew on it tonight.

But I'm very interested in your ideas. Posting here on the blog is best, but feel free to email me as well at steve@thewashingtonnote.com.

I need all entries in by 10:00 a.m. Friday morning (tomorrow).

-- Steve Clemons

On other fronts: I had this op-ed today in The Australian on the "Return of the Realists."

I also had a terrific time with Jerry Springer on his show today; he's very thoughful and extremely well informed. It was one of the best discussions about foreign policy and Rumsfeld that I have had.

-- Steve Clemons

I have a call into Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a comment on President Bush's efforts to push John Bolton's nomination again today.

Speaker Pelosi and President Bush met for lunch today to try and patch up their differences, find some common ground and to see if "bipartisanship" was achievable in some key challenges facing the nation.

Pelosi magnanimously stated:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you for the opportunity to join you and the Vice President in what I think was a very productive meeting. We both extended the hand of friendship, of partnership to solve the problems facing our country, the challenges that America's working families face.

I look forward to working in a confidence-building way with the President, recognizing that we have our differences and we will debate them, and that is what our founders intended. But we will do so in a way that gets results for the American people.

The President's and new Speaker's comments before the press started at 1:04 pm today and concluded at 1:08 pm.

At 1:22 pm, the White House sent John Bolton's controversial nomination to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations back up to the Senate.

Luckily, Lincoln Chafee would have none of it -- suggesting that such a nomination is clearly not in the spirit of what happened electorally in this country this week. By 2:15 pm, Chafee put an end to the Bolton confirmation process by fomalizing his previous "informal" opposition to Bolton in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

My question is despite President Bush's calls for principled bipartisanship and his replacement of Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates, how bipartisan is continuing to push John Bolton -- whose strident pugnaciousness undermines America's interests?

This doesn't sound like the kind of confidence building step from the White House Speaker Pelosi hoped for.

Did President Bush tell the Speaker that he was sending the Bolton nomination back to the Senate? If not, wasn't that a bit rude to mug her moments after she left his office?

-- Steve Clemons

Word has just reached me from a well-placed source that the White House has continued to push John Bolton's confirmation prospects as US Ambassador to the United Nations despite the election outcome.

Another highly placed source has informed me that in just a few minutes Senator Lincoln Chafee is calling a press conference to state categorically that he will not support John Bolton's confirmation in the upcoming lame duck session.

The Bolton confirmation will be officially dead in a few minutes.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Here is a copy of what the White House did today. Does this look like a new "bipartisan" start? I don't think so:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release -- November 9, 2006

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be the Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council of the United Nations.

John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations.

The President is showing that he is not as ready as people think to collaborate with the new Senate and new House.

-- Steve Clemons

Here is an interesting article on the demise of moderate Republicans by Alex Wayne of Congressional Quarterly but whch appears in the New York Times apparently (at least on the web).

I am quoted extensively in the piece and agree with Sarah Chamberlain Resnick, Executive Director of the Republican Main Street Partnership, that the strident right agenda of the Republican party is out of touch with the bulk of Americans and undermined many moderate Republicans.

The only thing that I would fix in the piece is the fact that the writer labeled me a self-identified moderate Republican. I am actually an Independent -- whose sympathies are often with moderate Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chafee but also with progressive Democrats. At this point, I have been working hard to move Democrats into office and into a similar "radical centrist" political space.

During my chat with Alex Wayne, I strongly criticized moderate Republicans for not fighting sooner and more effectively against the Tom DeLay machine and against the fundamentalist right wing to expand their turf. I think that the failure to get David Dreier into the House Republican Leader position also further punctuated the weakness of moderates against the Rove-supported right wing.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

That's it.

The Dems will take the Senate. They now have a one seat margin.

Long live House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Long live Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Joe Biden takes the helm at Foreign Relations. Carl Levin will Chair Armed Services.

Big changes.

Now Reid is going to have to huddle with his folks, get them on the same page, prioritize, and solve the problem of so many Senate Dems vying to head the party.

Now it will be important for Dems to work hard to disprove the thesis of many that winning both the Senate and the House will make taking the White House in '08 a tougher challenge.

