The probability is that 2007 will be a worse year for America's national security portfolio than 2006. I've just been reading thoroughly Bob Woodward's State of Denial, which I had previously read only in snippets.

The book is such a huge indictment of all those who are stakeholders in America's failed crusades in the Middle East, but that has been written in the press before. What really irritates is that Bush hasn't changed his tune.

In President Bush's New Year message, he stated that defeating terrorists "is the challenge of our time, and we will answer history's call with confidence and fight for liberty without wavering."

This could have been Bush's New Year comment in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002. Not a note changed.

What was reminded so vividly from Woodward's book was the White House's systematic lack of concern for the many al Qaeda warnings that the CIA and others were waving in front of Bush and then National Security Advisor Rice at point blank range.

I hope that you have a good year and celebration tonight, but I really do fear that the nation as a whole will have an even rougher ride than last year.

-- Steve Clemons

Arlen Specter has impressed me this week by bucking the Bush administration and going to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad and then to Jerusalem to meet leading Israeli authorities and pressing for a Palestinian-Israel final settlement. He has even stated that he favors direct talks with Iran.

Specter as reported by the Jerusalem Post:

Specter brushed aside the criticism of his trip to Damascus that was voiced by some in the Bush Administration who argued that his visit, as well as recent visits by three democratic senators, granted legitimacy to the Syrian government. Specter said that as a member of the powerful Senate appropriations committee that sends billions of dollars each year to the Middle East, he was duty-bound to see first hand what was happening in the region.

Specter said that while he acquiesced to the Bush Administration's request not to visit Damascus on previous tours to the region last December and August, "this year in coming it seemed to me that the Administration's program is not working."

. . .The senior Pennsylvania senator said that while he had a great deal of respect and admiration for US President George W. Bush, there were issues with which he did not agree with the president, and that it was his responsibility "to speak up, and do so in an independent way."

. . .Specter reiterated what he said in Damascus earlier this week, that the Syrians were interested in entering into negotiations with Israel without preconditions, and that Syrian President Bashar Assad had told him that in return Syria could be helpful in dealing both with Hamas and Hizbullah.

. . .Specter, who has served in the senate for 26 years, said that the situation in the Middle East is more problematic now than at any time since he was first elected.

"I do not see anyway out except through dialogue," he said. "I do not think there are any assurances that dialogue will succeed, but I think there are assurances that without dialogue there will be failure."

Joe Lieberman signed his op-ed yesterday as the Independent Democratic Senator from Connecticut.

Specter looks to me increasingly like the "Independent Republican Senator from Pennsylvania" and is doing much to revive the template for Middle East regional deal-making encouraged by the Iraq Study Group.

-- Steve Clemons

This is one of those big nights -- the kind Shakespeare was good at capturing and memorializing.

Consequences ahead we think.

-- Steve Clemons

It has been a long time since America has had such a direct hand in the execution of a former head-of-state.

Hussein is was a thug, but this has not been handled right.

The former leader should have been tried at the Hague -- with a lot of distance between the U.S. and the process there. Now he will die and could very well be a martyr that further stresses the divide between Sunni and Shiites -- as well as a martyr for those who oppose American occupation of Iraq.

The other missed opportunity here is that despite Hussein receiving the death penalty for high crimes, the Shiite majority might have sought some way to commute the sentence to life as a gesture of reconciliation with the Iraq Sunni population. Won't happen.

My friend and colleague Nir Rosen stopped by tonight and told me that he thought that Hussein's death would be a minor matter for Sunnis who will be relieved to be rid of him so that those who feel the brunt of their insurgency and opposition to American occupation will know that it has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

I still think that the wobbly government may get more wobbly still.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Lieberman just spent 10 days in the Middle East and still does not get it. He's penned an op-ed calling for more deployed American troops in Iraq.

It's a remarkable essay for just how anti-empirical it is and how he can so easily waft platitudes about America's engagement in the region after actually seeing the miserable results of more than three and half years of military occupation of Iraq by us.

In the very first paragraph, Lieberman writes:

While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States.

Many critics of this war -- including this blogger -- always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran's "balancer" would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran's pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman's confession that he and others were warned of this and didn't see it coming?

And what really irritates is his depiction of the extremists, who he inappropriately ties to Iran. The extremists in many cases are angry Sunnis who want their place back in society, who despise Iran and now the Shiites as well as us.

Lieberman should have seen in Iraq that America is now supporting the guy Iran wants -- al-Maliki. Lieberman's entire depiction of the good and the bad in Iraq are ridiculous and remind one of Soviet era depictions of the enemy in Afghanistan.

