Chris Nelson, in his Nelson Report, reveals the flavor of a recent alleged meeting of Bush friends and supporters with the President. It's fascinating to get a sense of where the President is now -- though I have to admit I sometimes feel like I'm in the same place:

The Nelson Report -- 30 April 2007

Sometimes insider gossip seems to confirm what all us outsiders think we're seeing, so, for what it's worth. . .we're hearing that some big money players up from Texas recently paid a visit to their friend in the White House.

The story goes that they got out exactly one question, and the rest of the meeting consisted of The President in an extended whine, a rant, actually, about no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he's doing things would be OK. . .etc., etc.

This is called a "bunker mentality" and it's not attractive when a friend does it. When the friend is the President of the United States, it can be downright dangerous. Apparently the Texas friends were suitably appalled, hence the story now in circulation.

Its relevance to various current issues is all too obvious, including the fate of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz. Ask anyone at or close to the Bank, and you know, just as a professional, that Wolfowitz's effectiveness is finished, no matter what. But there are now other issues in play, assuming you think that the US role in selecting the Bank leadership remains important.

Here's a private comment summing up the entire situation, from a Loyal Reader out in the real world of the Rocky Mountains, who happens to be a lifetime Republican, and a business person. We pass it along, as it is representative of comments we get ALL the time from Republican friends. . .a mixture of hyperbole, irony, and angst. . .and is thus a cautionary tale in itself:

"You know, if Bush would stop his self-indulgent stubbornness for half a day, he could see plain as day that he has an opportunity to retain American control of the World Bank by easing Wolfie out. If he tries to keep Wolfie in that spot, American control could end.

I really wonder whether his failure to distinguish between necessary toughness and catastrophically shoot-ourselves-(America)-in-our-foot pigheadedness results from biological anomaly. His inability to harvest experience, and so to think and form successful judgments, is just so inexplicable."

Assuming the Europeans want Wolfowitz out badly enough to compromise with the White House on his replacement, ARE there qualified Republican players available, at this point?

One might be tempted to remind Bush that then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick wanted the Bank very much, and one might be tempted to add that Zoellick would have been a perfect choice professionally and personally. . .one who would never have embarrassed himself, the President, and his country, as Wolfowitz seems intent on doing.

One would probably be wrong to remind Bush of all this, and in any event, indicators are Zoellick rather enjoys making a zillion dollars as a big time investment banker, and so maybe he's not available.

One might then be tempted to suggest the former Asia Subcommittee chair, Rep. Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican whose defeat last Fall came almost entirely due to the war in Iraq, and who would be seen by most of the rest of the world as a superb choice from his days as a Foreign Service officer, and his three decades in the House, during which he served on both Foreign Affairs and, if memory serves, the Banking Committee.

Of course Leach is a "liberal Republican". . .an endangered species, and not one generally found south of the Pecos River. . .and he was a persistent critic of Bush North Korea policy until the White House finally took his advice, and let Asst. Sec. State Chris Hill actually practice diplomacy. Leach is probably still waiting for the thank-you call on that.

But if temperament, talent, and training has anything to do with it, and with Wolfowitz now absolutely untenable, perhaps the White House might want to give Leach a call, over in his Wilson Center office. Just a suggestion.

Great material. Chris Nelson just packs his fax form of a blog with a ton of great insights and important nuance.

I agree with him that Bob Zoellick would be a solid choice.

-- Steve Clemons

Out of the blue in the Washington Post today, former US Ambassador to the UN and Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young decries America's "excessive Puritanism" and makes a plea to give the beleaguered World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz just one more chance.

One can almost imagine Young on the verge of breaking into tears as he grovels for one of the master architects of the Iraq War.

Andrew Young has done many distinguished things in his life, and I don't want to take anything from him on those fronts. But seriously, Ambassador Young has some chutzpah to counsel the rest of America on what lines should and should not be crossed -- and what should be forgiven and not in our public leaders.

One reader remarked to me this morning that "Andrew Young never saw a well-financed cause he did not love."

Remember Andrew Young's perceived conflicts of interest with Wal-Mart? and Nike?

Young's appeal on behalf of Paul Wolfowitz -- who not only worked out automatic "outstanding" job evaluations, automatic raises, and a huge pay increase for his girlfriend Shaha Riza but elevated two politicos, Kevin Kellems and Robin Cleveland, to senior positions completely beyond their technical competence -- may be more of an appeal for himself.

Young may be scrapping for another chance for himself as well as Wolfowitz. I'll stay silent on Andrew Young's ledger of liabilities as opposed to assets -- but Wolfowitz's "next chance" should be outside of the Bank and should be dedicated to making some effort to reverse -- in the private sector -- the incredible havoc he has brought on the world.

-- Steve Clemons

Behind the scenes of the gladiatorial battle that will take place between Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank Board today are efforts by his lawyer, Robert Bennett, and the Bank staff to negotiate terms of Wolfowitz's departure.

According to some insiders, Wolfowitz wants "some acknowledgment" of the Bank Board's complicity in the messy circumstances surrounding his and Shaha Riza's situation.

Secondly, allegedly on June 1st, Wolfowitz becomes eligible for some large financial bonus -- for performance and time on the job. One estimate puts this figure at about $400,000. Wolfowitz wants to make sure those funds are credited to his private bank account before saying farewell to an institution that has come to despise him.

Both sides have threatened each other with slow, painful, drip-drip approach to the release of damaging information that each side has about the other.

One blast in the battle are revelations that it costs the Bank a whopping $5 million per year to pay for Wolfowitz's security detail. Others have told me of Wolfowitz's failure to discipline aide Kevin Kellems for equally whopping violations of Bank protocol -- particularly while traveling on Bank business.

Wolfowitz is angry at the Bank at all those other than his closest spear-carriers. At one level, he does not want to resign and wants to tear the World Bank apart by forcing escalation in this war. But others -- particularly Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson -- have made it clear behind the scenes that a negotiated outcome that saves some face for Wolfowitz will give all sides an opportunity to push what one Paulson insider calls "the reset button."

-- Steve Clemons

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, staffed by legal counsel Robert Bennett at his side, will have an opportunity to respond to allegations of nepotism and inappropriate conduct at a meeting today. The stakes are high for Wolfowitz and the Bank. If one wins, the other loses.

Sources tell me that there probably will not be action on Wolfowitz's petition today -- but his fate will be determined within the week.

The real issue at hand is corporate governance inside the bank -- and this of course, is one of the Bank's central themes in its interactions with client governments and collaborating partners and institutions.

Reports are bubbling out from Bank staff and World Bank clients that there is no way that Wolfowitz can go back to his position and keep the place from revolting against him, boycotting his presence and work, and the like. Some governments have already issued private communications to Wolfowitz not to visit them -- at least not until this imbroglio is settled. The Bank staff is in open revolt, and many fear that they will be purged by Wolfowitz if they lose this high-risk battle.

All sorts of players are lining up on this. Former Atlanta Mayor and Ambassador to the UN Andrew Young fell a few notches in my eyes for his obsequious piece calling on us to give Paul Wolfowitz "another chance." Young fails to mention that part of Wolfowitz' "portfolio problem" is that he elevated two monstrous personalities who had virtually no development experience to two of the most important jobs in the Bank.

Kevin Kellems -- former spokeman for Vice President Cheney -- came into a key role at the Bank that should have been reserved for those elevated through meritocratic selection. Kellems has been hounding and harassing Bank staffers who were blowing the whistle on the Bank President's "absence of a plan" as well as for those he felt were at ideological odds with Wolfowitz -- particularly on the Iraq War. According to numerous sources, Kellems has had issues not to different from those related to Randall Tobias of late. Even Wolfowitz has been infuriated with a few judgment lapses by Kellems -- with reports of Wolfowitz screaming at him on the phone in Brazil for private misbehavior that also seriously delayed the World Bank delegation and plane flight.

In another new development, I have learned that Robin Cleveland will accompany Wolfowitz to his hearing today and be asked to explain her role in a faked email draft that is pivotal in the case -- and may be evidence of an effort to cover-up some of the massaging of girlfriend Shaha Riza's employment trajectory.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Paul Wolfowitz, Remarks to the Business for Social Responsibility Conference
Washington DC, November 4, 2005

But punishing corruptors isn't the only solution. In fact, it probably isn't the best solution. The best solution is in fact improved transparency, improved accountability, so that corruptors know ahead of time that they can't hide.

Prevention is much better than the cure. Businesses and civil society organizations can play an important monitoring and advocacy role here, so can the press. And anyone who says that the issue of press freedom is purely a political issue that has nothing to do with development, I don't think understands just how important accountability is to preventing corruption, and just how serious a threat corruption is to the development process.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm in the colonial era town Chestertown, MD this morning -- for a short while -- blogging at the town central coffee shop, Play it Again Sam.

This is a fascinating place that used to be one of the primary nodes along a course of travel from the Southern states up to the Northern states, and vice versa. George Washington, according to public records, came through a minimum of eight times and received an honorary degree from the local college here in 1789, named Washington College -- the only college that George Washington consented to have his name affixed to and on which Washington was a member of the Board of Visitors.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted an honorary degree from Washington College in October 1933 -- and Friday morning this week, I was delighted to see a bronze plaque above the "presidential bed" on the long-time (now privately owned) presidential yacht, the USS Sequoia, which stated that Franklin Roosevelt slept in that bed (so did LBJ and JFK on other occasions) when he traveled up to Chestertown, Maryland for that ceremony. (I enjoyed an incredible, private tour of the USS Sequoia Friday morning and may be participating in an important event on the yacht in the not too distant future.)

Chestertown, MD used to be the central base for Episcopal affairs in the country as well -- and the local Emmanual Episcopal Church hosted the 1790 convention that broke the American Episcopal Church away from the Church of England.

L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame was also married to Sara Northrup here on August 10, 1946, though he was already married to someone else, Polly Grubb. (note to Scientologists: Just stating the facts. . .calm down.)

Tallulah Bankhead is buried down the road in Chestertown.

And while Katherine Hepburn was born in Hartford, CT -- she was allegedly "conceived" at a gorgeous 18th Century farm called Shepherd's Delight in Chestertown owned by Hepburn's grandfather, Reverend Sewell Hepburn.

On March 7, 2007, the National Historic Trust for Historic Preservation named Chestertown] one of a dozen distinctive destinations that folks should check out.

More later. I'm off to a brunch with former Australian Deputy Prime Minister as well as Minister of Finance and Defense Kim Beazley -- a big personality from down under who used to head the Labor Party and who I wish was running his country.

-- Steve Clemons

(Obama to Hillary: So you really, really think TV Marti is worth $200 million?!)

Sarah Stephens nudged Barack Obama the other day in a TWN guest blog post on the 13 scant words he offered on Latin America in his recent foreign policy manifesto (that the Washington Post applauded this morning. She otherwise seemed quite complimentary to him and, in my view, pushed her suggestion pretty politely.

A prominent Latin America expert working with one of the more significant progressive think tanks nonetheless considered Sarah Stephens' remarks an unfair attack on Obama and asked me to give "equal prominence" to the Senator's 2,115 words on Latin America on March 8, 2007 -- when President Bush departed for a six-day, five nation tour in Latin America.

It's a good speech -- and this individual's suggestion to print it in full is OK by me -- though you'll have to click the link to "continue reading" below to get it. I want to make clear that I was pleased both with Sarah Stephens' piece as well as by the email that I received in reaction from an Obama fan, though I did write back and encouraged him to take another look at her post.

I think it's a stretch to characterize her blog post as an "attack" -- but such seems to be the general tenor inside some progressive circles who are stressed by the intense electioneering already underway. I hope he recharacterizes his view as "defensiveness" at this stage about healthy suggestions and commentary should be welcomed rather than zapped.

I think it's also fair of any reasonable advocate to suggest that Barack's floor speech on March 8th is not as prominent as his Chicago Council on Global Affairs speech that was designed to let us in on his strategic thinking and priorities as a package.

Before I post the speech, I was interested when reading it for any hint of Barack Obama's views on US-Cuba policy because of my own interest in modernizing an anachronistic Cold War-sculpted relationship that needs review. Barack does not mention Cuba -- but in a quick search -- I learned that Obama in contrast to Hillary Clinton opposed further funding to the hugely wasteful and entirely ineffective TV Marti. While Obama said he opposed the expense for something ineffective, Clinton's support of TV Marti is disturbing and seems to me to indicate satisfaction with the "status quo" in US-Cuba policy rather than incremental change.

So, I'm glad for the email and the debate here. Now for some insight into Barack Obama's thinking on Latin America:

The World Bank does matter. If the world is ever going to turn the "developing nation challenge" around, the Bank has been and will continue to be a vital part of that process. But the place is coming unglued over the Wolfowitz-Riza scandal and the staff have become profoundly distracted by lapses by their leader.

It's CEO, Paul Wolfowitz, is now declaring -- in a very terse tone -- that he has been treated "unfairly" and "shabbily" by the World Bank Board.

I would like to remind Mr. Wolfowitz that he started these problems -- and they did not start with Shaha Riza. If anything, she is only the crescendo in a long line of misbehaviors and serious judgment lapses that range from inappropriately rewarding old Bush administration, political and SAIS pals like former Cheney spokesman Kevin Kellems, former Mitch McConnell staffer Robin Cleveland, and perhaps even former Dan Quayle chief-of-staff Karl Jackson.

Kellems became a spear-carrier continuing to defend Wolfowitz from those who wanted to critique his decisions and performance as Deputy Secretary of Defense and his key role in the Iraq War. Kellems reportedly led crusades against Bank staff who refused to yield to Wolfowitz's views. Kellems instituted a "you are with us, or you're with them" strategy inside the Bank.

Robin Cleveland, implicated but not investigated in the Boeing air tanker scandal by trying to get her brother a job, got the portfolio for being a lead on Wolfowitz's anti-corruption effort.

Karl Jackson has been keeping his head very low -- but he's been a kind of roving "fixer" for Wolfowitz. Some like Jackson and others don't. Most can't figure out what he does as the "third" political appointment Wolfowitz made but who has escaped much press scrutiny. What can be reported though is that Karl Jackson has told numerous others that "Wolfowitz has no plan." Jackson has stated that there is no benchmarking, planning, priority development, or any serious organizational scheme beyond the ad hoc and reactive that is driving Wolfowitz's support of one World Bank program over another. Jackson has been trying to be of assistance to Wolfowitz and the Bank in his senior advisor role -- but he has argued that there is no anchor and driving agenda at the top.

Jackson's alleged comments are perhaps the most important and revealing. Wolfowitz should resign from the Bank not only because he has lost the support of his staff and may have engaged in behaviors with regard to his girlfriend's employment circumstances that have triggered serious doubts about his own judgment, he also has been an ineffective CEO on substance.

If one of his closest friends and advisors says that the CEO is not scripting a plan for his staff to follow, then that should be enough for the World Bank Board to call for his resignation -- and for Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to make the phone call to Wolfowitz calling it a day.

Wolfowitz will have a chance on Monday to defend himself with lawyer Robert Bennett silent but at his side. Odds makers think Wolfowitz is on his way out.

-- Steve Clemons

Here are three views of the first Democratic Presidential Debate held in South Carolina -- one by someone who watched it carefully on television, one who was on the floor of the debate and a guest of one of the contenders, and one from someone who did not watch the debate live but watched the post-debate punditry and caught excerpts.

The names will not be disclosed.

View One -- TV viewer:

The bottom line is that all showed well, though I don't think Gravel did myself. Some think Gravel stole some of Kucinich's leftist fire.