-- Steve Clemons

"Brokeback Mountain" may not have won the Oscar for last year's best movie, but it may have softened up some of the tough-guy crowd in Montana.

It's official. Jon Tester has de-listed Conrad Burns from the Senate roster as of January 2007.

Now the Senate stands at 49 Republicans and 50 Democrats (or Senators caucusing with them).

One more race to go. If Jim Webb pulls out the race in Virginia, Dems really have scored a whopping victory -- and maybe more victory than was really desired as folks now look towards 2008.

I will have a post soon on what I hope Senator Harry Reid does next if he too gets one of the key helms of national government under his direction.

-- Steve Clemons

Republican leaders are reporting that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down.

Former CIA Chief and Texas A&M President Robert Gates is taking Rumsfeld's chair.

I hear the troops are overjoyed.

-- Steve Clemons

The White House has just released the roster of people being recognized for contributions to the arts and humanities.

George and Laura Bush plan to award each his National Humanities Medal tomorrow (Thursday) morning.

Bottoming out the list are two Bush ring-kissers and great buddies of Ahmad Chalabi: Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami.

Some things change in an election -- and some just keep moving along in the same old grooves.

-- Steve Clemons

Washington Post Radio at 9:40 a.m.

And thanks to CNN, BBC, and WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show for an amazing evening last night as I bopped between networks.

-- Steve Clemons

Most of you you know what has happened, but many of TWN's international readers want a quick and compact picture.

First of all, yesterday afternoon, TWN predicted the following:

U.S. House of Representatives

201 Republicans

234 Democrats

U.S. Senate

51 Republicans

47 Democrats

2 Independents (caucus with Dems)

What the polls show today is:

U.S. House of Representatives

201 Republicans

234 Democrats

(projections by both MSNBC and CNN plus/minus 5 seats which are still undetermined)

U.S. Senate

49 Republicans

47 Democrats

2 Independents (caucus with Dems)

2 Undecided

The two undecided Senate seats are in Montana and Virginia, but in BOTH states, Dems have a very, very small lead.

Dems need both to take the Senate. Republicans need only one to retain the Senate.

That's where we are. All in all, a wonderful, incredible, heartening evening -- despite my personal disappointment in the loss of Ned Lamont, Harold Ford, Jr. and Lincoln Chafee.

The big news is that checks and balances are back in style.

Joe Lieberman's victory creates complexities in the Senate becaue I take him at his word that he is finished with organized corralling of his voting. He will stay with the Dem caucus in order to maintain his seniority -- but I think that the days that he is a "trusted" member of the Dem team are over -- and Lieberman and Dems need to see whether trust and common purpose can be rebuilt and whether that effort would be worthwhile.

Nancy Pelosi's comments at the Dem Victory Party were superb. She hit the Iraq War on the head and invited President Bush to adopt a new and different track. I worried after hearing Howard Dean's surprising comments last night that we were going to see big time Murtha-rejectionism and Dem leaders stealing defeat from the hands of victory.

But Pelosi -- and Harry Reid -- set exactly the right tone.

Everything out of McCain's world and the White House is having "bipartisanship" fastened to the talking points.

Haven't heard a word from Karl Rove. Karl?

-- Steve Clemons

What a night! 99% of precincts reporting and James Webb now leads George Allen by about 2,500 votes.

Mixed feelings on this one. A while back I hoped that George Allen would hold himself together long enough politically to challenge John McCain for the Republican presidential nomination (and win).

Dems stand a much better chance against George Allen than John McCain, but Allen seemed to be self-destructing too early.

If Dems take Virginia and Montana -- while keeping Maryland which CNN still projects Dems will win -- if my vote count is correct (and it's late) -- then I think the Dems get 51 seats in the Senate.

Wow. Need to go count again.

-- Steve Clemons

In Virginia, 96% of the votes are in -- and Allen has a smidgeon of a lead, just 8000 votes, over Jim Webb. Recount time.

In Maryland, the Washington Post is now pulling off its projection that Ben Cardin will prevail over Michael Steele.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

11:07 p.m. That's it. The investigations and testimony -- under oath -- will begin.

Presidential campaigns start tomorrow.