Later in his esssay, Lieberman shifts the profile of his "thugs and extremists" to be those "who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation." Now, Iran seems to be out of the picture here -- though they were a primary driver of his fear-mongering at the start of the piece.

He suggests that:

The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people.

What Lieberman doesn't understand is that his realization of the "security problem" is not new. Our forces have been struggling for a number of years now and not solving this problem. Our troops are considered by many in Iraq to be just another militia among many -- or to even be the primary cause of the insurgency for others. Senator Lieberman fails to deal with either of these impulses behind the violence.

And he seems to be advocating just starting from scratch. Just get the security problem fixed.

With what Senator Lieberman? Do you honestly believe that twenty thousand troops will matter in this mess?

Zbigniew Brzezinski -- who believes we should withdraw in order to trigger a round of stabilizing deal-making between the chief thugs inside Iraq -- suggested in January 2005 that it would take 500,000 troops to occupy and stabilize Iraq. After considering the crimes at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and the collapse of America's moral prestige, Brzezinski said that not even that number of troops might succeed.

So, what is Lieberman suggesting other than doubling up on an extremely bad bet he and others made on a war that should not have been fought? Lieberman, who is smart on so many other issues, has become utterly blind when it comes to sensible applications of military force and American influence.

Lieberman writes:

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

Senator Lieberman, let their be no doubt that the outcome you fear was totally predictable -- and was triggered by you and the other enablers of this war. Where is your humility and your own ownership of the consequences of what you have unleashed? Where is your realistic answer to what must be done to establish a NEW equilibrium of interests in the region?

Where is the political and diplomatic aspects to your suggestion on what next should be done? Do you see this only in military terms -- if we just had a few more troops now?

Lieberman mentions a single colonel who ran up to him and said: "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."

Lieberman needed to talk to more colonels. I hear from a lot of them -- and from less decorated soldiers in the field. The views on this war are mixed and the morale among our soldiers low as it has taken the President years to finally see that victory was not ever achieved.

This is Bush's war. But it is Joseph Lieberman's too -- and every Member of the House of Representatives and Senate who don't have the ability to open their eyes and be square with the public that huge mistakes were made and that America's precipitous loss of influence in the world can't be easily fixed.

The first step though is assuring Americans that the same kind of reckless gamble that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Lieberman-types in Congress won't be made again.

But what does Lieberman want to do -- just pour more American dollars and American lives into the morass of Iraq.

-- Steve Clemons

Greetings from the pups, Oakley and Annie.

Some of you wanted some more pics, so here is one of the two new best pals. Annie seems to be tilting towards Obama, and Oakley can't decide between McCain and Hillary.

I am working on broadening their options.

-- Steve Clemons

Say what you want about Bob Woodward (and I've said a lot of it), the guy gets people to talk. While Ford talked to me about sports, Woodward talked with him about strategy and what he thought of our nation's national security helmsmen.

Behind the bland veneer of President Gerald Ford, there was a seemingly solid realist and Machiavellian strategist -- with both policy objectives and personnel.

That's the read I get out of this fascinating Bob Woodward interview with Ford that was embargoed until the former president's death.

I need to learn Arabic. One of my good friends, Raghida Dergham, who is the New York-based senior diplomatic correspondent for Al Hayat, sent a link to me today that has some things to say about this blog.

It's from the Arab news service and web portal, Elaph. I have no idea what it says but hope it's good.

-- Steve Clemons

A number of TWN readers have emailed me asking me to comment on President Ford's passing. So much is out there now about him -- in a strange blizzard of confessionals about how liked and admired he was (for the most part) -- despite being mostly ignored for decades.

I really don't have much to say about the late President Ford. I met him three times -- and one of those at Richard Nixon's funeral which I attended and had some role. All the former presidents were there -- and the then current one, Bill Clinton.

At the funeral, both just before the ceremony started and at the reception following, I spoke with Ford who wished Dimitri Simes (president Nixon's latter day Henry Kissinger), Library Director John Taylor, and me well with what was then called the "Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom" (now the Nixon Center).

As I knew Nixon -- though not well -- I think Ford thought that I would be well-trained in sports banter and tried that out on me. I don't follow any sports -- accept maybe at that time 12 and a half years ago I was into the marathon crowd.

I received an email the other day from John Edwards and his campaign -- not yet over the line on running for president -- but asking me (and lots of other Americans) if I am going to "get ready" to change things.

He's gearing up and plans to announce tomorrow. Edwards will be a player and has the tightest hold on big labor of any of the candidates, Hillary and Barack included.

John Edwards wants to invite you to some of his shin-digs. Here is a roster -- with free tickets.