Joe [Biden] got the most applause and general commentary with his one syllable "yes" answer.

People think Clinton and Obama both gave strong performances. My view is that Dodd was lackluster -- Joe was good. Richardson both good and some how not impressive despite getting a lot right. Why is that?

What bothered me most is that they still think that the best way to respond on GWOT issues is to whack bad guys -- rather than steal the audience, or develop the global economy, etc. . .

But generally this is seen as a first showing , and that probably -- no opinions changed.

View Two -- There in Person:

The way it looked from here, Richardson came off as something of a buffoon, Dodd was invisible, Kucinich and Gravel were an amusing but distracting component, and Edwards slipped on his response to the "moral role model" question.

I would add that I was a little taken aback when Obama said China was "not our friend". Now that I know, I'll stop being friendly to them immediately.

View Three -- After the Fact:

I didn't watch it but listened to commentators on Larry King and learned a lot less about what people said than from your blog -- though it sounds as if it is a lousy format for 90 minutes and so many people. They probably should have limited the topics and asked everyone the same question. Bottom line is nobody won and nobody lost. I was surprised the Kucinich, the pacifist, has a loaded gun in his house.

Also I agree with Obama that we need a larger military, but not with just that statement. I haven't heard any candidate propose what I would do to increase the size of our military and fix its broken state. I would go back to a much larger degree to the old days and get rid of Blackwater, i.e., and have support troops as part of the military and not highly paid mercenaries. And it will take years just to re-equip military. It is badly broken.

Interesting perspectives. I have to say that in my own critique of those who just want to increase the size of the military without a true "management fix", View Three's comment about the problem of private militaries and displacing them with official military personnel is the best counter-point I have read to my views.

-- Steve Clemons

I am. Click here to get to MSNBC's site on the set-up and a live stream feed.

So far, everyone looks a little stiff. No zingers yet. I do like that all the candidates are giving short responses to questions -- even Joe Biden.

John Edwards thinks Americans want a "decent" and "honest" person as President. Sounded sweet. He is a good guy -- but gosh, I wish I could see a bit more of his rough edges.

Hillary Clinton is taking responsibility for her vote supporting the Iraq War -- but says she would not have voted for the resolution if she knew what she knows today. She then said that what matters is what we do now and blasted President Bush for his stubborn commitment to "not" ending the Iraq War.

Bill Richardson: "This war is a disaster." I happened to see Bill Richardson last night and briefly met him -- though I muffled my name a bit for reasons that don't need to be resurrected here. He is absolutely right to emphasize the need to link discussion of withdrawing from Iraq to a large international stakeholder conference on Iraq -- as well as a "Donor's Conference." Richardson is saying this over and over again -- and I applaud him.

Kucinich is smart and ethical. He does not believe in war. He is a pacifist -- and he won't vote for any bill that funds a war. It's laudable -- but it's not going to get traction with many across America's political spectrum.

Obama just blew an answer in my view. He said that the military is nearly broken, stretched to unacceptable limits. He said that to fix this, we need to increase the size of the army. Bad call. What we need to fix is the management that took a huge military -- and took the largest military budget in world history, larger than all other nations combined -- and still ruined the military. Making the military bigger is a vapid and shallow response that doesn't address the fundamental problem of what undermined the military to begin with. I will ease up on him when he begins to get this point right.

Why did Edwards pay for his campaign haircut out of campaign coffers? Wow. Good question. Edwards said it was a mistake -- didn't shirk it. But while admitting he is a privleged elite, like many -- so too were the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, and others who have been privileged but still helped those with fewer resources and chances in life. But not a bad answer overall.

Chris Dodd: "I'm a pro-growth Democrat." Need to figure out more what that means. He also needs more stories about real people to tell about his important work. It's a little too much "I, I, I."

Dennis Kucinich gets too honest again: "This presidential race is not American Idol." If only it were true.

Biden is asked about whether he could reverse being an uncontrollable "gaffe machine" and "uncontrollably verbose." He answered with one word, "Yes." Got the biggest laugh of the night so far. He did well on that.

Gravel says no first use of nukes ever -- and says that the "top tier" candidates on the stage disagree with him. He just accused Joe Biden of arrogance. And he just went left of Dennis Kucinich. Somewhat unbelievable for a politician from Alaska. He said "We should just plain get out of Iraq."

Edwards made a good statement that he should have made more often when he was running for Vice President. He said that the recent Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion is an example of how consequential the next election is. (Well, the last election was really the consequential one -- as the swing on the Supreme Court has happened.)

Senator Biden supports Roe v. Wade but would not pose "litmus test" question to potential Supreme Court nominees. But he would bring people in who "shared his values."

Hillary thinks that the federal government did something -- not sure what yet -- that failed the student victims at Virginia Tech. Ahh. . .guns in the hands of the mentally unstable. She has a point.

Bill Richardson is asked whether in light of the Virginia Tech tragedy he would reconsider his opposition to gun control. He's for guns -- but against insane people carrying them. And he wants "instant background checks." Not sure those would have fixed this problem.

Show of hands -- Gravel, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich have all had a loaded gun in their homes.

Biden then said "shotgun. . .not handgun."

Health care is next. Brian Williams said it is the second highest priority for Americans in nearly all polls. To get more health care coverage funded, Edwards said that he would reverse Bush's tax cuts. He outlined his universal health care plan -- funded entirely, I think (but could be wrong here), through employers.

Senator Obama wants a national pool that people can buy into if they don't have health insurance through their employer. He then seems to be calling for cost caps in the medical field. He is also emphasizing the "catastrophic insurance" course for some firms and some citizens to avoid being undermined by bankruptcy.

Wow. Hillary Clinton just made a bold statement that she would not support putting more federal money into our health plan until this "broken system" is fixed. If only she would say something like that with regard to the men, women and money she supports going into a broken Pentagon.

Email questions in now -- the first from Daniel to Joe Biden. Why are candidates in South Carolina if the NAACP has asked people to boycott the state until the confederate flag is taken down from the South Carolina state house. Biden identified a prominent black politician who brought the debate to South Carolina -- good answer. Obama said that the flag belongs in a museum. Hint to his campaign: in the future Obama said that the flag we should all respect, all rally around, is the American flag -- and any other flag, particularly ones that reflect such pain and national horror should be ripped out of the public square.

Ugh, I don't really enjoy education questions -- like the one Joe Biden just had to respond to. The federal government is mostly impotent on education and few want to admit it.

John Edwards makes a compelling statement about making a transition in our oil and energy use -- and the importance of denting those contributors to climate change. He knows the language of climate change -- understands cap and trade and carbon sequestration -- and was confident. All good.

What do the candidates want to do on their first day in the White House? Richardson wants to launch an "Apollo Mission" like program for renewable energy. We all do. He also wants to use that first day to get out of Iraq.

Barack Obama said our three most important allies are the European Union, NATO (almost the same thing -- but not quite, and sort of odd to call NATO an ally since we dominate it. . .maybe I misheard him somehow). He then said Japan. That will make Prime Minister Abe happy at the White House tonight. Obama then said that China was neither friend nor enemy. Brian Williams then went after Obama on Israel/Palestine -- and Obama clarified his statement a few months ago that no one suffered more in the world than the Palestinian people. He stated that that suffering was almost entirely the fault of Palestine's leadership. Triangulation it's called.

Biden -- very good statement on the importance of reestablishing American engagement in the world and enlightened, principled leadership.

Mike Gravel sounded like he basically wants to draw back home and basically "disengage" from the world -- not in a nasty way, but just to get out of everybody else's business abroad.

On Russia, Bill Richardson would think about what America's basic strategic interests are as the basic driver of his strategy with Russia. Richardson gets an A-plus for that answer. Commenting on Bush, he said "being stubborn is not a foreign policy."

Hmmmm. . .great question! Do the candidates feel that there is a genuine "Global War on Terror." Kucinich rejects the GWOT in its entirety. Brian Williams goes further and asks what happens if we had two new al Qaeda attacks on two American cities. First to Obama who said that we'd have to make sure our "emergency response teams" and capacity were in place. Then he'd have to figure out who committed the terror -- without using bad intel or manipulating the intel that any party might want.

Edwards would find out who was responsible and respond harshly and immediately. Then he'd ask how did the strikes occur without early warning from our intelligence machinery.

Hillary Clinton, Edwards, and to some degree Obama are strongly emphasizing the "play the harsh card" with terrorists. But they all lose. They are trying to emphasize killing actors who are trying -- through their terror act -- to look legitimate in the eyes of some people. We need to spend more effort stealing the audience, not just knocking off the actors. None of the candidates said this -- though Kucinich probably would have.

Is there a difference between gay marriage and civil unions? Dodd said that the way to perceive this is the way a parent would hope for their own children. He believes that civil unions are appropriate and proper but doesn't support gay marriage.

Biden embraces a Manhattan Project approach on energy. But he gets right to the point. Advances take multi-billion dollar investments. That's right.

Richardson said that we need to plan for "a post-Castro Cuba." That means we need to end the travel restrictions and consider a set of alternative and different courses with Cuba. He gets a B for his response, but it's on the right course. He wants democracy and trade unions in Cuba -- wants to build in the Cuban-American communities in Florida and New Jersey and move collectively together. Easier said than done -- but still good.

Question to Senator Edwards -- who is his moral leader? He thinks he really doesn't have one. Mentioned his Lord and wife. I think he gave the only appropriate answer.

Hillary had good response on whether Wal-Mart was good thing or bad thing. She said Wal-Mart was a mixed blessing.

Joe Biden said that there is a winner on the stage tonight -- a lot of winners -- and that the Democratic Party will perform strongly. Good response -- and Biden got the last word.

No one really fell apart tonight -- though I think Mike Gravel didn't get very far. All the rest seemed assured and probably made their constituencies feel great about their performances.

The biggest theme that bothered me about most of the field was that they all think that they still have to run hard and tough in standing up to America's threats and to the terrorists lurking beyond our borders. They offered few compelling strategies that might really undermine this threat. Obama talked about "building trust" in the world -- but emphasized whacking bad guys much, much more.

-- Steve Clemons

Sarah Stephens is executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas and sent this blog post in the form of an open letter to The Washington Note

Dear Senator Obama:

I just had the pleasure of reading your foreign policy address before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. It was an eloquent statement about a post-Iraq foreign policy that can make our country safer, and win a new hearing from allies and adversaries in the world about our intentions and aspirations for the future.

While I realize that no speech can tackle every subject, and those that try will invariably fail, I still wondered why your address contained just thirteen words about the entirety of Latin America.

You said:

In today's globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people. When narco-trafficking and corruption threaten democracy in Latin America, it's America's problem too. . .

And that was it.

To be sure, if one looks past our border -- to Mexico, the Caribbean, Central and South America -- you will see corruption and an active trade in illegal drugs. But if that is all you see, you miss nearly 600 million people and how estranged we are from their problems due to the irrelevance of U.S. policy to their lives.

For more than a generation, the United States has failed to offer a constructive foreign policy in the Americas. Instead, we have diminished our country's influence by demonizing leaders we cannot depose, railing against developments we cannot control, and hiding behind the false security of a wall that has deeply aggrieved our neighbors throughout the hemisphere.

There are better, more relevant answers to the problems of this region, and in a speech that is yet to be written, we hope to hear them echoing in your campaign.

For starters, we need to get serious about income inequality in the Americas, a problem which connects to everything from migration to instability and gangs.

We need a fast and thorough education about how our policy debates on issues like trade liberalization affect our image in the region and how votes in favor of constructing a wall reverberate and boomer-rang against us.

We need a new policy toward Cuba, one that reflects the national interest rather than the exaggerated strength of one Florida constituency. Make no mistake: reforming this policy will help reframe the image of the United States across Latin America.

Finally and more broadly, we need to stop dictating to the nations of the Americas and start listening to them as the neighbors they are and the partners they are largely eager to be.

More, of course, can be said and done. But let me close with this thought.

Senator, we share a common border and a range of common interests with the people of the Americas. Their problems affect our security and well-being, and they demand the attention of a foreign policy that has importantly addressed so many of the other challenges our nation is facing.

I hope you will consider these ideas and say more about the region in your next address.

Sincerely,

Sarah Stephens
Executive Director
The Center for Democracy in the Americas

The pups feel as if they have been neglected on the blog a bit.

They send particular greetings to Senator Chuck Hagel for his vote today.

-- Steve Clemons

REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY AND WIFE OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN, MRS. ABE AFTER A VISIT TO GEORGE WASHINGTON'S MOUNT VERNON ESTATE Mount Vernon

Mount Vernon, Virginia, 1:51 P.M. EDT

MRS. BUSH: Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to welcome Mrs. Abe to Washington. Later this evening, President Bush and I, and Prime Minister Abe and Mrs. Abe will have dinner together at the White House. But I thought it would be really fun for me, and I hope for her, too, to have this chance to visit Mount Vernon, the home of our first President. Mount Vernon, as you can tell from all the tourists you've already seen, is a very, very popular place for Americans to visit, but it's also a popular place for Japanese tourists to come. And other Prime Ministers have been hosted -- from Japan -- has been hosted here, as well as members of the Japanese Royal Family.

So it's a thrill to have this chance to bring Mrs. Abe to Mount Vernon.

MRS. ABE: (As translated.) I have met Mrs. Laura Bush during the APEC meeting, so this is the second time I am meeting her. And I was looking forward very much to coming to the United States.

I have been to Washington, D.C. many times, but this is my first visit to Mount Vernon. This is a place of history. And I heard that Mrs. Laura Bush liked this place very much, and I am so pleased that she has taken me to her favorite place.

And I have also been treated to a wonderful lunch. I understand that this is the place that honors the President of the United States, President Washington. I was very moved that many Americans, as well as many children, come here to study American history. And I think that is a wonderful thing.

Tonight I will have dinner with President Bush and Mrs. Bush at the White House. I am looking forward to that very much, as well. And I think my two days here will be very meaningful.

Thank you very much, all.

MRS. BUSH: Thank you, everybody. Thank you so much, and welcome again.

END

I don't have anything more to add. But I have a hunch that if Hillary wins the election, Bill is going to demand that "Ambassador to the World" title really, really fast -- then get out of town -- and hopefully never have to make anodyne comments like these.

-- Steve Clemons

Bob Wright is the new P.T. Barnum of some of the most interesting virtual political and policy web-discussions anywhere at Bloggingheads.tv. He invited me to spend about an hour with him yesterday discussing Barack Obama's speech, currents in our evolving foreign policy, and general takes on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East broadly, and China.

Wright, who has been writing up a storm for the New York Times this past month, throws out some fascinating ideas that we both wrestled with on the subject of Israel's nukes and Iran's hunger for them.

Because it was mentioned during the discussion, I'm already being deluged for requests for the April 2003 New York Times article that I wrote after the Iraq invasion suggesting a stakeholder model to build a new class of political and economic winners in Iraq -- who were helped by us. This is the proposal in which I suggested that the Alaska Permanent Fund might be a model for distributing oil wealth to Iraqi citizens much like we helped break up aristocratic estates in Japan then distributing this land to farmers throughout the country.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

It's become fashionable in the blogosphere to take whacks at the Joe Lieberman pinata from time to time. With his piece in today's Washington Post, he's earned himself a few more shots.

I'll confess I've given Senator Lieberman more leeway over the last few years than many of my colleagues and friends have, and far more, in retrospect than he has deserved. Why? I'm not willing to write off anyone over a single issue, no matter how important that issue is.