Kirsten Gillibrand in New York-20 and Ron Klein in Florida-22 put the Dems over the magic half-way point in the House.

Nancy Pelosi now reigns.

Big, very big.

-- Steve Clemons

It's 11 p.m. here at CNN's blogfest.

Great people here -- most of whom I know via email but very different to actually meet the pajama crowd in person.

At this DCCC site, reports are the Dems are now just two seats away from taking over the House of Representatives. Exciting.

The Senate race continues to intrigue, and by my count, we are approaching a 50/50 split. Cheney is going to be busy the next two years if current trends hold and Joe Lieberman doesn't jump ship.

-- Steve Clemons

This is an exciting evening.

Santorum loses. Chafee -- who voted against George W. Bush in the last election -- loses. Menendez keeps his seat in New Jersey. Blue states are getting bluer.

Hal Ford is going down in the South. Allen and Webb are flipping every few minutes. Missouri and Montana are still big states to sort out.

But if Montana goes Dem, Allen wins in Virginia, and McKaskill pulls it out in Missouri -- the United States Senate is SPLIT 50/50. Interesting times.

-- Steve Clemons

Wow. Well, I did prefer that Senator Lincoln Chafee win his race -- but also know that Sheldon Whitehouse is considered by many to be a great candidate.

I very much hope that Whitehouse continue the same course on foreign policy that Chafee bravely pursued this year.

While I am bummed, my significant other is thrilled.

So much for internal poll numbers!!

Now. . .what about those teasers in Virginia and Missouri. This could be a blow-out. The Dems have lost none of their key races yet.

-- Steve Clemons

. . .will he stay, or will he leave?

-- Steve Clemons

My former boss, Jeff Bingaman, has won decisively in the New Mexico senate race.

He is no media hound, but he is the smartest guy in the Senate when it comes to good public policy. Congatulations.

-- Steve Clemons

While it was somewhat expected that Rick Santorum and Thomas Kean, Jr. were going into their respective elections in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in deficit positions, the fact that Kean was a moderate Republican and Santorum a right-winger does flag something.

Moderate Republicans and zealots both going down in key states may signal good things for Dems.

Virginia and Missouri are still teasing though.

-- Steve Clemons

I joined former Senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart for a speech to a small group in Pittsburgh at the Duquesne Club Friday night a few days ago.

As usual, Gary Hart was mesmerizing.

But several of Bob Casey's key retainers were at the talk -- including the campaign treasurer -- who told us things were indeed looking good.

Congrats to all the folks who were key parts of the Casey campaign.

-- Steve Clemons

This is another cool score sheet -- from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

I like the "15 SEATS TO GO."

-- Steve Clemons

TPM Cafe has a very useful Election Central Scoreboard that will provide quick tallies once numbers are reported.

Check it out.

-- Steve Clemons

Despite what I am hearing from different quarters and given my own Senate predictions, which of course could prove tremendously wrong, some exit polls are suggesting huge Democratic Party leads in key races.

I report them now not to endorse them. In fact, I don't trust the numbers -- but clearly, there is a political storm brewing again if there is such disparity between reported internal polling numbers, gallup numbers, and exit poll data.

But here are some numbers that are making the rounds:

Unconfirmed exit polls Dem Senate leads in VA (53-46), RI (53-46), PA (57-42), OH (57-43), NJ (53-45), MT (53-46) and MO (50-48). . .

This will all become much clearer soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Arizona -- Jon Kyl -- Republican