-- Steve Clemons

Wow. I just got the December 27th roster of awarded defense contracts.

Perhaps they thought that between Christmas and New Year's, not that many folks would pay attention.

But seriously, we spend a lot of money killing people securing the world.

-- Steve Clemons

Senate Foreign Relations Committee incoming Chairman and just declared presidential candidate Joseph Biden is avoiding John Kerry's political problem and not planning to say "I voted for it before I voted against it" by opposing the President's plan to surge troop levels in Iraq on the front end.

The President has set a political trap for Democrats in two military arenas -- one focused on Iraq deployments and the other on the overall size of the U.S. military at home and abroad.

Bush's first trap has drawn many leading Democrats into advocating a surge in troop levels in Iraq somewhat mindlessly -- without a broader serious discussion of performance benchmarks that ought to precede any further build-up of US troops.

Another trap the President has set is a call for a larger general military force -- something many Democrats running for higher office will find themselves in a knee-jerk supportive position -- even though they should be demanding more dialogue about what a larger military would achieve for or cost the nation.

In my view, it is consistent with the President's irresponsibility in managing the Iraq War that he has failed to couple any discussion of reversing his vaunted tax cuts to a discussion of new investments in the overall size of America's military.

Secondly, by focusing on the numer of overall troops in the military, President Bush is trying to seduce the nation (and Democrats running the Congress) into believing that if only the military were larger, our problems would be solved.

But as a number of smart folks have been saying for quite a long time now:

THE SOLUTION IN IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST IS DIPLOMATIC AND POLITICAL -- NOT MILITARY.

Biden is getting it right. Here are a few of Senator Biden's websites that deserve your attention:

www.JoeBiden.com

www.UniteOurStates.com/blog/

www.PlanFoIraq.com

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Iraq's government institutions -- particularly its courts -- have not hardened in the short time they have been functioning during the slap-shod democracy that the U.S. has helped prop up. While Iraq had widespread participation of its citizenry in recent elections, Iraqis do not have faith in their current government which has failed to stop escalating violence in Baghdad and throughout much of the country.

The people just don't believe that this government will survive much longer and think that the institutions that have been created and reformed since Saddam's fall are incredibly wobbly.

In particular, the courts just don't have legitimacy in the eyes of too many Iraqis who are going to see the execution of Saddam Hussein as further consolidation of Shiite power against Sunnis.

In my view, Hussein has committed outrageous crimes for which he should be held to account. However, I can just as well think of many others who have evaded responsibility on our side of the equation for errors in judgment combined with duplicity that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

But Hussein was a monster -- no doubt. But he was at times "our monster." He was also a "controllable monster," and a classic kind of thug whom we could have dealt with in ways far smarter and less crippling to this nation and its military.

But we need to be clear-eyed about the possibility that Saddam Hussein's execution at the instruction of Iraq's highest courts and judges -- which many Iraqis see as puppets under American control -- may actually have an enormous negative impact on the survivability of the current government and could ignite a much higher octane of nasty civil war inside Iraq.

The track has been laid. I don't see any way that Hussein can escape execution -- but everyone involved needs to realize that Hussein is no longer just a criminal, thuggish, murderous tyrant in the eyes of most Iraqi citizens.

To many, he has become a defiant leader fighting American oppression and someone who portrays himself as a proud and ferocious Sunni force. Many Sunnis want him back -- and we need to prepare for something big, very big, when he dies.

-- Steve Clemons

Oakley and Annie send their best -- this blogger too.

-- Steve Clemons

I lost two friends recently, one was older and frequently ill and the other was as healthy as (I think) I am. I want to mention them here and salute them because I learned a lot from both.

We all lose folks -- part of life. But losing people for the wrong reasons -- as in the Iraq War in which the country is now mired -- is so sad. I didn't lose my friends that way but I often think about people I know and don't know caught up on the front line of this war and appreciate what they are doing -- even though I think that they have been sent into the worst kind of war -- one which will undermine the very society they believe they are protecting.

While I never believed that the sanctions measure being prepared by the UN Security Council against Iran would have had much effect on Iran, "losing" too many of these initiatives in which the U.S. has invested in -- particularly ones that mostly have symbolic significance -- become benchmarks for America's declining influence and the rise of "others."

In this case, the rising power is Russia, which is clearly back big time in the diplomatic game.

Check this out in the New York Times. This oped was creatively, graphically presented in the paper today and attests to a new and disturbing kind of White House politicization of intelligence.

This morning getting stranded at Reagan National Airport on the edge of a fun holiday was not fun -- but far less of an ordeal for the thousands of passengers stranded in Denver.