A lot of people voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Some have apologized. Some won't apologize, but, with the benefit of hindsight, would have done things differently. Some would do things the same way. All three groups include well-intentioned public servants with whom I agree more often than not. Lieberman, for example, has a solid record on issues that my organization works on and that I care a lot about.

So what makes Lieberman different? From this morning's Post:

"When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent."

What sets Lieberman apart from the pack is not his support of Bush administration policies, it's his adoption of its fear-based rhetoric, his intentional simplification of a complex situation into victory versus surrender, and his demonization of those who hold alternative views.

Until he's willing to respect people who hold opposing viewpoints, I won't be inclined to respect him either. Swing away at that pinata, folks.

-- Scott Paul

The US began building walls throughout Baghdad in early April, hoping to limit population flows and establish obstacles to vehicle-born bombs. The theory is as simple as "If we keep the bad guys out, then we win," according to 1st Lt. Sean Henley.

Shockingly, the tactic has sparked strong protests from residents of Baghdad, both Sunni and Shia. Last Sunday, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, announced his opposition to the first wall, around the Sunni Adhamiya district: "I oppose the building of the wall and its construction will stop...There are other methods to protect neighborhoods." Since then, there have been large protests throughout Baghdad, with frequent allusion to the Israeli wall on the West Bank and the Berlin wall. It looks like some sort of wall will ultimately be built around Adhamiya, though "instead of a tall concrete wall, smaller concrete barriers and barbed wire will be used."

It seems, though, that the protests may have been based on a misunderstanding. According to one Max Boot, writing on Commentary's blog, the walls are really nothing to get worked up about. Here's his explanation:

The whole process ought to be familiar to students of counterinsurgency. It is, in essence, an update of the old plan known as "concentration" zones or camps. The latter name causes understandable confusion, since we're not talking about extermination camps of the kind that Hitler built, but rather of settlements where locals can be moved to live under guard, thereby preventing insurgent infiltration. The British used this strategy in the Boer war, the Americans during the Philippine war, and many other powers took similar steps in many other conflicts. In Vietnam they were known as "strategic hamlets."

-- Dave Meyer

Photo credits: Ali Yussef/AFP via Iraqslogger.

From World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz's message to Bank clients and staff in its annual "Integrity Report":

We must also ensure that Bank staff continue to maintain high standards of conduct. . .recent corporate scandals around the world have shown that the actions of even a very small number of individuals can tarnish the reputation of an entire organization.

And from the Executive Summary:

. . .the Bank has a fiduciary responsibility to investigate allegations of staff using Bank resources improperly or using their positions for personal financial gain.

Encourage the highest standards of personal honesty, integrity and ethical behavior within the Bank. . .

It would be useful for the investigating Subcommittee of the World Bank board to revisit these "integrity" documents.

-- Steve Clemons

Some political leaders like Chuck Hagel have flirted with the idea, but only flirted. Others like John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich have been more serious.

Dennis Kucinich has now filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney, with a slight delay because of Cheney's blood clot news, but nonetheless -- Kucinich has taken action.

At the same time, Dana Milbank mocks Kucinich's impotence in trying to create legislative punishment of Cheney's high crimes.

There are some who would like me to write much more about impeachment efforts against Bush or Cheney -- but I don't see any reason to do so. I think that it is important for those on the left or the right to raise the potential of impeachment and even make a moral or legal case for such an undertaking.

But I do not believe such efforts have a chance in hell in our current political environment. None of the key players in either of the key parties believe in the viability of an impeachment effort against either Bush or Cheney.

I think Cheney is more culpable than the President, but even then -- my view does not matter -- particularly with Tim Johnson still recovering and Joe Lieberman threatening practically every other day to caucus with the Republicans.

I do think what Kucinich is doing is important for many in the country. It is. He is fulfilling the expectations of many frustrated Americans, but at the same time, it's important to not let sentimentalism about Kucinich's Quijotish leadership cloud out the realism that impeachment in the next 20 months is only a cosmetic political factor and won't really happen.

-- Steve Clemons

Barack Obama has perhaps unintentionally overstated both his targets and the current realities of America's global aid assistance in his recent foreign policy speech.

He then calls for a doubling of a fictionalized amount of current American aid to an annual outlay of $50 billion/year.

Obama stated in his major foreign policy remarks:

Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter. It also requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy -- a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force. It requires building the capacity of the world's weakest states and providing them what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth. And it requires states that have the capacity to fight terrorism, halt the proliferation of deadly weapons, and build the health care infrastructure needed to prevent and treat such deadly diseases as HIV/AIDS and malaria.

As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 [emphasis added] and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.

For the last twenty years, U.S. foreign aid funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. Doubling our foreign assistance spending by 2012 will help meet the challenge laid out by Tony Blair at the 2005 G-8 conference at Gleneagles, and it will help push the rest of the developed world to invest in security and opportunity. As we have seen recently with large increases in funding for our AIDS programs, we have the capacity to make sure this funding makes a real difference.

I like Obama's intent -- and his worthy goals -- but it's important not to brush over or white-wash the real starting point of the aid dollars that Obama wants to increase.

If we give Obama's number crunchers the benefit of the doubt on the $25 billion level of current assistance the US is providing, there are only a few potential explanations for these numbers.

Most sources peg American poverty-focused development assistance at $16.7 billion. The OECD bumps this to $22.7 billion because the OECD includes a few non-recurring major debt relief packages in Iraq and Afghanistan -- while most of the professionals in this field do not count debt relief as normalized poverty assistance.

Obama may be defining foreign assistance in broad terms which merges aid and debt relief -- including funding that includes non-proliferation efforts, "GWOT" related efforts, etc. (but this is not customary in any way among professionals who work in the foreign assistance arena). Alternatively, Obama may just rounding up for political effect.

If Obama targeted $35 billion in real global poverty assistance, then he'd be developing what was 'real' rather than imagined in America's aid budget.

To provide some further context for current budget levels, these numbers may be helpful:

FY 2007

International Affairs Budget (includes poverty aid and diplomacy)

$32.6 billion

Poverty-Focused Development Assistance

$16.7 billion (according to DATA.org)

$22.7 billion (according to OECD - includes debt cancellation in Iraq and Afghanistan)

Defense Budget (for comparison)

$447.4 billion

FY 2008

International Affairs Budget (includes poverty aid and diplomacy)

$36.5 to $39.8 billion

Poverty-Focused Development Assistance

$19 billion request (according to DATA.org)

Defense Budget (for comparison)

$623.5 billion

Barack Obama hit many high notes in his speech, but in the area where America is running far behind where it should be -- particularly in its public diplomacy and global assistance programs -- he has to get the numbers right.

We need to do more in my view, but to call for doing even more yet we need an unsentimental and unvarnished picture of where we are today.

-- Steve Clemons

Zalmay Khalilzad is now officially the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The transition from John Bolton is complete - and the many people around the country who worked long and hard to oppose him should give themselves a pat on the back today.

Though many will argue that their signatures on the Project for a New American Century declaration suggest that Bolton and Khalilzad are cut from the same cloth, their service in the Bush administration tells a different story.

Plus, in his confirmation hearing last month, Khalilzad said some very un-Bolton-like things. He stated clearly that the U.S. should pay its dues to the U.N. in full and on time, he noted that the U.N. is "the most successful collective security body in history," and he said quite clearly that his success will be determined by his ability to listen to the views of others.

Dumisani Kumalo, the South African Ambassador to the U.N., made his views on the transition extremely clear:

When asked about Khalilzad as he headed into a Security Council meeting Monday, South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said with a smile, "He can't be as bad as Bolton."

Afterward, the South African envoy said he was just joking with friends, "but that is true anyway."

--Scott Paul

I had no idea my blogging experience would be helpful last night when I dropped by trivia at DC's Wonderland Bar & Grill, but it was. The relevant question: "Steve Clemons, the publisher of the popular political blog The Washington Note, served as technical advisor to what film starring Sean Connery and Wesley Snipes?" I had no clue, by the way, but knowing what I know about Steve and movies, I managed to piece it together.

The bonus: "What role did Steve play in the film?" This one I missed altogether.

Answers are below the fold. Who knew?!

-- Scott Paul

Carl Bernstein book on Hillary Rodham Clinton slated for massive release in June. Could influence the primary environment.

Low key "Office of Special Counsel" launches highest profile investigation in its history. Promises to "leave no stone unturned" in investigation of U.S. attorney firings. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House."

Mike Huckabee says Alberto Gonzales should go.

Read Barack Obama's foreign policy manifesto. Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed and was hoping for better. More on that later.

Tragedy. David Halberstam killed in car accident. He was wearing his seat belt.

-- Steve Clemons

Ed Note: thanks to LF for materials sent this morning.

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has hired mega-lawyer and Bill Clinton's legal counsel Bob Bennett to defend him against allegations of misconduct at the World Bank.

Here is the zinger quote from the New York Times article by Steven Weisman on Bennett and Wolfowitz:

"I am very worried about the rush to judgment," Mr. Bennett said. "We just had a wonderful example of that in the Duke lacrosse case. I have reviewed the essential documents, and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that Mr. Wolfowitz exercised good faith and that everything he did was in the best interests of the bank."

So now Wolfowitz has hired a flack to compare himself to the Duke lacrosse players?

This is just getting better by the day.

-- Steve Clemons

President Bush doesn't like to lose battles over his political nominees. The White House's tenaciousness on this front was clear in a 21 month long battle and three major drives to get John Bolton confirmed as US Ambassador to the United Nations -- a battle that President Bush and his team finally lost.

As with John Bolton that often had the veneer of being a partisan battle but was really driven by internal Republican differences, the struggle over Alberto Gonzales today is really a function of frustration among Republicans with their leader, George W. Bush.

Bush has reaffirmed his support of Gonzales despite the Attorney General's inadequate testimony that revealed that Gonzales is as incompetent as his Republican credits claims he is. Bush doesn't really care about the details -- much like Gonzales seems to care little about the details of the state attorney firings.

Bush and Gonzales have had the kind of relationship over the years that was based on as few details as possible -- and trusting each other's judgment no matter what the situation, whether the issue be about America's torture policy or on death penalty cases.

People should remind themselves of the nearly criminal disinterest that Gonzales and Bush showed in making sure that innocent people were not wrongly executed when Bush served as Texas's governor and Gonzales was then his legal counsel.

It appears that Bush will not yield in his support of Gonzales, and Gonzales won't leave -- at least not yet.

The key question now is whether jilted Republicans now treated to the same kind of stonewalling and harassment from White House that Democrats have been regularly shown will find other ways to punish Bush -- whether it is on appropriations or other legislation Bush cares about.

Many Senators like to keep their powder dry and to not link one political battle with another. They suggest that they could support President Bush generally but disagree with him strongly on Gonzales.

Well, that's an immature way to play the political game in Washington. Republican Senators and House Members can only win if they identify other pressure points to apply to Bush's. They will need to have a proxy war played out over some unrelated policy battle -- perhaps over trade deals or stem cell research or Iraq war funding -- to give Bush a sense of "cost" for his inappropriate, unquestioning support of the mediocre Alberto Gonzales.

-- Steve Clemons

A few years back, I read Lee Kuan Yew's Memoirs. No matter what one thinks of his illiberal political tendencies, his leadership in carving out a successful city state in an unstable and convulsing Southeast Asia was breathtaking.

I have always been surprised and irritated by Lee's hypersensitivity to political challenge in this era in which he and his brand of technocratic elites have so clearly won all the political battles they needed to win to feel enormously secure. But now comes a refreshing sign of Barry Goldwater-like transformation for Singapore's most powerful conservative -- tolerance of gays. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee sure has better sense than Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace on this particular issue.

-- Steve Clemons

Barack Obama probably felt the need to outline his broad views on foreign policy because, unlike Joe Biden, John McCain, and Bill Richardson, for example, he hasn't had the benefit of decades of talk show appearances and floor statements with which to illustrate them. He did just that with a speech today.

These kinds of speeches sometimes feel extremely vague, heavy on rhetoric and light on substance, but they can be extremely informative. Without them, the posiitons that candidates take on specific, hot issues offer little insight into the decisions they would be forced to make as president. I hope all of the candidates take the time to make these kinds of "big picture" speeches.

There lots of good stuff in Obama's, so I'll highlight just a few nuggets. The themes he strikes are good: in particular, he discusses the importance of America's standing in the world and the need to solve global problems by cooperating, leading by example, and taking stock of the needs and aspirations of others. Importantly, Obama also casts withdrawal from Iraq not as a grand strategy, but as an important tactic that can help bring stability, catalyze political development, and help us refocus on regional and global objectives. And he brings global warming and poverty eradication into focus as critical foreign policy challenges.

On the flip side, while Obama discusses the use of military force in largely the right ways, he says there could be a time when we would be forced to use it unilaterally to protect "our vital interests." Even in a speech as broad as this one, when discussing appropriate circumstances for the use of force, Obama needs to define what "our vital interests" are. Something so important cannot be left to the imagination.

Finally, I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see a bit of energy isolationist rhetoric in what is largely a very globally oriented outlook on the energy situation. On one hand, Obama calls for helping all countries limit greenhouse gas emissions and helping to fuel developing country growth with low-carbon energy sources. That's good. But he also falls into a common trap by suggesting we should "free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil," a goal that is neither realistic nor truly relevant to the problems we face. That's bad.

The full speech is copied below the fold.

-- Scott Paul

I made my first trip to Russia when Boris Yeltsin was president, when Russians were extremely anxious about economic insecurity and Russia's declining influence in the world. Sadly, those feelings during Yeltsin's up-and-down presidency tainted his image in Russia.

Here's hoping Yeltsin is remembered more as the courageous reformer who helped to usher in a new era of peace, democracy, and international cooperation.

-- Scott Paul

Last night, I had dinner with a long-time national security systems analyst who has worked in the Department of Defense and now works for one of the larger private think tanks funded mostly by government. She recounted to me how managing and coordinating large purchasing and acquisition networks in the national security business requires methodologies and approaches that few learn during their college education. That said, years ago, she was assigned an assistant who was brilliant and understood how the acquisitions process worked better than nearly anyone -- and who turned out to be a spy.

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz's girlfriend, Shaha Riza, for whom Wolfowitz arranged not only jobs, incredible pay raises, automatic "outstanding" ratings in performance reviews, but also -- apparently -- a security clearance, is probably not a spy. But our system of national security "secrets management" is not based on trust. It's based on multi-pronged, overlapping constant investigation -- human and electronic.

It would be important for any senior State Department or Defense Department official tasked with maintaining the integrity and security of classified material and information to approach Shaha Riza -- a Libyan national raised in Saudi Arabia -- who was the "girlfriend" of the Deputy Secretary of Defense -- as if she could be a spy.

This is not a matter that those who would know Ms. Riza or who trust Wolfowitz's judgment should say "how dare someone raise that question?!" This should be the question that should have been asked at every stage of Shaha Riza's apparent penetration of the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the private firm, SAIC.

Sidney Blumenthal has laid out the core fundamental questions about the management of Shaha Riza's security clearance:

Riza, who is not a U.S. citizen, had to receive a security clearance in order to work at the State Department. Who intervened? It is not unusual to have British or French midlevel officers at the department on exchange programs, but they receive security clearances based on the clearances they already have with their host governments. Granting a foreign national who is detailed from an international organization a security clearance, however, is extraordinary, even unprecedented. So how could this clearance have been granted?

State Department officials familiar with the details of this matter confirmed to me that Shaha Ali Riza was detailed to the State Department and had unescorted access while working for Elizabeth Cheney. Access to the building requires a national security clearance or permanent escort by a person with such a clearance. But the State Department has no record of having issued a national security clearance to Riza.