California -- Dianne Feinstein -- Democrat

Connecticut -- Joseph Lieberman -- Independent

Delaware -- Thomas Carper -- Democrat

Florida -- Bill Nelson -- Democrat

Hawaii -- Daniel Akaka -- Democrat

Indiana -- Richard Lugar -- Republican

Maine -- Olympia Snowe -- Republican

Maryland -- Ben Cardin -- Democrat

Massachusetts -- Ted Kennedy -- Democrat

Michigan -- Debbie Stabenow -- Democrat

Minnesota -- Amy Klobuchar -- Democrat

Mississippi -- Trent Lott -- Republican

Missouri -- UNDECIDED

Montana -- Jon Tester -- Democrat

Nebraska -- Ben Nelson -- Democrat

Nevada -- John Ensign -- Republican

New Jersey -- Robert Menendez -- Democrat

New Mexico -- Jeff Bingaman -- Democrat

New York -- Hillary Rodham Clinton -- Democrat

North Dakota -- Kent Conrad -- Democrat

Ohio -- Sherrod Brown -- Democrat

Pennsylvania -- Bob Casey Jr. -- Democrat

Rhode Island -- Lincoln Chafee -- Republican

Tennessee -- Bob Corker -- Republican

Texas -- Kay Bailey Hutchison -- Republican

Utah -- Orrin Hatch -- Republican

Vermont -- Bernard Sanders -- Independent

Virginia -- George Allen -- Republican

Washington -- Maria Cantwell -- Democrat

West Virginia -- Robert Byrd -- Democrat

Wisconsin -- Herb Kohl -- Democrat

Wyoming -- Craig Thomas -- Republican

This puts the total as I see it now at 51 Republicans, 46 Democrats, 2 Independents, 1 Undecided

Many of these races, like Virginia and Rhode Island are extremely close -- but these are hunches at the moment.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Lincoln Chafee loses to Sheldon Whitehouse. This leaves a TWN projected balance of 50 Republicans, 47 Democrats, 2 Independents, 1 Undecided

Despite the 'grain of salt' news that Lincoln Chafee's internals show him doing very well against Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse, most Republican pundits I am talking to tonight at CNN's blog party are pretty glum about their prospects.

One blogger here said that he thinks the reason Chafee's numbers are strong is the power of political dynasties. He said "everyone who has known a Chafee, married a Chafee, employed a Chafee, or lobbied a Chafee is calling friends and family to vote."

He thinks that there is a good chance that Chafee is outperforming the Republican field because of the power of his name.

Could be -- will know in a couple of hours.

That said, it doesn't change the likely outcome that the Democrats will take back the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi will control one of the key helms of government.

Then the world changes.

-- Steve Clemons

One has to be careful with the numbers floating around -- whether they are exit polls, internal poll numbers, and the like -- but an insider in the Chafee machine just conveyed to me that Senator Lincoln Chafee has been polling 6 points higher than Sheldon Whitehouse in their internal numbers.

We will know if this turns out to be true in a few hours, but if so, then there are two potential explanations.

First, the Republicans nationwide may have really surged from the depths. Alternatively, Chafee -- individually -- is being seen as someone distinct and different from the George W. Bush machine.

More to come.

-- Steve Clemons

I just listened to Rick Santorum's commentary on MSNBC, which CNN is graciously airing along with FOX, C-Span and other networks at their increasingly crowded CNN BlogStock today.

This is in remarkable contrast to the big Republican Election party held two years ago in D.C. after Bush's re-election in which Fox was on on dozens of screens throughout the Reagan Trade Center while CNN was on just one screen.

Senator Santorum seems headed for a loss this evening -- and while I personally oppose most of Senator Santorum's policy views, I want to give him a lot of credit for working hard on anti-poverty programs. He, along with former Senator Corzine as well as Senators Schumer and DeMint were co-sponsors of the Aspire Act (S 868/HR 1767) which my colleague Ray Boshara worked hard to hatch in this Congress.

Interestingly, Congressman and Senate Candidate Harold Ford Jr. was an enthusiastic co-sponsor in the House.

But Santorum seems to be heading in a new direction after tonight, and the only way in which I can rationally interpret his dogged commitment to George W. Bush and Bush's infallibility is that Santorum is hoping for White House personnel to give him a ring in January 2007. . .and maybe before.

Word is that Zalmay Khalilzad will soon resign as US Ambassador to Iraq.

Such a job is challenging -- and needs a true Bush believer given how crappy things are there now.

We hereby recommend Rick Santorum to be our Ambassador to Iraq, and TWN commits to strongly support his confirmation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

-- Steve Clemons

National Review editor Rich Lowry shares a "cheat sheet" from GOP insiders:

Eight in the most likely gone category: PA-7, Weldon, OH-18, Ney open, IN-8, Hostettler, CO-7 Beauprez open, AZ-8, Kolbe open, NY-24, Boehlert open, PA-10, Sherwood, CT-4, Shays.