Happy holidays -- in advance -- to all. And a huge thanks to those of you who have been remembering The Washington Note during your holiday and end of the year giving. We really appreciate the financial support -- and emotional, political, and moral support -- you give this blog.

There is a paypal link on the blog for those of you who wish to make a donation -- and some have asked for an address to send cards, checks, etc. For those of you who prefer mail, my address is:

Steve Clemons

The Washington Note

1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 7th Floor

Washington, DC 20009

Now for fun -- so many of you have asked about Annie -- Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner's new little sister. Here are some pics -- below and above -- that should make your day (and week) an even happier one.

More soon -- thanks again -- and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

-- Steve Clemons

For those up at 3 am when the morning newspapers are uploaded to the web, rush to the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Unless lawyers or other news get in the way, two very important pieces will be up.

The first in the New York Times will be Flynt Leverett's and Hillary Mann's CIA-censored op-ed based on his new paper, "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing US Policy Options Towards Iran." But, op-ed page editor David Shipley will add some "graphic flair" by posting the original op-ed that the CIA reviewed after White House National Security Council staff insinuated themselves into this normally intrigue-free process. The op-ed will run with the blacked out, redacted lines "blacked out." Very cool.

Then front page Washington Post. Robin Wright will have an important article that digs deeply into the tension between the recently resigned Saudi Ambassador to the United State Prince Turki al-Faisal and the Saudi National Security Advisor Prince Bandar bin Sultan. (Update: This important article by Robin Wright has been delayed by at least one day and perhaps until Sunday.)

According to sources, Wright gets pretty far into the royal family drama and looks at how rival "clusters" of royal brothers have used policy differences over Saudi Arabia's relations with the US, concern over Iran, and strategic direction in the Middle East as ways to wage combat that is at the same time both about genuine policy debates as well as about future royal succession and advancement to influential government positions.

Robin Wright's article may also get into the intricacies of Vice President Cheney's relationship with Prince Bandar -- and will delve into which of them is gaming the other. I had been writing that Bandar and his staff, particularly his close aide Rihab Massoud, continued to get status and power in Saudi power circles because of the former Ambassador's extremely close relationship with the Vice President.

However, others I have spoken to since suggest that I have the situation backward -- and that it is Cheney, and others like Colin Powell and George Bush who are pawns in Bandar's world. A source has intimated that Robin Wright's big piece tomorrow may touch on this subject.

TODAY (though I think it made the news yesterday), Representative Louise Slaughter has written to the President to ask why specifically Flynt Leverett's oped for the New York Times was censored.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: For those of you traveling today -- particularly on United Airlines -- I really feel for you. I am a 1K, semi-privileged flyer on United and had my flight out of Reagan National Airport to Las Vegas cancelled this morning with a United staffer telling me that the only thing that they could get me on was three days from now.

I'm now staying in Washington for the holidays -- but I strongly empathize with the many out there who are not only dealing with weather challenges but also airlines that don't know how to deal with the occasional, semi-predictable hiccup. Three days wait for a 1K member? That's not good United. And it must be even worse for those without travel status.

-- Steve Clemons

For Saudi watchers, some fascinating news has just made its way to The Washington Note.

A former staffer at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, ADEL AL-JUBEIR, who comes from a distinguished, yet non-royal family, has risen to such levels of esteem in the estimation of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah that he has been appointed the next Saudi Ambassador to the United States.

This is quite remarkable news. One of the rumored successors to Prince Turki al-Faisal, who recently resigned as Ambassador in Washington with plans to depart at the end of January 2007, was Prince Turki's cousin, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al-Saud, who is currently Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Prince Mohammed succeeded Prince Turki in London after having served as Ambassador to Italy after Turki was assigned to Washington. Many expected Prince Mohammed to move to Washington, but family concerns kept the Ambassador in the United Kingdom.

Wanting someone trusted and close -- closer than family to some degree -- King Abdullah has now appointed his personal foreign policy advisor to serve as his Ambassador in Washington. Abdullah met the relatively young Adel al-Jubeir in Washington some years ago -- when he was Director of Communications at the Embassy. Adel's brother, Nail Al-Jubeir, now holds the very same position that Adel once heldo in Saudi Arabia's Washington Embassy.

When King Abudullah was Crown Prince he briefly met al-Jubeir on a trip to the United States and subsequently requested that he become the Crown Prince's foreign policy advisor.

Adel al-Jubeir's appointment will be formally announced after the U.S. Department of State notifies the Saudi government that al-Jubeir's credentials will be accepted. "No problems are anticipated," according to an insider source.

More later -- but this is fairly big news.

-- Steve Clemons