State Department officials believe that Riza was issued such a clearance by the Defense Department after SAIC was forced by Wolfowitz and Feith to hire her. Then her clearance would have been recognized by the State Department through a credentials transmittal letter and Riza would have accessed the State Department on Pentagon credentials, using her Pentagon clearance to get a State Department building pass with a letter issued under instructions from Liz Cheney.

But State Department officials tell me that no such letter can be confirmed as received. And the officials stress that the department would never issue a clearance to a non-U.S. citizen as part of a contractual requisition. Issuing a national security clearance to a foreign national under instructions from a Pentagon official would constitute a violation of the executive orders governing clearances, they say.

Given these circumstances, the inspector general of the Defense Department should be ordered to investigate how Shaha Ali Riza was issued a Pentagon security clearance. And the inspector general of the State Department should investigate who ordered Riza's building pass and whether there was a Pentagon credentials transmittal letter.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or Rep. Henry Waxman, who is one of the best and most tenacious investigators of government abuses, or some other concerned member of Congress should call for a Department of Defense investigation into Riza's security clearance, Wolfowitz's role in fast-tracking the clearance, and the State Department's seeming absence of any record confirming her clearance when Shaha Riza was granted unescorted access at the Department of State.

This "could" be serious -- and the question of whether Shaha Riza is a spy or not should not be a matter for pundits to debate. Anyone getting access to the nation's secrets is scrutinized as a potential leaker, a potential spy -- but it appears on the surface that Paul Wolfowitz may have helped his girlfriend get in on the inside without much of that scrutiny.

-- Steve Clemons

The two largest economic partners for Cuba today are Venezuela and China. Venezuela provides oil to Cuba in exchange for a finely tuned barter arrangement for tens of thousands of doctors deployed throughout Venezuelan cities and villages. China is pumping "tied aid" and financing into Cuba because it smells mercantilist opportunities there.

On Friday, Wu Guanzheng -- a member of the Standing Committee of China's Communist Party Poliburo -- arrived for four days of meetings. He has since met with both acting President Raul Castro as well as the ailing Fidel Castro.

From my recent trip to Cuba, it became clear that China is moving quickly up in economic significance to the Cuban government. My hunch is that it will not take long for China to overtake Venezuela as the most important economic partner to Cuba.

One Cuban government official told me that Cuba has a history of always being dependent on some outside government. For a while it was America, until the revolution. Then Cuba's patron became the Soviet Union. After the fall of the Soviets and the Socialist Bloc, Cuba scrounged desperately around and remodeled much of its internal economy to survive a 35% plunge in its GDP when Soviet transfer payments stopped. Venezuela and China have become the patrons of the moment.

But many in the Cuban government look at Venezuela as a peer nation, whereas being attached to "a superpower" has a "completely different set of realities," said a prominent Cuban economist to me.

China is not yet a superpower on the scale of the former USSR or the US, but it is clearly ascending and is building important economic bridges with Cuba -- and its projected 9 billion barrels of crude and sizable natural gas reserves.

Venezuela's attempts to colonize Cuba are driven more by Hugo Chavez's regional political pretensions. China is expanding its relations to secure energy sources and economic partners -- but is far more incrementalist and responsible as it inches toward the island nation just off America's coast.

But what continues to defy logic is America's absence as these economic currents turn in directions away from US interests.

While I was in Havana, I discovered that significant citrus groves were managed by Israeli firms. I saw a Benetton store in old Havana. On my roof at the Parque Central Hotel, British Petroleum was having a large party -- attended by many Cuban nationals. BP bought and manages today ARCO's former oil operations in Alaska's oil fields.

BP can apparently sniff around in Cuba for opportunities -- but American firms are still stymied in what has become an enormously ineffective embargo.

-- Steve Clemons

Secretary of the Treasury "Hank Paulson can easily control his enthusiasm for Paul Wolfowitz," according to a source close to Paulson, "but he does not have enough yet to stick the final knife in."

Next week, a special subcommittee will further investigate and advise the Board of the World Bank on what to do with the embattled World Bank President who has shaken the confidence and trust of his own employees as well as client and stakeholder governments of the Bank.

Graeme Wheeler, a Managing Director of the World Bank of one of two of Wolfowitz's top deputies, has publicly called for Wolfowitz to resign. Bank staffers are now wearing blue ribbons inside the bank, in the same manner as red AIDS awareness ribbons or yellow ribbons commemorating soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, to protest Wolfowitz's nepotism and support the World Bank Staff Committee. (This morning I ran with a group of about 50 runners and one prominent former World Bank official was wearing his blue ribbon on his running shirt.)

Sidney Blumenthal has written a devastating indictment of Paul Wolfowitz's earlier misjudgments involving girlfriend Shaha Riza, who is Libyan and raised in Saudi Arabia. According to Blumenthal, Riza was hired by defense contractor SAIC at the instruction and through a contract issued by Douglas Feith's office. She would have needed a security clearance for this work and according to State Department officials, that clearance would have been provided by the Department of Defense and then recognized by State. Again according to Blumenthal, details of that clearance -- in required correspondence between the two departments -- cannot now be found. Nonetheless, State Department officials have confirmed to Blumenthal -- and additionally to me -- that Shaha Riza had "unescorted access" at the State Department when then working with Elizabeth Cheney.

Contrast the potential national security breaches by those at the top of the ladder to those further down the food chain.

A well respected Foreign Service officer, Donald Keyser, who also had a girlfriend problem and who mismanaged intelligence responsibilities far less severely than former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and former CIA director John Deutsch, nonetheless is now serving jail time for his error. The judge in the case made it clear that he felt the government attorneys had over-reached and that the law was being misapplied.

But in the Wolfowitz-Riza case, his interventions on her behalf produced unfettered, unescorted access to the State Department -- and we still don't have information on whether her clearance was even valid at DoD or State.

AVAAZ.org now has more than 35,000 signatures on a petition calling for Wolfowitz to be fired. It's time that that entire roster of Wolfowitz opponents be put on Secretary of Treasury Paulson's desk.

But. . .if that is not enough, let me add one more item that should disgust the high and mighty who must at least pretend that public service is what motivates their participation in public life and top positions.

According to an internal source at the Bank, Paul Wolfowitz negotiated a different contractual arrangement when he became President of the Bank than did James Wolfensohn. Well, of course. . .one might say. . .they are different people with different issues.

However, one of the key items that Wolfowitz allegedly had removed from his employment contract was a restriction on "speaking fees."

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is raking in the cash now as a hired public speaker. Bill Clinton has put away tens of millions of dollars. Secretary of State Colin Powell has also assembled a speaker fee loaded chest of wealth way into the eight figures. Wolfowitz wanted that option as well.

I have not found evidence yet that Wolfowitz has accepted a speaking fee as of yet -- and can't find him overtly listed on any of the major speakers bureau websites, not even those focused exclusively on neocon representation. (but do email me if you have any particular insights into any speaker fee activity by the former Deputy Defense Secretary.)

The speaker fee issue -- if not restricted by his Bank employment contract -- would not violate any "rules" of the Bank. However, it further demonstrates how Wolfowitz's personal judgment and moral code of conduct clearly runs across the line of publicly acceptable, credible behavior, particularly when encumbered with a position of "public trust" as important as the head of the World Bank.

Others will soon be writing about this speaker fee issue. Wolfowitz should address it immediately.

What is the rest of the story? Why did Wolfowitz want this exemption? Why would he feel that that would be appropriate?

Is this another item for which he will have to issue an apology?

-- Steve Clemons

When I first read it as an unrelated comment to my last post, I brushed it off as a joke.

It's no joke.

Speaking at a VFW meeting in South Carolina, McCain asked when the U.S. would "send an air mail message to Tehran. " McCain replied: "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, anyway..."

So much for diplomacy first, force as a last resort. Raw Story has the video clip.

McCain is truly an enigma to me. He's pressed for international cooperation on global warming. He's spoken of the need to eventually join the International Criminal Court. He's spoken out against torture. His forceful advocacy on these issues has earned him a fair amount of credibility on international affairs.

Recently, McCain's buffoonery on Iraq eroded that credibility. With this gaffe, it has hit an all-time low.

-- Scott Paul

Congress and the Bush administration, take note: the American public and the international community both want the U.S. to play a different role in the world. It's not new, but it's certainly notable.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org released their latest poll today. In nearly every country polled, including the U.S., people want the U.S. to do its share in solving international problems but stop playing global cop.

The degree to which America's stock in the world has plummeted should be no surprise by now, but the numbers are still alarming.

The money quote, from pollster Steven Kull:

"This survey shows that despite the negative views of US foreign policy, publics around the world do not want the United States to disengage from international affairs, but rather to participate in a more cooperative and multilateral fashion," Kull said.

-- Scott Paul

I'm copying below the full statement of Acting Ambassador Alejandro Wolff to the Security Council on climate change as a security risk.

The foundational elements of Wolff's statement are not new, but their inanity never ceases to make my jaw drop. They are usually repeated loyally by Harlan Watson, the chief U.S. negotiator at the UN Framework Conventoin on Climate Change who is currently serving at the request of oil giants. I've become used to hearing Watson make some of the more outrageous arguments, but hearing a respected, serious diplomat like Wolff promote them on the world's most prominent diplomatic stage is a step up (er, down) from the usual.

Here's an example of the outrageous arguments: at the Foreign Service Institute, young Foreign Service Officers in training learn to avoid discussing the levels or growth rates of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, they are instructed to discuss U.S. "greenhouse gas intensity," the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output (GDP) - as if somehow the ice caps melt less quickly because they know our economy is growing.

If one could quantify the economic cost of each ton of greenhouse gas emissions and factor it into our economic figures, "greenhouse gas intensity" might be a useful indicator. Since we don't currently do that, the next president needs to remove the term from our diplomatic lexicon immediately. It's insulting to the people who will suffer most from global warming and makes a mockery of economic and scientific principles at the same time.

What's generally offensive about Wolff's statement is its implication that the U.S. takes global warming seriously and is leading the effort to curb it, even as the Bush administration tries to undermine scientific consensus internationally and silences its experts domestically.

The security implications of climate change have gotten a lot of play recently. I won't weigh in just yet except to say that I think they are considerable. For now, the spotlight remains on Wolff's if-it-weren't-so-awful-it-would-be-laughable statement, which can be found below the fold.

-- Scott Paul

I've been away from the blog recently working on a number of things, some of them related to U.S. energy and climate policy. Lots to report.

A colleague of mine thought it'd be worth sharing what James Woolsey is up to, and I agree. In two weeks, he's moderating a "Climate Change Panel Discussion," on which 3 of 5 invited panelists deny the basic argument that climate change is mostly driven by human activity and will have extremely adverse affects. That basic argument, by the way, is conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the largest peer review body ever convened in the world's history. I'm especially disappointed that the World Affairs Council is supporting this hackery.

In the meantime - I hope you feel compelled to send the WAC a letter holding them to account for their giving disgraced scientists a platform. Here's what my colleague sent:

I am totally amazed by the panel selected for the WAC Town Hall Meeting on Climate Change. Of 5 panelists, three are deniers of the adverse effects of climate change and the role of human activities as a driver of such change. Two of the panelists are from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (source of the advertising tag line "Carbon Dioxide: some call it pollution; we call it life" and a third is noted skeptic S. Fred Singer. That WAC lends its name to a panel that gives such prominence to people that ignore the science and reflect the interests of their donors has shaken my respect for the World Affairs Council.

I am distributing the WAC panel list to all my colleagues with the question "What has go wrong with the World Affairs Council." I hope and expect that most of my contacts will share my disappointment. I expect that many people involved in this critical issue with look at the WAC with a feeling of disappointment and a lose of respect.

More soon.

-- Scott Paul

(Steve Clemons rushing a last blog post a month ago on Senator Chuck Hagel's "non-campaign campaign" before jumping on a flight from Miami to Havana)

Folks, I have been chasing down some more important material on Paul Wolfowitz's past. It will be up later today I hope, tomorrow morning at the latest.

Until then, I am doing a lot of work on US-Cuba policy today. Tomorrow, it's back to the Middle East.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Andrew Sullivan has highlighted a fascinating, yet troubling, YouTube capture of a BBC interview with John Bolton on the recess-appointed Ambassador's views of the Iraq War and its aftermath.

As Sullivan writes:

The BBC's interviewers are not as deferent as some in America. Paxman is among the most aggressive.

What staggers me about this clip is Bolton's point-blank view that the US had no responsibility to impose order after the invasion, and no responsibility for security within the country. Bolton actually says that the only error Bush really made was not giving the Iraqis "a copy of the Federalist papers and saying, 'Good luck.'" Yes, he says he's exaggerating for effect, but he is conveying the gist of the policy.

The casual recklessness and arrogance of these people never cease to amaze. The world is theirs' to play with -- and the victims of a vortex of predictable and predicted violence are just left to help themselves.

I see no need to add to Andrew Sullivan's cogent take on Bolton's hyper-strain of hit-and-run pugnacious nationalism.

-- Steve Clemons

Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol just announced that Khartoum will allow U.N. peacekeepers to join with African Union forces in Darfur. Reports differ on whether the U.N. has received official word from Sudan, but this is a hopeful sign for a region (including Chad and the Central African Republic) that has had little to be hopeful about.

-- Scott Paul

Congressmen Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Charles Rangel (D-NY) have laid out a compelling and sensible plan to reconsider America's relations with Cuba titled "Time for America to be Relevant in Cuba."

Jeff Flake will now be the headline speaker at a forum on Wednesday, 18 April, that runs from 12:15-2:00 pm and helping to launch the New America Foundation's "21st Century US-Cuba Policy Initiative." Former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson and I will both be speaking at this meeting, and the public is invited. (RSVPs required, however, to steve@thewashingtonnote.com -- Congressman Flake's name will be added to the New America announcement on Monday.)

For those who haven't been paying much attention to Cuba since the time when John Bolton recklessly accused the Cubans of manufacturing bio-weapons, Fidel Castro in the not too distant future will be moving on. He's one of the "big personalities" of this era -- and when he does die -- CNN, the History Channel, Discovery, probably even Comedy Central will be airing programs and commentary on this giant political personality who defied and survived a long line of U.S. presidents. Castro will be vilified by some and respected by others. But fascination with Fidel will significantly enlarge the number of Americans who become aware that America's direction on Cuba has largely been the same for decades.

Post-Castro Cuba is something we should be thinking about today. After many decades of failed results from a Cold War-fashioned embargo against the Cubans, Jeff Flake and Charles Rangel -- and many of their colleagues -- believe that a new game plan needs to be considered.

For those who watch Cuban political reality closely, we are already in that era. Fidel's brother, Raul, has already ascended and appears to be running things. While some would think that this was automatic nepotism, Raul actually holds the post in government designed to succeed Cuba's leader if incapacitated. And what is even more interesting is that the Castro brothers have different retainers, run in different circles, and hold different views on what makes sense for Cuba's future. This is only important in that Raul Castro's twice made proposal of comprehensive negotiations with the U.S. indicates new possibilities, new flexibility. . .perhaps.

Flake's and Rangel's important article starts:

Recently the Bush administration has shown new flexibility in foreign policy. Consider: a nuclear deal with North Korea and talks aimed at normalized relations, contact with Syria and Iran, and a stronger push for Israel-Palestine negotiations.

What about Cuba?

Raul Castro, Cuba's interim president and designated successor, has twice called for U.S.-Cuba negotiations. This offer deserves a positive response. Potentially, we could profit by negotiating increased cooperation on drug interdiction and migration policy, the return of American fugitives residing in Cuba, and environmental protections as Cuba explores for oil in waters near our own.