Eight in the expect to lose most of these unless something changes: TX-22, DeLay open, NC-11, Taylor (chart notes unfavorable trend in this race), IN-9, Sodrel, IN-2, Chocola (chart notes a favorable trend), FL-16, Foley open, OH-15, Pryce, PA-6, Gerlach, NH-2, Bass (unfavorable trend).

Twenty in the true toss-up category (I'm just citing districts because I'm tired of typing): IA-1, NY-20, WY, WI-8 (favorable trend), WA-8, VA-2, PA-8, NY-26 (favorable trend), NM-1, IL-6, FL-13, CA-50, CA-11, OH-1, ID-1, NY-25, MN-1, CO-5, OH-2, CA-4.

That's 36 seats total. In the first category, unfavorable trends are noted in 7 of the 8 races (AZ-8 is the only exception). In the third category, 13 out of the 30 races have unfavorable trends.

Thanks Rich. His readers must feel rotten.

-- Steve Clemons

Democrats need to decide tomorrow whether they collaborate with George Bush in co-owning the tremendous mess in America's national security portfolio -- or whether they cut a new course.

For sure, secret CIA detention centers will be de-funded and investigations of everything from intelligence stove-piping and cherry-picking to the no-bid contracts that Halliburton and other defense contractors received will be initiated.

One of the things the recess-appointed US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton never got high on his roster was an investigation into what happened to the $9 billion that disappeared without a trace during the reign of Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority. Congressman and Super-Investigator Henry Waxman, I hear, really wants to know.

But the key thing is that this election will rob from the White House the ability to close down filibusters in the Senate.

The House will constrain and condition funding bills.

But if the Senate fails to turn to Democrats -- which I hope it does not -- then George Bush will remain the "accountable party" for decisions during the two years, and we will see "responsible" Republicans slowly peel away from supporting the White House as Dems shine the spotlight on scandal after scandal.

Not only Iraq. Not only Feith and Chalabi. Not only Halliburton.

But we will be back into Cheney's energy policy and secret meeting with industry players. Back to Abramoff. Back to Tom DeLay's brand of pay for play. Back to Enron, Tyco and the rest.

We will see a modern version of "public hangings" in the US Capitol -- but without the coroners, and the Bush administration will be cornered as the result of today's likely modest shift in control of the House of Representatives.

Checks and balances will be back when the Dems score at least 218 seats in the House.

-- Steve Clemons

I've just arrived up at Tryst Coffee Shop in Adams Morgan/Washington, DC where some of the biggest bloggers in the business are doing a sleep-over with CNN's blog mistresses, Jacki Schechner and Abby Tatton.

I've dubbed this "BlogStock", and the CNN folks seem to like the moniker.

I'll also be reporting on election returns live thoughout the evening on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show along with my friend on the other side of the aisle and the guy who puts the "pun" in "pundit," Robert George.

Some quick thoughts on today though.

I've received quite a few emails from Rhode Island suggesting that Lincoln Chafee appears to be doing better than expected and most of the folks I am hearing from are not thrilled with Whitehouse's loss of steam. Some blame me -- but I think all of the responsibility lies with the relative performance of two very good candidates.

it's dangerous to do this, but let me put out my predictions -- though I hope I'm wrong and underestimating Democratic strength:

Senate -- 51 Republicans, 47 Dems, 2 Independents

House -- 234 Dems 201 Republicans

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

If you see shenanigans being pulled at polling stations, here's a clearinghouse of sites on how to report what you have seen -- as well as guidance on what other actions you can take to preserve your voting rights.

-- Steve Clemons

US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad is tired of being undermined by opponents in the White House and by elements of Iraq's unstable regime end-running him to influence rivals of his in the administration. He is reportedly on the verge of quitting.

Khalilzad's abrupt departure from the diplomatic scene will worsen the mess in Iraq. Khalilzad is someone who gets the general problems in Iraq -- despite his impotence in doing much to solve the problems there -- and knows how vital regional deal-making is with many of the players we officially refuse to speak to.