But more than deals with Cuba, we need a new deal with ourselves on Cuba policy.

For too long, our approach has been guided by electoral considerations. Ever-tightening sanctions have won votes in Florida for both Republicans and Democrats. But these sanctions have done nothing to promote change in Cuba, and they have kept American strengths -- diplomacy and contact with American society -- squarely on the sidelines.

Today, Cuba may be on the cusp of change, and we need to take a fresh look. Raul Castro, at age 75, is a committed socialist. He has convicted some pro-democracy activists, released others from jail and continued harassment of dissidents. He has also allowed a debate over past repression to open up in Cuba's cultural sector.

In what reflects smart thinking in our Congress on American diplomatic possibilities, Rangel and Flake call for "a free flow of ideas" that may produce more constructive results than a failed strategy of isolating Cuba. What has happened it seems, in my view, is that we have isolated the U.S. from possibilities with Cuba and have given the emergent troublemaker in Latin America, Hugo Chavez, free reign to try and politically and economically colonize Cuba.

Flake and Rangel argue:

The administration should begin by ending its insistence that it will respond only to Cuba's complete conversion to democracy and free markets. Cubans surely would welcome incremental reforms that improve living standards, not to mention economic and political freedom. The administration's all-or-nothing posture is divorced from the reality on which our approaches to North Korea, China, Vietnam and other communist countries are based. It is a formula for irrelevance.

And Congress should increase American influence by building bridges rather than barriers to Cuba.

The administration has all but cut off individual Americans' contacts with Cuba. People-to-people and academic exchanges, family visits, religious and humanitarian programs, and travel by average Americans are nearly impossible -- if not illegal -- today.

President Bush's theory is that reduced travel cuts Cuba's hard-currency earnings and helps to "hasten the end of the Castro dictatorship." But his intelligence agencies certify that the dictatorship is unbothered: Cuban economic growth was 7.5 percent last year.

We should unite around a principle that Democrats and Republicans have long embraced, a principle that aided the West's success in the Cold War: American openness is a source of strength, not a concession to dictatorships.

It is time to permit free travel to Cuba, as provided in legislation we have introduced. Open travel would create a "free flow of ideas" that "would promote democratization," as dissident Oscar Espinosa Chepe wrote shortly after his release from prison in 2004. It would also bring humanitarian benefits to Cubans as family visits increase and travelers boost Cuba's small but vital entrepreneurial sector.

The timing of this piece is perfect for the launch of the Cuba initiative I have been working on.

Both Flake and Rangel are on strong ground -- articulating smart, sensible, even tough U.S. foreign policy that is driven by our interests. What they suggest for Cuba today is consistent with the economic and people-to-people initiatives that the United States launched in past years with Vietnam, China, Russia, and which we are on the verge of doing with North Korea.

-- Steve Clemons

Beyond the question of what Shaha Riza's compensation was and how she got it -- is what she has been doing and for whom. She was reportedly seconded to the multi-nationally supported "Foundation for the Future," which was really a part of America's public diplomacy game plan.

For those interested, this is a pdf of the "Chair's Summary" from the "Third Forum for the Future" held November 30-December 1, 2006 at Dead Sea, Jordan.

The roster of donors to the Foundation for the Future, launched with $56 million, included a seed grant from the U.S. for $35 million:

United States: $35 million

European Commission: 1 million euros

Spain: $1 million

United Kingdom: $1 million

Switzerland: $1 million

Denmark :$2 million

Netherlands: $1 million

Greece: $1.5 million

Turkey: $500,000

Italy: TBD

Hungary: In kind

Jordan: $1 million

Qatar: $10 million

Bahrain: TBD

But strangely, few seem to know much about the Foundation for the Future at the State Department. To be fair, maybe some do -- but in this interesting exchange between a journalist and State Department Deputy Press Spokesman Tom Casey, it is clear that the Foundation for the Future is not a high priority at State.

Here is the interesting exchange highlighting that no one seems to know how to make a call to the Foundation for the Future -- (does Shaha Riza have an office or phone extension wherever this office may be?):

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you something kind of on the margins of the whole World Bank Shaha Riza matter, and that is that, as you remember, Secretary Rice announced the formation or at least the launch of this Foundation for the Future in, I think, November of 2005.

And at least as far as -- well, it's very hard to find this foundation. You go to their website. They have a website but there's no phone numbers, there's no address. They appear to have not given out any grants.

They haven't set up office, that at least one can find. And considering it was launched with some fanfare at the time, I'm just curious if you could bring us up to speed a little bit as to what this foundation consists of and where you -- where it seems to be going. I don't even -- it's hard to see how much money it is that the U.S. has put into this, for one.

MR. CASEY: Neil, I actually haven't, unfortunately, briefed myself on the latest activities from the Foundation. Look, as you know, this was something that has emerged out of the Forum for the Future process.

t has an international board of directors representing -- with representatives from most of the participating regional countries there as well as an executive directorate. In terms of the amount of money involved at this point and some of the specific grant programs, I'll have to look into it for you. I just don't have that at my fingertips. Sorry.

QUESTION: Are you taking the question?

MR. CASEY: Yes, I'm taking the question.

QUESTION: But is Ms. Shaha a consultant or a fulltime employee of the board? What is her status?

MR. CASEY: My understanding is she is an individual seconded by the World Bank as an advisor to the board of directors of the Foundation for the Future.

QUESTION: But she's not on the board?

MR. CASEY: No.

QUESTION: So her official title is advisor or consultant?

MR. CASEY: My best understanding is advisor to the board, yeah.

QUESTION: So what does she do as the advisor? I mean, does she help advise on grants, or do you know what her job is?

MR. CASEY: I do not have a job description for her, no. Again, I think that's a question you could ask some of the board members.

QUESTION: Do you know where the office is?

MR. CASEY: No, but I don't know where the office is for a number of parts of the State Department offhand, Matt. So I will get you -- I will get you guys more information.

QUESTION: Isn't there an agreement for the office to be based in Beirut?

MR. CASEY: I'd have to check. I honestly don't know the details on the specifics of the foundation.

One question beyond the Wolfowitz-Riza Scandal is how many "consultants" does the Department of State (or other Departments like DoD, DoE, and others) have along these lines?

Remember the odd case of Matthew Freedman working under then Under Secretary of State John Bolton's office? Few knew what he did or what his responsibilities were justifying his six figure consultant's salary -- which he maintained while consulting private firms that had business with the government.

How much of this is happening throughout the government?

-- Steve Clemons

(Ed Note: Thanks to PGS for sending much of this material.)

Here is some material to help those following the Wolfowitz scandal.

First, here is a great article by Emad Mekay and Jim Lobe, "Top Wolfowitz Postings Went to Iraq War Backers."

Here is a fascinating piece on Paul Wolfowitz's family roots and early days at Cornell.

Here is a copy of the "Ad Hoc Group" report -- a rough equivalent to an Inspector General's report -- on the Wolfowitz-Riza scandal. It is interesting to note that the Ethics Committee essentially instructed Wolfowitz to resolve the conflict-of-interest matter himself.

Shaha Riza's comments that she was an unwilling "victim" in the decision to second her out of the World Bank to the U.S. Department of State's operations. (I suppose that in that context, some might understand why her compensation surged and was actually higher than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's. . .well, maybe not.)

Financial Times lead editorial (13 April 2007), "Why Bush Should Let a Damaged Wolfowitz Go"

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

A TWN reader has done a nice job of assembling key email addresses for World Bank officials who may have some influence on whether the corrupt actions of Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of his girlfriend and others justifies his resignation/firing.

For those of you who need a quick primer on Wolfowitz's self-inflicted problems and moral lapses, see Sebastian Mallaby's superb piece today, "The World Bank, Stuck in the Mud." I also wrote on the Kevin Kellems and Robin Cleveland parts of this story long ago here -- and had a reprise yesterday.

I just sent this note of my own to the following addresses -- and you should feel free to as well:

Dear World Bank Official:

I am a writer and public policy practitioner in Washington, DC and blog at www.TPMCafe.com www.HuffingtonPost.com and www.TheWashingtonNote.com.

I have blogged about Paul Wolfowitz's situation here:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002058.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/paul-wolfowitzs-hours-_b_45726.html

I want to express my dismay and regret that he has not had the personal strength to recognize that his nepotism has undermined whatever trust he held from those both within the bank and those outside who care about the Bank's role and function in the developing world.

Wolfowitz's campaign of anti-corruption measures within the bank is now a farce. For him to keep his job sends a signal to those inside the bank and to clients that pushing a deal for a brother, a friend, someone who scratches my back while he scratches theirs is something OK, worth doing at least until getting caught. And even then, no consequences.

Wolfowitz is a smart man. While I don't agree with his foreign policy views, I do know that he has the ability to see that there is no alternative to this situation but resignation. His trying to wrestle against that reality may be evidence of a further corruption -- real and in spirit -- of Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank.

You should play a role in calling for him to resign now.

Sincerely,

Steven Clemons
www.TheWashingtonNote.com

Here are the World Bank email addresses:

feedback@worldbank.org; dtheis@worldbank.org; cmuller@worldbank.org; hbridi@worldbank.org; osiemens@ifc.org; Jingram@worldbank.org; Yyoshimura1@worldbank.org; nmohammed@worldbank.org; Yduvivier@worldbank.org; Dvarela@worldbank.org; Acraig@worldbank.org; Schitale@worldbank.org; Rreinikka@worldbank.org; Jowen@worldbank.org; Achuecamora@worldbank.org; Avantrotsenburg@worldbank.org; Rrobinson@worldbank.org; Xzhu1@worldbank.org; Fbelhaj@worldbank.org; Cwallich@worldbank.org; Kgeorgieva@worldbank.org; Fkaps@worldbank.org; Dgaye@worldbank.org; Cluff@worldbank.org; Lgiovine@worldbank.org; Dreinermann@worldbank.org; Cbruce@worldbank.org; Jbriscoe@worldbank.org; Vturbat@worldbank.org; Nagrawal@worldbank.org; Orazzaz@worldbank.org; mrepnik@worldbank.org; DDollar@worldbank.org; mlopez@worldbank.org; Jhappi@worldbank.org; Mibrahima@worlbank.org; Mdia@worldbank.org; Aseth1@worldbank.org; Mkarlsson@worldbank.org; Embi@worldbank.org; Aalmansi@worldbank.org; Mgbetibouo@worldbank.org; Zbadr@worldbank.org; Idiwan@worldbank.org; Afaiz@worldbank.org

But the single most important address you can write to is Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt -- a very good guy in my view -- but he holds many of the cards on whether Wolfowitz goes or stays:

Robert.Kimmitt@do.treas.gov

Be respectful. Kimmitt is first class and won't be thrilled with the calls for action from the public -- but he needs to hear from people about this.

While Bob Kimmitt is a moderate Republican and his brother, Mark Kimmitt, an accomplished General, his father -- J. Stanley Kimmitt was a powerful Democrat in the country and was Secretary of the Senate. Bill Clinton in his youth met Stan Kimmitt and encouraged Clinton's aspirations and career.

Years later, Stan Kimmitt did the same for me in a several hours long chat at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles when I had helped organize a meeting with former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield.

Members of the Kimmitt clan are deeply embedded with a code of dedicated public service -- and my hunch is that Wolfowitz's conduct violates every fiber of what "a Kimmitt" believes a public servant should represent.

-- Steve Clemons

Paul Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank may end in the next day or two. Rumors are spreading like wild fire at the Bank that he plans to resign tomorrow.

I have no official information confirming this -- other than that several senior staff in two specific Executive Directorships at the World Bank and some other senior staff at the IMF and other staff are reporting to me that Wolfowitz's resignation is imminent. I'm not sure, however, that there views are not collective speculation.

Paul Wolfowitz has now admitted to helping his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, get positions outside the Bank, including "seconding" her to the US State Department that have helped up her salary to levels that clearly violate World Bank rules (i.e. nearly double her salary).

This is the kind of personnel nepotism and corruption that Wolfowitz has stated he is trying to wipe out at the Bank and in the client governments of the Bank. An anti-corruption campaign has been one of the only distinctive and memorable aspects of Wolfowitz's tenure so far as president of the international financial institution -- and now his own personal behavior belies what was his self-declared moral campaign against others' corruption both inside the bank and in client country governments.

Wolfowitz also ran afoul of senior bank staff in the past by elevating inappropriately Bush administration political appointee Kevin Kellems, who used to be Vice President Cheney's spokesman, in ways that violated the merit-based rules that had been adopted at the World Bank.

Wolfowitz also hired Mitch McConnell national security aide Robin Cleveland to help spearhead an internal anti-corruption campaign at the Bank when there was speculation about her own role in trying to trade favorable treatment in the Boeing Air Tanker matter in exchange for potential employment opportunities for her brother. Cleveland resigned the Senate and escaped further scrutiny for her involvement in the Boeing scandal, but her Wolfowitz-assigned task bore some irony then -- and is even more ironic now.

One other tidbit about Wolfowitz that I have confirmed is less dramatic than securing his girlfriend a nearly $200,000 salary -- but still quite fascinating.

I now know from a second source -- as my first would only discuss this matter firmly off the record -- that Wolfowitz and Kevin Kellems had dinner at the Aquarelle Restaurant at the Watergate Hotel last year with a very prominent member of Washington's journalistic community.

The journalist in question had not met Wolfowitz previously and Kellems played a "relationship-brokering" role. What is interesting about this particular meeting -- as far as I understand the details of it -- is that the journalist in question, who I cannot name but can attest for his solid reputation as a serious writer, assumed that the topic of discussion at dinner would be Wolfowitz's global economic development agenda, his view of how to make the World Bank relevant to 21st century security and economic challenges, and so on.

Instead, Wolfowitz -- as recently as one year ago -- was still manically obsessed with the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Wolfowitz reportedly brought with him to dinner an enormous binder of materials, articles, essays, reports, intelligence, etc. -- arguing that the connection between Hussein and bin Laden's operation was real and robust.

I can't report on the journalist's reaction to the dinner -- other than to say he was "surprised."

If Wolfowitz has been spending time hiring people like Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems -- as well as pushing the career of his girl friend "illegally" -- and obsessing about validating his bad decisions in the build-up to the Iraq War, then he has not been attentive to his real and fundamental responsibilites at the World Bank.

If all the rumors about his resignation tomorrow are untrue, Paul Wolfowitz should make them true as soon as possible.

-- Steve Clemons

Joe Biden has an important oped today, "The Real Surge Story," that really goes after Senator John McCain's continued embrace of military deployments in Iraq.

From Biden's piece:

If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:

We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.

We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.

We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.

Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.

Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.

I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.

Biden's assessment is quite bleak but realistic.

But what is really odd about John McCain's position is that he used to believe that a post-invasion deployment force needed to be around the 300,000 troop level that General Shinseki suggested. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who opposes what he has called an "colonial crusade in a post-colonial world", said that an occupation deployment of more than 500,000 troops could have some impact on the current situation -- just to take the counter-point for a moment.

McCain is spending his political capital endorsing a minor surge in troop levels and endorsing sleight-of-hand incremental changes in the duration of deployment terms. He's staking his political future on a level of US force in Iraq -- even if you agreed with his general position -- that he never believed was enough to begin with.

-- Steve Clemons

It may be a little late, but Tom Lantos is weighing in on Congressional fact-finding trips - and he's not pulling any punches. I think he gets it just right:

San Mateo, CA - In response to the White House's comments that it would be "unproductive and unhelpful" for members of Congress to visit Iran, Chairman Tom Lantos of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs issued this statement today:

"Members of Congress are not simply potted plants, though the White House apparently would like them to be. Congress plays an important role in determining policy and providing funding for America's international policies. It is important for us to get first-hand information on these critical issues facing our nation, because as we have unfortunately seen, we cannot rely on the Administration to give us accurate and untainted information."

-- Scott Paul

My significant other is a teacher and is not involved in policy work. As a concerned citizen, she bought a Save Darfur t-shirt and wears it occasionally. One night last month, she wore her shirt out to a gathering of my friends, most of whom work in political and environmental nonprofits and businesses.

A couple of these friends had a strange reaction: they giggled, as if to say "oh, Save Darfur? I didn't get the memo." This reaction wasn't intended maliciously, but it illustrates how big an issue Darfur has become and how "trendy" it seems in some quarters, especially among people who work on very un-sexy issues.

Personally, I couldn't be happier that this humanitarian crisis has generated such broad concern. Since it was labeled the first genocide of the 21st century, the situation in Darfur has united people across the political spectrum. I'm very pleased that the Save Darfur Coalition, of which my organization is an Executive Committee member, has succeeded so greatly in branding the issue. The word "Darfur" immediately gets the attention of Members of Congress and arouses much sympathy and passion in citizens across the country. Plus, Americans of all political stripes agree on the basic solution: stop the atrocities and hold the perpetrators accountable.

The downside to this branding is that it can be misleading. After all, a good part of the "Darfur" violence isn't taking place in Darfur anymore. It's happening in Eastern Chad.

Chad is now home to hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons and Sudanese refugees. And a quick glance at the Darfur/Chad web site for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees makes it abundantly clear that Chad is the focal point of humanitarian work right now in the region.

Yesterday, it was reported that Janjaweed militias massacred approximately 400 people in Chad on March 31. To call for intervention in Sudan without mentioning Chad or the Central African Republic, where violence is also picking up, is to commit a grievous sin of omission.

Please, if you own Save Darfur paraphernalia , keep wearing it! But if you do, or if you see it on someone else, know this: the "Darfur atrocities" aren't just about Darfur anymore.

-- Scott Paul

If one wants to make the comparison even more striking, current spending on all "international programs" - that is, all U.S. non-military engagement with the world, accounts for 1.2% of the federal budget. That includes humanitarian relief, diplomacy, international organization funding, poverty and disease programs, U.N. peacekeeping, and a number of other critical international initiatives.

House and Senate conferees are meeting this month to figure out if even that paltry number can be agreed to or if it will be cut by about $1 billion. The Senate conferees have the better, higher number, thanks to the leadership of Sens. Dodd and Smith.

There's nothing sexy about this battle, but its moral, economic, and national security imperatives couldn't be more clear.

-- Scott Paul

John Bolton has another zinger oped today in the Financial Times offering withering criticism of Tony Blair and the British government for actions in the recent soldier detention case that Bolton argues only embolden Iran's hard-liners.

Ambassador Bolton is brimming lately with hard criticism of the Brits, the Europeans, and even the American government. I've been looking but I haven't found anything "complimentary" the guy has said about his former employers or any of America's key allies since he resigned his unconfirmed perch as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Ambassador Bolton has lost little time in grilling the presidency of George W. Bush, pretty much all parts of it except the Vice President's office. Not too long ago, White House spokesman Tony Snow publicly spanked Bolton for his criticism of President Bush after American progress in managing the North Korea nuclear challenge. Snow specifically addressed Bolton and said:

I would like to remind Ambassador Bolton that the President he served believes the North Korea deal is a good deal and is in America's interests.

Snow made the comment with some vigor -- emphasing the words "he served" to make the implied point of "disloyalty."

One of the things that has to be noted is how vigorously the Bush White House worked to secure John Bolton's confirmation as Ambassador in the Senate; Rove & Co. worked this hard and made three huge pushes to get him confirmed. The positive commentary that Bush and his team manufactured about John Bolton was impressive.

Contrast this with the testy, usually arm's length distance that the White House treated Secretary of State Colin Powell, who worked hard in my view to further the country's basic diplomatic interests.

Today, Powell won't say a negative word about President Bush -- and he will only make nuanced criticisms of America's current foreign and defense policies. In January 2009, I believe Powell will finally come out of the closet on his real views -- or start to. Later than I would prefer -- but it will be important to get Secretary Powell's views on the record.

But Bolton demonstrates none of the courtesy offered by Powell to Bush. I really wish that Colin Powell could be a bit more like Bolton in tactics -- and Bolton a lot more like Powell in substance.

But three quick points about John Bolton's rant against the Brits today for all that may have been done to get the 15 British soldiers released.

First, Bolton keeps referring to Iran's nuclear efforts as a "nuclear weapons program" as if this is fact. Iran presently has no such nuclear weapons capacity and has a nuclear 'energy' program still in early stages (including today's announcement). Bolton's framing seriously distorts the empirical reality. This program may eventually evolve into a nuclear weapons program -- and I believe that there are key parts of the Iranian political world that want such weapons capacity -- but it is not a nuclear weapons program today. Without qualifying it, Bolton is fear-mongering and committing serious overstatement.

This style is reminiscent of Bolton's claims about bioweapons production in Cuba and his bullying State Department and CIA intelligence analysts to generate intel reports that conformed to his diagnosis of Iraq WMD activities.

Second, Bolton does not mention at all -- not one word -- about the unanimous UN Security Council resolution that UnderSecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns and Acting US Ambassador to the United Nations Alejandro Wolff successfully secured because of Iran's failure to suspend enrichment activities. Where is this action in Bolton's formulation that Iran's hardliners have been "rewarded."

Third, Bolton does not offer his own alternative on what the content of engagement with Iran should be, although I believe if asked, the Ambassador would offer something that sounded like hard-edged, military brinksmanship that moved a notch closer to delivering forced regime change and thorough bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities (which must include killing Iran's American and European trained nuclear engineering talent).

And there is little reflection by the Ambassador -- actually none that I know of -- on the sorry state of America's military capacity today and the current limits on our ability to manage yet another war and its aftermath. The Ambassador and many of his allies helped lead the nation into its current war without calculating the likelihood of long term success and the costs to American interests and prestige. And before remedying our current mess, Bolton would like to double up the bet and venture into yet another poorly considered set of risks.

John Bolton will remain a key participant in the debates about America's engagement with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and others. But he needs to be held accountable for his message as well. He is a diplomat who believes in talking only to friends -- and many of those friends he thinks hardly deserve our time. And for the most part, he thinks we ought to be bombing our rivals and those with whom we have clear and complicated national security challenges.

Bolton's binary world is a scary one. It's either appeasement or war -- when American history shows that in most cases, there are great numbers of other solutions and possible courses of action to secure our interests.

Pugnaciousness of Bolton's sort can sometimes be useful diplomatically when mixed with other strategies and tactics -- but pugnaciousness for it's own sake and at all times can be very dangerous and at minimum is ineffective, predictable and gets stale.

--Steve Clemons

This is just a personal note that one of the people who helped launch me professionally passed away in late March, and his obituary appeared recently in the Los Angeles Times.

G. Bruce Baker -- who was a key architect of Citibank's operations in Asia -- was also one of the people who hired me at 23 years old to serve as Executive Director of the Japan America Society of Southern California.

Baker was on my board of directors for the seven years I served in that job -- and he taught me much about strategy, about professional temperament, standing my ground -- and knowing when to lose small professional battles to win a war. He was a rough guy but kind, and the New England drawl that had been Californianized made his words aesthetically memorable -- though the substance of what he was saying needed no gloss. I spent many Thanksgiving dinners at his home in Pasadena -- just near the Rose Bowl.

I owe Bruce Baker a lot -- as well as others who nurtured my deep interest in policy entrepreneurship and activism.

-- Steve Clemons

To a certain degree, the realities in Iran today were shaped by America's misguided, interventionist regime change success there in helping to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and installing Shah Reza Pahlavi.

What will the blowback from Iraq look like in the future? A new report from the Congressional Research Service gives us some idea of the depths of despair that many in Iraq are experiencing.

From Secrecy News, a project of the Federation of American Scientists:

"The humanitarian crisis many feared would take place in March 2003 as a result of the war in Iraq appears to be unfolding," says a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.

"It is estimated that in total (including those displaced prior to the war) there may be two million Iraqi refugees who have fled to Jordan, Syria, and other neighboring states, and approximately two million Iraqis who have been displaced within Iraq itself." See "Iraqi Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: A Deepening Humanitarian Crisis?," (pdf) March 23, 2007.

Another Congressional Research Service report provides a detailed examination of the pending defense supplemental appropriations bills, which include congressional direction on redeployment or withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. See "FY2007 Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, Foreign Affairs, and Other Purposes" (pdf), updated March 28, 2007.

We will be paying compounding costs for Iraq a long time.

It's too bad we can't figure out a way to make President Bush and his Rasputinesque Vice President Dick Cheney bear the burden and consequences of this for all time.

The fact is that others will have to clean up this terrible situation, and all of us will pay for it.

-- Steve Clemons

Today, the United States is the greatest contributor of carbon to the atmosphere. China is neck and neck with America. The U.S. is still the richest nation, tremendous resources -- but it's the poor and much of the developing world that are going to pay for America's eco-unfriendly consumption gluttony, according to a new UN report.

One of the authors of the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has some advice for mankind:

"Don't be poor in a hot country, don't live in hurricane alley, watch out about being on the coasts or in the Arctic, and it's a bad idea to be on high mountains with glaciers melting," said Schneider, the Stanford scientist who was one of the study authors.

Very grim. We need to get a handle on this, but I don't have confidence that we will until something systemically horrible happens -- like the loss of all polar bears, or bumblebees, or frogs. Until we think that mankind could actually be severely impacted, the rich will keep exploiting the low-costs of a carbon dependent energy world.

-- Steve Clemons

My significant other is brilliant, and so is Air America superstar political commentator Sam Seder's.

His is Nicole Cattell, an important documentary filmmaker whose REVOLUC!ON airs this next Tuesday night at 10 pm EST on New York's Thirteen-WNET.

The film focuses on the personal stories of five Cuban photographers -- on both sides of the political divide -- "whose lives and work span nearly five decades of revolution in Cuba."

Here is a snippet of a Q&A with Cattell that is worth reading in full:

What led you to make REVOLUC!ON: Five Visions?

I saw some photographs of Che Guevara that so perfectly captured the dream of the Cuban revolution that I was instantly captivated by them. I started to look into meeting the photographer. This is what led me to Raúl Corrales.

Then I started to get more interested in trying to find out what became of that dream so beautifully defined in a photo. So, it made sense to me to look at this question through photography, and that is how the film became about five photographers whose work spans nearly five decades of revolution in Cuba.

What did you want to achieve with your film?

I wanted to offer a multifaceted perspective of the Cuban revolution and explore the intersection of art and revolution. I have always been interested in not only how artists respond to and describe their social circumstances, but also in how they can participate in transforming them.

I wondered how artists participated in a society that was undergoing radical transformation or revolution. Initially, the film was just going to be about the photographers who were hired by Castro to document the revolution. The story became more complex when I realized that the revolution was not just one moment in time in Cuba, but that technically, the revolution is still happening on the island.

So it made sense to work with artists whose work spans that entire period. And it allowed me to discover the changing and varied perspectives on revolution.

I didn't ask Sam's permission to post this note from him to me -- and hope it's OK -- but it adds to the drama of this film and how it was made:

I think it was folks in the Ministry of Culture who tipped us off that Cuban counter intelligence was following us while we were making the film. Ultimately it was fine but i was freaking about losing the footage.

Intriguing. Sam Seder and his wife shot this film in Cuba in 2002 -- and it sounds like there were evident parts of a security apparatus in plain view.

But when I was in Cuba recently, this just wasn't all that evident -- except around venues like the US Interests Section (the equivalent of the US Embassy). I looked hard for people watching, following, monitoring -- and as a runner who ran several times through hefty chunks of Havana-- and who met numerous people without supervision, clearance, or approval -- I just had a different experience than Sam.

But this film should be interesting for Cuba interested folks as well as artists.

Now about Sam Seder -- who has been the long term host of both Air America's Majority Report and then the Sam Seder Show. His gig on Air America ends this very week, today (I think) -- although he will do a Sunday show now from time to time. (Actually, Sam Seder's show concludes next Friday, Friday the 13th.)

I want to thank him on behalf of liberals, progressives, and radical centrists like me -- and even conservatives who really do depend on the sanity of people like Sam to make the world safe for a little political eccentricity -- for outstanding, humorous, penetrating, and policy-sculpting commentary and interviews these last couple of years.

I have been one of many who have benefited from semi-regular exchanges with Sam on his show and consider him one of the best out there in progressive radio.

So, watch Nicole Cattell's film next Tuesday -- but say a toast to Sam Seder tonight.

-- Steve Clemons

I have come by a letter from former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General Jim Jones and frustrated conceptualizer of the military's "shock and awe" strategy Harlan Ullman to the editor of the Washington Post that has not yet been published -- but which probably will be in several days.

Ullman, a close associate of Colin Powell for many years, conceived "shock and awe" -- and watched the combined civilian and military leadership misapply this doctrine during the invasion of Iraq. For some time, Ullman has been a regular, passionate critic of the Bush administration's incompetent management of America's national security portfolio.

This letter from Jones and Ullman responds to a column by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post last week.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

from James L. Jones and Harlan Ullman

April 4th, 2007

Writing in last Friday's Post, Charles Krauthammer summoned the proverbial "man from Mars" to make the case that Iraq, not Afghanistan, was the central front in the war on terror. Krauthammer argued that while Afghanistan was a "totally just war," Iraq was strategically the more important.

Krauthammer's argument however is myopic. One reason is his failure even to mention NATO. For the first time in its history, NATO is engaged in a ground war, not against a massive Soviet attack across the northern plains of Germany or in Iraq against insurgents and al Qaeda, but in Afghanistan. In committing the alliance to sustained ground combat operations in Afghanistan (unlike Kosovo in 1999), NATO has bet its future. If NATO fails, alliance cohesion will be at grave risk. A moribund or unraveled NATO will have profoundly negative geostrategic impact.

Defeat in Iraq or Afghanistan obviously will have dire consequences. In both places, political not military solutions will bring success. As we have argued before, where we are losing in Afghanistan is in the battle to create a fair and just legal and judicial system; overcome rampant corruption; build a police force; control the drug production epidemic; and bring jobs and employment opportunities to the Afghan people.

Whether any well-meaning Martian would choose Iraq as the more important war or not is unimportant. What is important is that to prevail in Afghanistan, more than military force is needed. Until Washington, Brussels and Kabul address these glaring deficiencies, as in Iraq, the outcome will be too close to call.

For the past four years, General James Jones, USMC (Ret) served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe overseeing Afghanistan. During that period, Harlan Ullman, senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served on General Jones' advisory group.

A lot of folks are not acknowledging the serious structural damage to major institutions like NATO from America's crusade in Iraq and the festering problems in Afghanistan. Ullman and General Jones suggest that there is serious structual fatigue that can't bear the weight of further bad decisions and incompetence.

And yet Cheney keeps singing the same delusional tunes.

-- Steve Clemons

(Former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE))

Former State Department Chief of Staff and 16-year personal assistant to General and Secretary of State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, and I will be reflecting on our recent trip to Havana.

Many, including us, believe that it is time to have a broader discussion about the current and future contours of the US-Cuba "encounter." The public is invited to this meeting, but RSVPs are essential and can be sent to me at steve@thewashingtonnote.com.