We should be firing Rumsfeld, paralyzing Cheney and his team, and promoting Khalilzad to be the first Muslim Deputy Secretary of State.

TWN's nomination for the NEXT US Ambassador to Iraq: RICK SANTORUM. . .because he remains a top Bush loyalist, thinks things are going swimmingly there, and is about to lose his Senate seat.

Santorum in Iraq would be the perfect appointment.

-- Steve Clemons

My colleague Michael Lind -- author of the recently released The American Way of Strategy -- has an interesting Financial Times piece on the "Powell Doctrine" outflanking the "Bush Doctrine" today and in the years ahead.

I once wrote about the pre-9/11 factions in Bush administration foreign policy. I suggested that there were three groups in competition around Bush:

1. neoconservatives allied with pugnacious nationalists under the guidance of Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others -- and there was a large populatiion of these "types" throughout the administration;

2. a small group of neo-realists under Condi Rice who did very little to build a roster of followers

3. Secretary of State Colin Powell -- who was a movement unto himself but who had no real followers beyond a few key loyalists. Powell tended to matter significantly when he was in the room when decision making was going on but didn't matter when he wasn't there (Americans should be thankful that Colin Powell was in the room frequently and decided to travel infrequently so as to try and keep GW Bush on some sort of track early in the administration -- or we would be in even worse shape today)

But now Powell's Gulf War guidance on fundamental interests, overwhelming force, narrow objectives, and exit strategies are going to haunt this Bush administration for all time.

Michael Lind is correct that the disaster that has become the Iraq War will compel every future President to have close at hand some reminder of the Powell Doctrine.

-- Steve Clemons

America has slipped to 20th position out of 163 countries in Transparency International's Global Corruption Index.

We may not have seen him around for a while but Tom DeLay was one of the chief architects of the deepening structural corruption of American politics.

The fact that the Dems probably won't pick up 50 or 60 seats tomorrow is largely because of the kind of gerrymandering DeLay engineered in Texas.

Don't foget DeLay and his pals when you are rewarding or penalizing with your votes tomorrow.

-- Steve Clemons

Frequently, critics of the war in Iraq restrict their tallies of the consequences to the country thus far in terms of military consequences in the Middle East -- and many actually trumpet how fortunate Americans are to still have high quality, mostly secure lives in this nation despite the hellish conditions in Iraq, Gaza, Darfur, and other strife-addled regions.

But what is not connected enough to America's tragic encounter in Iraq is how it has undermined American power and prestige in other ways. The collapse of the Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations and the frequent harrassment from Venezuela President Hugo Chavez are other benchmarks of American political decline and of power voids being left for others to fill.

And today we have the likely victory of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua's national elections as another indicator of tides turning against American interests. Ortega, a former leftist guerilla, may have just won the election over the US-backed Eduardo Montealagre.

The race results are not final, but election returns are tilting towards an Ortega win.

When I was in Germany recently, I spoke before the FDP Foreign Policy Parliamentary Group, chaired by Werner Hoyer, in the Bundestag. One of Hoyer's chief concerns has been Nicaragua and this election -- and he is down there now attempting to suppor Montealegre.

But what Hoyer and many others who have watched these elections have reported is that America is not only weaker in the eyes of Latin American citizens, citizens are motivated to actually help roll back American power.

As one German politician told me, "It is remarkable that Ortega is bouncing back without a superpower sponsor competing with America. This is what is troubling. The opposition to American interests is winning in many place and there is no global rival."

When the mystique of American power was wrecked in Iraq and President Bush showed our military and financial limits -- allies stopped counting on as much and enemies have moved their agendas forward.

The costs of Iraq that Bush has unleashed aren't anywhere close to a clear tally yet.

-- Steve Clemons

One thing one must really give the neocons credit for is a penchant for "truth in advertising."

Joshua Muravchik suggested recently that the Neocons should admit their errors on the Iraq War and then move expeditiously to bomb Iran and run Joe Lieberman for president in 2008.

And now as the neocons are huddled in duck and cover positions, trying to blame Bush's "dysfunctional administration" for the failings in Iraq -- Richard Perle issues a salvo against Vanity Fair for issuing tidbits of his juicy assault on Bush "before the election."