I will get your name added to the list -- whether you agree with the need to have this debate or are vigorously committed to keeping things as they have been.

The reason for this meeting which will take place on April 18th from 12:15 to 1:45 at the offices of the New America Foundation (1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 7th Floor) is to report on our trip -- which we are legally required to do -- and to announce the launch of a 21st Century US-Cuba Policy Initiative based at the New America Foundation's American Strategy Program.

I hope some TWN readers can join us -- as I think that there are many important parallels between America's troubling policy towards Cuba as towards some countries in the Middle East. Time to review all of this i believe.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: I just came by this interesting and provocative Minnesota Daily piece, "Castroika: Cuba Continues its Castro Legacy," by Patrick Mendis, a friend, on a national book tour now. Add to the reading pile.

David Ignatius has made one of the only constructive suggestions I have seen regarding iran's seizure of 15 British sailors -- the establishment of a naval hotline modeled on the US-Soviet sea conflict resolution framework.

We used to spend a lot of money and effort trying to minimize miscommunication, accidents, escalation in great power conflicts.

Today, it often appears that violent or hawkish political minorities seem to exploit vulnerable decisionmaking systems as well as manipulate ambiguity to provoke attacks on various targets -- teasing the impulses of rage and emotion that tend towards over-amplification of threats, disproportionate military responses, nationalistic chest-thumping and saber-rattling,

It's almost as if decision-makers today resent infrastructure that would decrease error because of their desire to trip and fumble into war. Right Mr. Feith?

-- Steve Clemons

Mid-day yesterday, House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos sent out an editorial to the Washington Post's Editorial Board blasting the Post's critique of Nancy Pelosi's Syria trip and the content of her comments to President Assad.

I concur with Lantos and am impressed that he is actively (and finally?) promoting dialogue and negotiations with Syria -- a key tenet of the Iraq Study Group's New Diplomatic Offensive proposal.

The editorial comment from Representative Lantos reads:

The Washington Post

Editors:

Today, the Washington Post Editorial Board published an unwarranted broadside against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bipartisan delegation to the Middle East. As a part of that delegation and a participant in its every meeting, I would like to set the record straight.

The editorial is based mainly on a misreading of a statement issued by the Israeli Prime Minister's office. That statement said that a message Speaker Pelosi conveyed to Syrian President Assad -- at Prime Minister Olmert's request -- did not indicate a change in Israel's position toward Syria. True enough. In fact, the Speaker neither said nor implied that the message was a change in Israel's position. But even more to the point, the Speaker told Assad that Syria must end its support for terrorists, including Hamas and Hezbollah, if it wants peace talks with Israel.

Speaker Pelosi has no illusions about the nature of the regime in Damascus. She delivered tough messages to Assad regarding Iraq, Lebanon, and the Hariri assassination tribunal.

As the Speaker said during her visit, she supports the Administration's policy goals in Syria, so the Post's claim about a "shadow Presidency" is absurd. But she also agrees with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report's conclusion that constructive dialogue is a critical means of addressing our concerns with Damascus.

The Administration's approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence. Five Republican congressmen have visited Assad this week. Based on the traffic to Syria, a growing number of Republicans and Democrats share the Speaker's misgivings about the White House's ineffectiveness in the region.

Tom Lantos, Chairman
House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Lantos is no apologist for Syria -- but a declaration of support for a new and different track of engagement from Tom Lantos can be considered important progress.

Pelosi was right to go to Syria.

With her actions, Nancy Pelosi may be reminding the White House that "Congress as a full and equal branch of government," as Joe Biden often says, matters.

-- Steve Clemons

I've been struggling to figure out what just happened with the detainment and now release of 15 British troops taken in Iraqi waters by Iranian military forces. What did all of this mean? Who are the winners and losers?

There's a ton of thoughtful analysis out there -- so I'm not going to try and capture all that here. I do think that this piece, "What the End of the Hostage Crisis Means for the World" by Angus McDowall and Anne Penketh is superb in the roster of key questions posed.

There are a number or Iran's political elites who occasionally read this blog -- so let me offer a message that I hope is taken seriously. Iran's recent erratic behavior is undermining its interests and leading many to believe that the state is too fragmented to deal with.

Six months ago, there were many in the world who took Iran's stated claims of a fervent desire for domestic nuclear energy for civilian and peaceful purposes seriously. After all, the U.S. has been chanting "regime change" for many years and has been part of the DNA of other regime change realities in Iran's past. Paranoia is understandable.

But the fact is that there were many who believed that at some key level Iran was a rational regional player wanting more influence in the Middle East and respect globally. Iran was "winning" a public relations game with the U.S. then -- and had nearly divided America from two other key global powers, China and Russia, over what to do about Iran.

Realists -- even those who didn't buy Iran's peaceful nuclear use arguments -- also believed that there was room to negotiate and work to establish a new equilibrium of interests between the US, Iran, Europe, and other key stakeholders in the region and world.

But all of this depended on an effort to start some 'confidence building process'. That had a chance of happening in the regional meeting that took place in Baghdad in March. Both the US and Iran participated. So did Syria.

And while Iran has not liked the uniform pressure that is being directed at it through the UN Security Council, there is no avoiding the unanimity of the recent Security Council vote against Iran's current position on nuclear enrichment.

Thus, Iran has moved from being 'perceived' by some as having had the moral high ground against a convulsive and unpredictable U.S. -- now the tables have turned.

Iran now looks unpredictable, dangerous (though some will correctly argue that Iran has always been dangerous), and irrational. To be trusted by the world with nuclear enrichment capacity of any kind, rationality, trust, and dependable and predictable behavior must be part of the equation.

The detainment of these soldiers was odd -- because it violated every single principle of trust-building and has resulted in building further skepticism of Iran's real intentions.

I'm of the school -- though only speculating -- that the Supreme Leader did not authorize the capture of the British military unit. But there are others who tell me that there is no way that such an action would take place without the Supreme Leader's full support and approval. At this point, many tell me we will never know whether there was a gap or not between Iran's chief Ayatollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that took this action.

If a gap were acknowledged, such information could destabilize Iran on many levels. I think that there was a gap. The more I learn about Iran's power structures and political contours, the more I believe that the arrest of the British soldiers was designed to warn the Supreme Leader Khamenei and other political nodes in Iran that the Revolutionary Guard cannot be pushed, constrained, mismanaged, embarrassed, or forced to accept an acquiescent position on its own nuclear pretensions.

I think that the Revolutionary Guard took action first to warn other parts of Iran's political order that it could provoke war whenever it wanted. I think too that the Revolutionary Guard was probably not instructed by Khamenei to conduct the arrest of these soldiers -- though I respect those who see this differently. It's simply too irrational a move for the Supreme Leader to have taken.

And ironically, as this excellent piece, "Jihadists on the US-Iran Standoff," by Daniel Kimmage explores, Iran's release of the British soldiers may only further an already evident distance between the regime and the revolutionary and radical jihadist force active in the region.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard gambled, in my view, in its arrest of the Brits and may have won despite Iran as a state losing. Iran lost by convincing even its friends that it is a state that may not be in control of all it's own pieces, particularly a vital part of its military force. It also lost by putting itself in a position where jihadists view the Iranian leadership as appeasers of British and American power in the region.

But the IRG has everyone on edge, fearful of what it could trigger. And while the Guard has significant business interests in, around, and beyond Iraq -- and war would be detrimental to its income -- in a domestic political context, the more likely war is -- accidental or purposeful -- the stronger the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's hand inside Iraq becomes.

-- Steve Clemons

33 days from now will be the 12th anniversary of a short speech on US-Cuba policy that Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) gave on the floor of the United States Senate.

He charged then President Bill Clinton with keeping US-Cuba policy a "captive of Cold war mentality." Bingaman, then, said times had changed and America needed a new policy course -- particularly in travel and humanitarian measures designed to promote intra-family contact between Cuban and Cuban-American families. That was more than a decade ago. Times have changed even more now.

Senator Bingaman's speech is worth reading in full, just to get a quick snap-shot of how little US-Cuban policy realities have changed:

SENATOR JEFF BINGAMAN -- 8 MAY 1995

Mr. President, I first want to say a few words about our policy toward a neighboring country, Cuba .

The United States objectives in Cuba are not in dispute. Our primary objective is to move Cuba to a more democratic form of government and to a government with a greater respect for human rights. Also, of course, we want to see the lives of the Cuban people improve economically, and we want to see our historically close ties with this island neighbor restored.

First, let us review some of the facts that led us to the present circumstances we find ourselves in. Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba some 34 years ago, when I was still in high school and before several Members of this Congress were even born. He quickly established an authoritarian and anti-United States regime. He declared himself a Marxist-Leninist in December 1961. Early in 1961, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Cuba .

A year later, in February 1962, we imposed a comprehensive trade embargo. The reasons cited for that were three.

First, Castro's expropriation without compensation, much property owned by U.S. citizens, in excess of $1 billion.

Second, the Castro regime's obvious efforts to export revolution to other parts of the world.

And , third, the increasingly close ties that existed then between Castro's Government and the Soviet Union.

That was 33 years ago. During the past 33 years, we have maintained the trade embargo in place. In April 1961, we tried unsuccessfully in the Bay of Pigs to have Castro overthrown militarily. We began in 1985 to use Radio Marti to undermine Cuban support for Fidel Castro, and in the Bush administration just a few years ago we added TV Marti to the mix, as well.

In 1992, we passed the Cuban Democracy Act in an effort to tighten our trade sanctions. This year, we are being urged by some in this body to pass a new and tough measure entitled 'The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act' in order to give Castro what the supporters of that legislation refer to as the 'final push.'

With all due respect to President Clinton and to many here in Congress, our policy toward Cuba today is still captive of the cold war mentality that created it in the first place. Simply put, the world has changed, and we continue to pretend otherwise.

Mr. President, this is 1995. Our 34-year-old policy of trying to remove or alter the behavior of Fidel Castro by isolating him diplomatically, politically, and economically has failed. History has passed that policy by. And the cold war, which provided much of the rationale for our policy, is now over.

We have normalized relations with China -- Communist China, I point out. We have normalized relations with the countries of Eastern Europe and Russia, and with all the former States of the Soviet Union.

This morning, President Clinton goes to Moscow to meet with Boris Yeltsin, not to find ways to isolate Moscow or to impose sanctions on Moscow for their human rights abuses in Chechnya or elsewhere; our President travels to Moscow to strengthen our relations with that important country.

Mr. President, U.S. policy toward Cuba needs to adjust to this new reality, just as our policy toward those other nations has adjusted. For over three decades, we have tried to exclude Cuba from acceptance by other nations. But our policy of trying to isolate Cuba diplomatically has made the United States the odd man out in the world community rather than Cuba . Of the 35-member nations of the Organization of American States, all but 5 recognize the Cuban Government and have normal diplomatic relations with it.

The Senator from North Carolina, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argues that the way out of this absurd situation is to turn up the pressure on Castro. As he says, 'It is time to give Castro the final push.'

Mr. President, the sanctions and the embargoes and the pressure that we put on Castro in the past 34 years have not undermined the support of the Cuban people for his Government as we have wished. In fact, a strong case can be made that the constant menacing by Uncle Sam has been used very effectively by Castro to divert the attention of the Cuban people from the shortcomings of his own Government and his own policies.

Mr. President, this administration has been slow to face the need to change in our policy toward Cuba . But last week, we hopefully saw the beginning of a more rational policy toward that nation. Last week, the administration announced that in the future, illegal immigrants from Cuba will be treated as other illegal immigrants into this country, and I for one hope that more steps will follow.

For example, as I stated here in the Senate several weeks ago, I believe the President should act to end the travel ban on Americans who wish to travel to Cuba . The President should also restore the right of Cuban-Americans to make small remittances to their families and to their relatives in Cuba . In my view, the time has also come when we should begin to normalize trade relations with that country.

Mr. President, I realize that it is politically difficult to change a long-established policy. It is especially difficult given the political posturing that is preceding our upcoming Presidential election. But the time has come to acknowledge that our current policy toward Cuba has failed miserably. Newt Gingrich referred yesterday to Cuba as 'a relic of an age that is gone.' I agree that Castro's Government is an anachronism. But it is no more so than our own misguided policy for dealing with that country.

Most agree that President Nixon's greatest achievement was his decision to change United States foreign policy and move toward normal relations with Communist China. That was many years ago, when the cold war was still very much with us. Now the cold war is over, and a new and a reasonable policy for our relations with Cuba is long overdue.

I for one believe that the responsible course for us to proceed with is to establish a new policy now.

After reading this passage again, there is one enormously glaring difference between today's Cuba and the concerns about Cuba then -- and in the decades preceding Senator Bingaman's comment.

Cuba used to export soldiers, weapons, and the ideology if not entirely the reality of Fidel and Che style revolution.

Today, Cuba exports doctors. More on that another time -- but just as a quick aside, Cuba has exported tens of thousands of doctors to some of the poorest and most remote parts of Latin America as well as other parts of the world. Cuba actually maintains a highly successful bartering arrangement of doctors for oil with Venezuela. This is clearly a page out of the 'spirit' of the John F. Kennedy initiated Peace Corps. (For other dimensions of Cuba's international medical "public diplomacy", a great resource is MEDICC.)

President Bush, in contrast, offered during his recent trip through Latin America to those in medical need some treatment on the USNS Comfort, an American warship outfitted to provide medical support at "ports" that the ill would need to travel to.

Specifically, the USNS Comfort will make port calls in Belize, Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana, and Suriname. President Bush's offer is a somewhat commendable, first step -- but in contrast, Cuban doctors are deployed in small villages and remote mountain regions. They are embedded in countries much like Peace Corps staff are. But American style relief comes on a war ship with the needy making their way to us, not us doing more to reach them.

While too much of American foreign policy has become over-militarized, Cuba's, quite remarkably, has become more humanized and more reflective of the hard gains that can come from Joe Nye's notion of "soft power."

-- Steve Clemons

This is a pre-announcement of a blog in the making, The Havana Note -- which is not up yet but will be before long. It won't be fancy -- at least not on the front end of it's life -- but it will become a new resource for those interested in yet another dimension of US foreign policy as well as evolving political realities in Cuba.

The Havana Note will be a cluster blog designed to focus on various corners of the cultural, political, military and economic dimensions of the US-Cuba arena. The US-Cuba playing field has one big dividing line down the middle making it nearly oxymoronic to talk about "US-Cuba relations" -- except as a relationship defined mostly by two parties closely related historically, culturally, and geographically that nonetheless have Cold War-fashioned anachronistic rules of tense, "standoff-ish" engagement with each other.

An interesting fact about the current Treasury Department OFAC license restrictions for those academics, researchers and journalists who travel to Cuba is a requirement to disseminate information and perspectives learned while there.

This new blog will be part of this dissemination responsibility, but evolving is much more. The Havana Note content will be regularly linked in to TWN material.

I absorbed much in my excursion to Havana which I undertook with former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson and two other close associates. But my impressions that I had originally thought I'd offer in one long sprawling "note" can't be cobbled together and thinned out in just one major or even a few posts. Thus, US-Cuba policy along with the current general themes of American international engagement and inside the beltway politics will become a more prominent subject of focus for TWN.

In addition, the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program -- which I direct -- is in the process of launching a new US-Cuba Policy Initiative as well that will host a set of major conferences and speaker forums addressing the current state of US-Cuba policy and whether circumstances justify substantial revision of America's approach to the eleven million person island nation.

One of the many highlights of my first Havana journey was a long meeting with the Rockabilly-esque novelist and artist, Abel Prieto, who is Cuba's Minister of Culture. I'm trying now to get access to his acclaimed book, The Flight of the Cat, which according to reviews is written metaphorically about Cuba's political scene.

Prieto said a number of fascinating things to our small group, particularly after my question of whether he, as Minister of Culture, and Fidel Castro's government in general viewed the arts and humanities in any similar ways as former Senator Jesse Helms did.

While most in the Cuba sphere remember Helms as one of the primary co-architects of the relationship-waterboarding Helms-Burton Act, Helms was also the primary anti-arts social conservative in the Senate who went to war against the National Endowment for the Humanities and National Endowment for the Arts.

Prieto convinced me that -- from a state perspective -- there was not only a tolerance for heterodoxy in the arts but enthusiasm for it. I imagine that a public, multi-media exhibition questioning the social and political consequences of Fidel-style revolution might not have been what Minister Prieto had in mind, but he did say:

The biggest "censor" in the art world is the market, and the impact of America's marketplace on global arts is both tremendously helpful to some arts but also harmful to the broad array of creative expression that doesn't find the financing or marketplace to sustain an artist's ceative endeavors. The market is the biggest censor.

But from my perch as Minister of Culture, with only limited resources to help fund or finance artistic expression, we have tough choices. The most successful leap that the Cuban artists and writers have had recently is in the publishing and book arena where international acquisitions of Cuban published books are surging and very impressive. Our biggest deficit is in providing support for film production, which is truly at a stage where Cuban independent films could have global impact but we have little funding available to subsidize significant production costs.

But Steven, we have plays -- particularly dramatic theatre -- as well as music, writing, poetry, dance, and so on that is filled with questioning about the "contradictions" that exist in our society, that question the benefits and impact of the Revolution, that juxtapose what is with what might be -- and this struggle with "contradictions" is something I believe is an important part of a "healthy Cuba" and something that I strongly promote.

Next time you are here, Steven, I will take you to see some of these plays and art that express and animate this frustration and this interest in addressing these contradictions.

That's an impressive answer from a Minister with long hair and in blue jeans rocking back and forth in a massive wicker rocking chair who looked as if he'd be more comfortable at Woodstock or hanging out in a den of jazz jammers or cluster of hip-hop types than talking to pols like myself and Lawrence Wilkerson (who wore a tie! Col. Wilkerson doth protest and tells me he was tieless). Underneath I tell myself that I'm somewhat of an artist -- but the artist/politician I met had his artistic layer much closer to the surface than I or we did.

The reason I mention Prieto here is that we also talked about blogs and told me that next trip he would track down some creative Cuban bloggers for me to meet.

But more importantly, he said that he had thought of launching his own blog. He said he doodles all the time and might want to post some of these doodles with a few lines now and then. He loves music.

So our group recommended that he launch "The Havana Note" and as part of the art of the blog heading, he could put some "musical notes." But as i thought about it, the chances of Minister Prieto actually starting a blog using the URL, www.TheHavanaNote.com, are pretty low.

I also figured that the moment I wrote this up, some enterprising person might purloin the concept -- so I've taken what we suggested and secured the URL.

But. . .that said, Abel Prieto ought to send some doodles and commentary our way -- to test the waters of blogging -- and we'd be happy to post those as his original expression (allowed actually under the rules of the Treasury Department's OFAC restrictions) on The Havana Note.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

I've learned that a writer who calls him or herself "Influence Peddler" is using my post here as a jumping off point for his/her argument that Democrats will suffer in the 2008 elections because of Iraq. Neither the argument, posted at The Weekly Standard, or his/her characterization of me or this blog passes the smell test. Needless to say, I'm not happy about it.

Here's how s/he starts:

The writers at The Washington Note lean decidedly Democratic. Today, Scott Paul of Citizens for Global Solutions warns that maybe--just maybe--in their zeal to bug out of Iraq ASAP, the Democrats are coming off as isolationist and patronizing:

First, the opinions I share here are my own - I am not representing Citizens for Global Solutions in this forum. Second, my organization is nonpartisan, and, as I've said, I'm committed to giving props and criticism to both parties from my perch here at TWN. I want the U.S. to have a smarter, more multilateral and engaged foreign policy, and I'll be pushing both parties to get us there.

The title of The Weekly Standard post gets it right: I am issuing a friendly warning to Democrats. However, its content conveniently ignores my characterization of Republicans and then goes off in its own direction, which has nothing to do with my post.

Influence Peddler writes:

Mr. Paul is far kinder than I would be. I have argued (over here), that in turning the Iraq conflict into a replay of Vietnam, Democrats are setting themselves up for post-Vietnam syndrome. After Vietnam, the voters were unwilling to trust Democrats on national security until the end of the Cold War. The only time they won the White House in that era was a quickly-corrected fluke.

In 2008, the Democratic nominee for president will find that voters do not trust him (or her) on national security issues.

...

In their race to end the war and further discredit a president who will never again run for office, Democrats are damaging their own future electoral prospects.

That's not only unrelated to my post, it's dead wrong. Democrats owe much of their margin of victory in 2006 to their superiority on national security issues. It's no accident that this ascent has coincided with the Democrats' decision to more clearly and strongly articulate their alternative vision, instead of posturing to sound tough or trying to convince voters that they are as inclined to use the military and military threats as their opponents. They are winning because they aren't being shy about discussing their own ideas for keeping the nation and the world safer and more prosperous.

The Weekly Standard writers are drawing conclusions that most political observers would scoff at. In 2008, the Democratic candidate - no matter who - will enter with a clear advantage on foreign policy. And standing up to Bush on Iraq is clearly enhancing - not damaging - the Democrats' electoral advantage.

The takeaway from my piece should be simply that the few Democrats who have here and there given in to casual or opportunistic use of isolationist rhetoric need to stop. How that could be interpreted as slamming Democrats or commenting on their electoral chances is beyond me.

--Scott Paul

This is just amusing. Catch C-Span's creative "visual" commentary on Cheney's role in Bush's world.

Is Cheney just lurking behind the scenes, scripting the President's moves? Or, is Cheney just in the doghouse and scared of getting too close to the President? Or was he just eavesdropping?

Brad DeLong keeps insisting that they all work for the Czar -- which they do -- but that just doesn't capture the whole story.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm back. I have been flitting around the country -- Chestertown, Maryland (just designated this week as one of a "dozen distinctive destinations" by the National Trust for Historic Preservation) then Carlisle, Pennsylvania, then Dallas, then Pittsburgh and now back to DC where I've been juggling dogs, taxes, a nuisance cough, and my thoughts and scribbling about my recent trip to Cuba. But none of this compares to Baghdad, which I'm about to discuss.

But first thing's first. Anne Garrels -- known by some affectionately as "Annie" Garrels or by her seemingly cool husband (I've only read about him) as Brenda Starr, the cartoon super journalist, in published emails of his -- is one of the most interesting and compelling journalistic personalities I have met. She is, of course, National Public Radio's veteran roving foreign correspondent most often in Baghdad as of late -- though she seems to have covered nearly all of the world's rough and tough spots over the last couple of decades.

I'm not mesmerized often (I may pretend to be for political reasons, but really. . .I'm not) but I was in this case. Garrels comes off as a been there, done that elder (but hot!) journalist who has the energy, passion, and even innocence of a newbie reporter. That's a hard act to manage -- lots of experience, but still lots of principles, lots of commitment, lots of frailty and uncertainty, perhaps humility -- even though you know she's tough as nails and taken on and outfoxed the toughest thugs in Saddam's Iraq as well as post-Saddam Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, the Soviet Union, among other global hot spots.

I want to just kick out to readers some of what she shared with a packed house of about 1,500 people at Chatham College (about to become "Chatham University" according to sources), a charming and buzzing liberal arts college founded in 1869 whose undergraduate enrollment is comprised entirely of women.

Anne Garrels was awarded the 2007 Hollander Award from the Pennsylvania Center for Women, Politics and Public Policy at Chatham College -- which means that she spends a couple of days with students and local residents in Pittsburgh exhaustively discussing her exhausting world and work covering America's war in Iraq.

I highly recommend that folks purchase and read her book, Naked in Baghdad: The Iraq War and the Aftermath as Seen by NPR's Correspondent. The addicting volume includes letters from her witty and astonishingly supportive husband Vint Lawrence -- who seems to manage her seven months away in war zones each year with a lot of humor and understanding (though I've just learned via Google that he was a pretty accomplished traveling CIA operative -- so the "marital understanding" seems more understandable). The book is dedicated both to her husband and to her Iraqi driver and "fixer" -- named "Amer" in the volume but just a pseudonym to protect him from sectarian, pro-Saddam, anti-Saddam, anti-American, or even classic criminal attacks for his support of the work of Garrels before, during and after the war.

I would like to invite this "Amer" to guest blog at The Washington Note some time. Maybe Vint as well as his letters to friends about the war time crusades of his wife are so captivating.

After some decorous comments by Chatham College's very impressive president Esther Barazzone as well as a star student who did the introductions, Anne Garrels opened her talk last Thursday night blasting Baghdad visitor and erstwhile presidential candidate Senator John McCain.

Now old news, but then fresh off the wire, John McCain had said that things had improved so much in Baghdad that Iraq Multinational Force Commander General David Petraeus was driving around the city in an unarmord Humvee. Garrels -- who when you read her book strains for balance in her research and reporting -- really lambasted McCain for his duplicitous comments. She said it "was way too early to judge the results from a change in tactics in Baghdad."

She said that McCain's commentary seemed ludicrous to nearly anyone with real world Baghdad experience. Anne Garrels does NOT live in the green zone. She lives in the red zone, beyond the barriers of protection that most Americans have -- and every day is one where one has to be very careful and win the day and survival by his or her wits.

When Garrels covered the invasion of Iraq while staying at the Palestine Hotel, she was there with just 15 other American journalists -- including correspondents for The New Yorker and the New York Review of Books.

In a bit of humor Garrels-style, she said that to remain connected to her husband, Anne and he thought that they'd do some high concept intellectualizing over email on a volume of collected essays by Montaigne. They never got to that -- and she was trying to trade that book for something more interesting and never got any takers, even the writer from the New York Review of Books.

She told the audience that in Iraq the "resentment and disbelief in the incompetence of America was profound."

She offered much of what any avid Iraq-watcher knows. The White House predicted a cost of this war at $50 billion and didn't really envision an occupation. The costs are now well beyond ten times that amount. The Department of Defense had no serious post-invasion strategy.

But one of the numbers she threw out which shocked me is that today it can cost between $3,500 and $5,000 for a one way taxi ride from the Baghdad Airport to downtown Baghdad. She has arranged some alternative, permanent service that brings the costs down some for NPR.

I confirmed this with retired Col. Paul Hughes -- now with the US Institute of Peace who also worked in the Coalition Provisional Authority under Jay Garner and L. Paul Bremer. Hughes has an Australian outfit that he has worked out a special arrangement with where a one-way transportation charge is $600 -- which he said is the absolute cheapest one can get.

Paul Hughes -- who is one of the real stand-out stars of Charles Ferguson's Sundance prize-winning movie No End in Sight set to be released some time this summer in the US -- was in Pittsburgh speaking in a program that took place last Friday along with Anne Garrels, former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson (also a major voice in No End in Sight), and myself for the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh.

The journey from the airport to the city is just seven miles.

If John McCain was right about the success of our operations in Iraq, one will probably be able to see the evidence in the cost of land transport.

As mentioned earlier, Garrels resides in the "red zone," and a Deputy Minister was blown up outside his home just a couple of houses away from her.

She said that Petraeus and other military officials had told journalists (on an off the record basis) that they realized that the American efforts to stabilize Baghdad with a surge in US troop levels "might be too little, too late." Garrels then regretted she had mentioned what the Iraq-deployed US military leaders had conveyed -- but then said, "well, guess that's out there now." I'm just faithfully reporting what was a gritty, fascinating, and depressing talk from a great war correspondent.

She said that more American military are out in the neighborhoods. She said that the Captains, Majors, Lietenant Colonels in the field know what is going on and are impressive people -- that they worked hard to make sure "embedded journalists" saw things. Garrels, however, while occasionally embedded works hard to move out into the real Iraq beyond the stories and framing spoon fed to many journalists.

She said that she didn't travel with a cadre of armed guards. She said that NPR "couldn't afford it" and "it looked dumb." She said that "having guards made you look like you were someone worth kidnapping." She said that the key to her success, in part, was the ability to make herself look like a lumpy black bag in a back seat -- covered in traditional dress, hiding her hair and Caucasian features.

The funniest and yet most revealing part of Anne Garrels' insights into America's Iraq nightmare was her comment about entering the Green Zone.

Garrels said that to get in the Green Zone, she would be "padded down seven times, sniffed by a dog, processed through two machines -- just to get into the first building."

She said that there is a woman screener there who knows Anne's body better than her husband. Garrels said that the female screener grabbed her "boobs" on one occasion and said "hmmm, nice."

On another occasion, the female screener revisited Anne's breasts and body and said, "ahh, lost some weight. . ."

While this may seem humorous, it's also clear that Senator McCain has no sense at all of the tension that permeates Baghdad and of the hell that lies outside the green zone.

Among other things that Garrel said are that she feels that people in the US are suffering from "Iraq fatigue" and didn't really wnat to hear more of what was happening there. She admonished the crowd and asked them to "pay attention." She said "we can't afford to do this again; we can't make the same mistakes."

Garrels said that "whatever grudging respect for us was there is now gone."

She also talked of her interaction with military handlers -- who replaced Saddam's handlers dealing with the journalists. She said that she gets regular emails from the Department of Defense suggesting "happy story ideas."

Some of these are: "Soldier Finds a Friend"; "Soldier Saves Puppy"; "Geraldo Rivera has Lunch with Troops."

The last one really ticked her off. Garrels said that she wrote to the chief of the happy stories operation and said that she "had not been 'disembedded twice', had not divulged classified location information, and had not lied (like Geraldo). . .so what's a girl to do?"

Garrels paints pictures through radio -- and that Thursday night told a rapt audience of the miserably botched American stewardship of Iraq. Her dismay is even greater when you get the context of her book because her sense of the disdain that the Iraqi public had for Saddam Hussein and the peoples' hope that America might correct things makes the image even more poignant.

It was a great and still disturbing evening with Anne Garrels, the memorable kind that is too rare.

She just sent me an email that she is heading back to Baghdad to make sure that we hear what's going on in real Iraq rather than the imaginary one that John McCain tried to hoist on the nation about stress-free rug haggling in a Baghdad market.

-- Steve Clemons

At long last, a member of President Bush's inner circle has publicly "broken up" with him. Matthew Dowd, who was inspired by Bush's style as Texas governor, switched parties and took a high-ranking post on the Bush-Cheney communications team. Six years later, he's a Bush supporter no more.

I doubt Dowd's public defection will be the last. Bush ran for the presidency with a huge tent approach. That tent has shrunk considerably. It has no room for moderates and little room for even traditional Reagan or Eisenhower conservatives. More will follow.

Powell, Richard Armitage, Paul O'Neill all left the administration frustrated and disillusioned, but Dowd is the first member of Bush's political team to take that route or air his differences so publicly. In his interview with the New York Times, he paints Bush as out of touch and unwilling to entertain any diversity of viewpoints. It's well worth a read.

Iraq particularly troubles him, as did, I'm glad to report, Bush's renomination of John Bolton. One particularly interesting tidbit from the interview:

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

The slow bleed continues.

-- Scott Paul