Perle writes:

Richard Perle

Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday's election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.

I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country.

In other words, Perle is putting his duplicitousness into the public square for all to see.

He has one truth he's willing to market before the election -- and another after.

Ever wonder what Straussianism is? That's a big part of it.

-- Steve Clemons

Ed. Note: Get more at Think Progress's take on Perle's snarlies at Vanity Fair as well as Eliot Cohen's pointed nudge back at Perle.

This chart in the Columbus Dispatch on a breakdown of the governor's race is really interesting and confirms something I have heard gossiped about here and there.

The White House has been courting hard American Jewish voters and attempting to tether them to the Republican fundraising and voting machines by prodding them with high-fear political drama surrounding Israel.

This tactic was crudely clear when Bush and Cheney shoved the John Bolton confirmation process forward again in the middle of Israel's messy counter-attack against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. Shortly after Bolton's nomination was dusted off, U.S. Senators began getting phone calls arguing that "a vote against Bolton was a vote against Israel."

AIPAC's and the American Jewish Committee's strident foreign policy positions that have mostly hugged the Bush-Cheney gang while sneering at both moderate Republicans and Democrats (other than Joe Lieberman, Schumer and Ben Nelson) seem out of sync with Jewish voters.

While Jewish voting participation in the country is a rather small percentage of total voting, political giving by the American Jewish community is extremely consequential.

But what is heartening to see is that of the 27 registered self-identified Jewish voters in this poll (out of 1,541 total voters), all 27 of them, 100%, favor Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland over Republican J. Kenneth Blackwell.

Overall, Strickland leads Blackwell 67% to 31%. Remarkable on a lot of fronts.

Let's see what those voting machines say this time around.

-- Steve Clemons

The McClatchy-MSNBC poll just released has Lincoln Chafee one point higher than Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse in the Rhode Island senate race.

I am for the Dems winning everywhere else, practically, in the country other than this seat. As I've stated before, if Sheldon Whitehouse does win -- I will be supportive and hope that he cuts the groove on judges and U.S. foreign policy that Lincoln Chafee has strongly demonstrated this year.

Chafee blocked John Bolton from being confirmed for US Ambassador to the United Nations and did his part to knock back the brand of "pugnacious nationalism" that has been dominating America's foreign policy decisions for the last several years.

Chafee has also articulated exactly the kind of Middle East policy that any sensible Democratic or Republican administration would have to start with. Indeed, I think that the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group is going to read like a lot of cobbled together Lincoln Chafee speeches on the subject.

Lastly, Chafee voted against Sam Alito, something many Dems failed to do.

Chafee is a "radical centrist" and deserves credit for his leadership this year.

If the Senate race turns out 50/50, and if Chafee wins, Reid should begin secret negotiations immediately with Chafee to bring him into the Democratic caucus as an Independent. Offer Chaffee whatever he needs to make that happen. If Chafee wins it will be because of independent-leaining Democrats, independent-leaning Republicans, and Independents.

If Chafee loses the race, Biden, Lugar, Hagel, and Dodd should immediately agitate that Lincoln Chafee be made some sort of Senior Envoy for Middle East affairs -- in order to establish a new equilibrium of interests in the region.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

PS: For those watching and listening Tuesday night, I will be among CNN's gaggle of political bloggers commenting on the elections. I will also be on BBC as well as the coverage of Brian Lehrer and WNYC New York Public Radio most of the night.

Of course, he is guilty. Hussein was always guilty, whether established by a court of peers or not.

What irritates is how the trial of this strong-man has become the face of both the Bush administration's biggest triumph and largest mistake in the war against Iraq.

The Bush administration gets credit for taking down Hussein, real and in statue, but they too deserve every bit of the credit for unleashing the virulent currents of sectarian killing and convulsion in Iraq, all of the responsibility for removing the chief constraint on Iran's actions in the region, and all of the kudos for giving radical Islamism reward after reward in the region.

Saddam Hussein's head will be a prize that Shia extremists thank America for while they continue to do their best to eradicate Sunnis from Iraq.

Bush deserves all of the credit for the Hussein trial and conviction -- and all of the horrors unleashed around it.

-- Steve Clemons

Now, the perpetrators of the Iraq War, of the "axis of evil" speech, of the "Iraq will be a cake-walk" line are dumping on Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. They are jumping ship in order to try and save themselves and opportunities for neocons to influence future governments.

Thousands have died unnecessarily because of the combination of incompetence in this administration and because of the cheerleading for this war that David Frum and other of his fellow travelers called for. His glib admissions of failure and his recrimination of President Bush are not enough.

Perle's comments about the "dysfuntional" Bush presidency are really lamentations that Bush was 'not neocon enough.' The divisions in government he referred to focus on Condi Rice, Powell and others who got in the way of neocon plans -- so don't view the Vanity Fair revisionism by neocons as anything other than a survival strategy and regret that they didn't get to launch more wars against more nations when they had the chance.

-- Steve Clemons

(photo credit: The Online Newshour)

In the latest issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik -- a neoconservative fellow traveler -- has published a remarkable article, "Operation Comeback" that combines an offering of a mea culpa for much of the neocon-generated foreign policy mess America is in and then stunning bravado with encouragement that the President initiate a third war against a Muslim nation.

Muravchik's article is written as a memo to his "fellow neoconservatives."

There are a lot of disturbing zingers in the piece, but here is the part that every voter should be made aware of:

Prepare to Bomb Iran.

Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office. It is all but inconceivable that Iran will accept any peaceful inducements to abandon its drive for the bomb. Its rulers are religio-ideological fanatics who will not trade what they believe is their birthright to great power status for a mess of pottage. Even if things in Iraq get better, a nuclear-armed Iran will negate any progress there. Nothing will embolden terrorists and jihadists more than a nuclear-armed Iran.

The global thunder against Bush when he pulls the trigger will be deafening, and it will have many echoes at home. It will be an injection of steroids for organizations such as MoveOn.org. We need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes. In particular, we need to help people envision what the world would look like with a nuclear-armed Iran. Apart from the dangers of a direct attack on Israel or a suitcase bomb in Washington, it would mean the end of the global nonproliferation regime and the beginning of Iranian dominance in the Middle East.

This defense should be global in scope. There is a crying need in today's ideological wars for something akin to the Congress for Cultural Freedom of the Cold War, a global circle of intellectuals and public figures who share a devotion to democracy. The leaders of this movement might include Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, and Anwar Ibrahim.

I don't want to appease Iran's appetite for nukes, and I do believe that a substantial portion of Iraq's governing elite want nuclear weapons despite overwhelming reasons for them to avoid that path -- but this kind of talk about bombing Iran further undermines American credibility and our ability to influence Iran's choices.

Kudos though to Josh Muravchik for truth in advertising.

Voters really should consider his views when they ask what may come next in the Bush administration's roster of crusades.

Before closing, let me offer one visual image of what bombing Iran will yield -- whether or not one believes that such an action is justified by circumstances or not.

Bombing Iran would create a "Terrorist Superhighway" with agitated networks of terrorists and insurgents angry at the U.S. linking Iran, Iraq and Syria -- right up to the border of Israel.

As much as Iran is blamed (with reason) for fueling Hezbollah and the militant wing of Hamas, the kind of terror activity that might rush out of Iran in this Superhighway of Terrorists would overwhelm anything we have yet seen.

-- Steve Clemons

George Bush said this out on the campaign trail:

Democrats have no plan for victory.

They have no idea how to win.

Harsh criticism is not a plan for victory in Iraq.

Bush has no wiggle room in this election -- well, very little, until John Kerry's unfortunate remarks about the intellectual level of soldiers on the front line.

Bush's comments on the Iraq War just offend the sensibilities of Americans, and his reckless drive into Iraq has undermined the interests and national security of the nation.

As Paul Krugman outlined on Monday, the bursting of a housing bubble in America is robbing from Bush the ability to pound his chest about the economy -- and Mark Foley has shut down an effective "values" camapaign.

Things are looking good. John Kerry's comments are inconsequential.

But the fact that Bush is committing to Rumsfeld through the end of his term is just icing on the cake.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons