There is a lot of crime in the world, too much -- but sometimes misfortune hits close to home and needs to be highlighted.

There is a bizarre coincidence in the resort area of the Algarve Coast in Portugal in which a 3-year old girl and 70-year old man have disappeared without a trace -- in two separate incidents. One might suggest that sort of thing happens every day in large cities -- and of course, I'm fully aware that Iraqis are experiencing human trauma on the level of 9/11 about every 8 days.

3-year old Madeleine McCann was kidnapped from her apartment while her parents dined at a restaurant next door, and Karl Kleine-Brockhoff disappeared while hiking four miles from his rented villa to a small village to meet his wife and friends.

Kleine-Brockhoff is the father of Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, a well known international journalist who was Washington Bureau Chief of Die Zeit and has been a blogger on occasion for the Washington Post. He begins a new position with the German Marshall Fund in Washington next Monday.

I highlight these cases because it's hard to lose friends, family members, or even just good people we don't know -- whether in Iraq or in our own neighborhoods.

-- Steve Clemons

I have been arguing for years that Vice President Cheney had done more than any other single person in the government -- including the President of the United States -- to plant acolytes and followers of his throughout the national security bureaucracy. He has had spies and apparatchiks in the Departments of State and Defense, in the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency and the CIA, and elsewhere in government.

John Bolton was one of these at the State Department, as was Robert Joseph -- both of whom held the position of Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control.

Finally, there is a breath-taking, disturbing four-part series in the Washington Post written by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker detailing the most outrageous usurpation of power that this nation has seen in decades, if not in its history. The series is on Cheney's Rasputin abilities and methodologies and is titled "Angler," the term the Secret Service uses to identify the Vice President.

Most outrageous is Cheney's recent claim that his office is not in the Executive Branch and is not an agency of government that fits within the matrix of checks and balances that affect the presidency.

If that absurd assertion is allowed to stand, then the Office of Vice President must be de-funded by Congress immediately, and all powers related to the Vice President immediately made null.

If the Vice President thinks that there is no authority to which he reports, then he has committed a high crime against this nation and its democracy.

Every word of this long series should be absorbed. Some of what it reports is new and much not -- but it provides important validation for what some writers -- including those at this blog and others like Sidney Blumenthal have been describing for a very long time.

On January 7, 2007, I wrote a piece at The Washington Note arguing that long time Washington Post writer Bob Woodward had done the nation a great disservice in his book State of Denial by getting so much of the inside story on the Iraq War right -- and then depicting Cheney as a relatively uninfluential, eccentric character.

I'm very pleased to see that the Post's own team has invalidated Woodward's work with regard to the role and influence of this Office of the Vice President.

I would also like to direct readers to this TWN piece from a while back, "Can Cheney be His Own Declassification Machine?"

It is clear now, in retrospect that Cheney has worked hard to write in the "Office of the Vice President" as a body with specific statutory authority that does not derive from the Presidency as his machinations on modifying Executive Orders on "Classified National Security Information."

Republicans and Democrats in Congress should be unifying now on all fronts to immediately contain the power of Cheney and his team if they in fact do not feel that there are any controls on them that should be acknowledged.

Bush was never a Julius Caesar type. Cheney, however, is.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm attending the launch conference today for the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) that is headed by two former CSIS senior staffers, Kurt Campbell and Michele Flournoy.

The conference has pulled together a real who's who of the Democratic national security establishment into this invite only confab at the Willard Hotel. But there are some of the Republican persuasion here too -- including Philip Zelikow who until recently served as Counselor to Condoleezza Rice, Peter Feaver of the National Security Council, and a lot of folks from the uniformed services -- who reportedly are 70% Republican and 30% Democrat in their ranks.

In a session titled "The Inheritance and the Way Forward", panelists CNAS CEO Kurt Campbell, UT Austin LBJ School Dean and former Deputy National Security Advisor Jim Steinberg, Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter and futurist and Johns Hopkins University SAIS professor Francis Fukuyama sorted through the mess that America has in its foreign policy portfolio.

In a question I posed, I asked the panelists to suggest real proposals that would reverse the real collapse in the perception of American power in the world. I mentioned the Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Survey (of which a new phase of information is about to be released) that show that what used to be Bush-focused anger and frustration around the world has turned into systemic disdain and disregard for the United States. In other words, global anti-Bush attitudes have become more firmly rooted anti-American views. I asked what could they recommend to the next President to help turn this "perception" of our decline around.

Anne-Marie Slaughter said that the first thing she'd recommend is that the next President go on a "listening tour" -- a real listening as opposed to a "telling tour" -- along the lines of what Senator Hillary Clinton did in up-state New York. The second initiative that Slaughter would push would be for America to initiate a process ot get fundamental reform and redesign of the UN Security Council. She said that when India, Germany, Japan, Brazil, no African nation, and other key states are not part of the most important international power management machine, then this furthers global frustration with the lack of fairness and equity among key stakeholder states. She made the point that we need more of the world's population to be stakeholders in the international order.

Kurt Campbell responded by saying that the most important initiative that could be initiated to change the terms of America's global engagement and change the way America is "perceived" globally would be a fundamental shift in our efforts on global climate change. Campbell argued that this would helps us reconnect in constructive ways with the G8 members. Campbell also added that the US and China are actually working together to try and block climate change efforts -- and this is wrong-headed and must be reversed.

James Steinberg said that the most important thing the next American leader can do is to step back from the impulse to offer meaningless platitudes in defining the goals and objectives of American foreign policy. He said that we must "match rhetoric with reality." Announcing lofty goals that are not connected to "means and ends" undermines American credibility in the world and has contributed to the perception that America's ability to achieve change in the world is eroding. Steinberg said that the next US President needs to "think before pledging".

Francis Fukuyama did not get a chance to respond as moderator Richard Danzig called for the next question.

(Former Clinton Administration Deputy National Security Advisor James Steinberg and former Defense Secretary William Perry)

I thought that all of the responses I heard were sensible -- but I guess I would have added something that focused on changing America's stance on the Middle East. My view matches Zbigniew Brzezinski's that the combined storm of America's engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, brewing problems with Iran, lack of meaningful success in Israel-Palestine peace, and regional disdain among Arab Muslims for the United States is the defining challenge for America.

We need to turn that around and given the collapse in legitimacy America has experienced because of failure in Iraq, much more priority should be given to establishing a stable Israel-Palestine deal that produces two states and includes other regional deal-making including normalization of relations with Syria and a new set of economic and collective security arrangements with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other regional players.

That did not come up in the session and should have -- but it was nonetheless a good exchange.

I'm now listening to a discussion about Iraq. CNAS Senior Vice President James Miller gave a number-specific, calendar-specific four year withdrawal strategy from Iraq. I have a hard time seeing how such a strategy can be publicly embraced given the fear so many in America have that the Pentagon and White House are not being truthful about Iraq and what are real long term intentions are there.

General Anthony Zinni basically whacked the earlier presentation (in a tactful way) by saying that there can not be an "Iraq strategy" without a regional strategy. He agrees with my view that we need some sort of new regional security arrangement among key players that today are not acting in any real unified manner.

Philip Zelikow and Washington Post correspondent Tom Ricks are up next. Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed is moderating the meeting.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Johanna Mendelson Forman is a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and was previously Senior Program Officer for Peace, Security and Human Rights at the UN Foundation. She post below is a version written specifically for The Washington Note and is a shorter version of this article that just ran in The Washington Post's "Think Tank Town" column. (This article was written 'before' the June 19-21 conference and is written with that tense.)

This week [June 19-21] leaders of 14 Caribbean countries will meet in Washington, D.C. to discuss the future of the region and its relationship with the U.S.

For U.S. leaders the Caribbean 20/20 Vision conference is low priority on the foreign policy agenda for officials too busy with the Middle East and a war in Iraq. (We understand that the meeting of Caribbean Heads of State with President George Bush will be little more than a photo op, and the one with Secretary Condoleezza Rice keeps getting switched due to other more pressing concerns!)

And the media silence on this event only underscores the lack of understanding that exists about a region. Although the Caribbean states vary in size, (most are small), wealth, and population, we underestimate the region's geopolitical potential. These states represent votes at the UN, the OAS, and make it possible for the U.S. to advance its agenda in multilateral organizations.

The last seven years have failed to generate a coherent policy to manage our relationships with the Caribbean. U.S. policy toward the region has been limited to fighting drug traffickers and preventing terrorists from advancing to U.S. shores. (Note that the capture of alleged JFK bombers who hailed from Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana happened because there was excellent law enforcement cooperation with the Caribbean states.)

We handed the Haiti mess off to the UN in 2004, with Brazil leading the peace keeping operation there. Only in March 2007 did President George Bush look south when he traveled to Latin America on a whistle-stop tour that yielded little more than a memorandum of understanding on biofuels with Brazil on renewable energy, and agreements about technical cooperation in support of three Caribbean and one Central American nation gaining greater energy independence.

U.S. effectiveness as a good neighbor in the Caribbean could help overcome a sense of betrayal that many of the Caribbean states felt after the U.S. intervened in Haiti for a second time in 2004. Our actions not only created ill-will among the CARICOM states, but it also reduced our effectiveness in the corridors of multilateral institutions like the OAS and the UN, where the U.S. had counted on the Caribbean to help support U.S. interests through their votes.

If the U.S. is to once again rely on the support of these small island states, it will have to demonstrate that it takes its commitment to the third border by seriously crafting a policy that addresses the regional concerns: stimulating trade and development, reducing poverty, stabilizing Haiti, supporting the U.S.-based Diaspora, and mitigating climate change through expanding renewable energy resources.

Only by putting greater emphasis on a collaborative approach to the multiple and complex policy issues in the Caribbean will the U.S. once again be able to regain its legitimacy as a trusted actor and ally.

-- Johanna Mendelson Forman

Michael Moore is making quite a splash in Washington with his new film, Sicko. I have yet to see the film, but I think that one of the key takeaways from the documentary on the sorry state of American health care is that in Cuba, comprehensive quality health care is considered a human right.

Cuba gets much wrong -- but after Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Haditha, and frankly 47 million uninsured Americans with no health care -- America has a diminished level of moral credibility to stand on when criticizing illiberal regimes. Today, Cuba is exporting doctors whereas it used to export revolution and weaponry. Without getting too deep for the moment, just ask yourself which country in the world tops the charts on exporting armaments and revolution.

Here is an article by Sarah van Gelder that explores the issue of health care as "right" and focuses on what Cuba has been able to do.

It is interesting to note that tonight's guest blogger, Representative Jane Harman attended the Washington screening of Michael Moore's film and supports dramatic change and reform in the terms of America's engagement policies with Cuba.

In other US-Cuba news today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) called America's current policy "wrong-headed" and introduced legislation in the Senate calling for an end to trade and travel restrictions with Cuba. Congresspersons Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) joined Baucus in arguing for an overhaul in US-Cuba economic policy and introduced companion legislation in the House and Senate.

-- Steve Clemons

Representative Jane Harman (D-CA-36) blogs in her spare time and reads The Washington Note frequently. She also occasionally guest blogs at Huffington Post. Like the proprieter of TWN, she considers herself a "radical centrist" and presently serves as Chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security

In the partisan paradigm under which Congress operates, compliments are rarely paid to good policy initiatives by the opposite party.

Here goes. I applaud the recent initiatives of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to focus on threats posed by small boats and general aviation aircraft. Just this week, his Department sponsored a small vessel security summit in Washington as part of an effort to understand potential threats to our country's 150 ports.

Yes, I know. Some regulations may affect or interfere with some recreational boating and business air travel. But how short is our memory? 17 American sailors were killed in 2000 when a small boat loaded with explosives slammed into the USS Cole at port in Yemen. Numerous small aircraft have targeted the White House; a small plane accidentally flew into it in 1994.

Senator Susan Collins and I recently visited the Port of Los Angeles and were briefed by the Coast Guard (now part of the Homeland Security Department) about its impressive program to track ship traffic headed for the port complex.

But what about small boats, we asked. The answer was that a 100-foot perimeter was set around commercial and tourist vessels -- "controlled navigation areas" -- and that any boat invading that perimeter is breaking the law.

But the terrorists who smashed into the USS Cole didn't care about breaking the law -- or staying alive.

This is what we're up against -- and a bigger worry than a suicide bomber acting alone is a suicide bomber carrying a radiological weapon.

The bipartisan SAFE Port Act, which passed the last Congress with overwhelming support, creates a layered maritime security strategy for America's ports. So-called "Marine Domain Awareness" is a big part of this, and exempting small boats and general aviation aircraft would create a loophole for our agile adversaries to exploit.

So, I believe Secretary Chertoff is onto something important, and am happy to say so. If ever there was an issue that should not fall victim to the vicious partisanship now plaguing Congress, it is national security.

-- Jane Harman

It is rumored that tomorrow during a "Principals Meeting", the administration will decide to shut down the Guantanamo military detention facility and transfer prisoners there into the American legal system.

I have not received confirmation that this is the case, but it sounds like this could be another important example of President Bush tacking towards the consensus neo-realist position of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, CIA Director Mike Hayden, and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. State Department Elders John Negroponte, R. Nicholas Burns, and John Bellinger have also played vital roles in this transition of policy away from pugnacious, anti-international Cheneyism.

I suggested the other day that Colin Powell's call to the administration to shut down Guantanamo and his admonition about the damage it was doing every day to America's prestige and moral credibility was pushed at a "tipping point moment". Powell probably knows that this was the most efficacious time to speak out. He has assets inside the administration who would have let him in on what was brewing inside the Executive Branch and wanted to give a public push to offset Cheney's internal resistance.

A friend of mine offered circumstantial evidence that something "big and good" was in the works as he ran into and gave an assessment of the "mood and physical condition" of Condi's Chief Legal Advisor, John Bellinger, the other day -- who has shepherded forward the administration's support of the Law of the Seas Treaty, helped shut down secret detention facilities, suggested that the US could be supportive of International Criminal Court investigations concerning Darfur, and now probably helped make the case for shutting down GITMO. My friend said he had not seen Bellinger look so relaxed and so happy in quite a long time.

When it comes to these sorts of issues, the "mood" of people who have a conscience is worth noting.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: I have just spoken with a senior administration acquaintance "who would not confirm or deny" that there would be the Principals Meeting tomorrow described above -- but who made it clear that the press is reporting that some in the administration are saying that the meeting has been cancelled. Cheneyism still has some serious legs perhaps.

I've never met Bill Scheurer, but I think his Peace Majority Report is a wonderful contribution to the debate on the U.S. role in the world. He takes a broad view of peace advocacy and is refreshingly willing to challenge the peace movement on its strategic choices and effectiveness. I rarely read commentary from the organized peace movement, but I would read more if it were like Scheurer's.

His latest column on the occasion of World Refugee Day notes the tragedy of the refugee crisis, the "living victims of war," and then moves on to discuss the plight of those who are killed - the civilian casualties.

Scheurer proposes a "Name Every Victim" law, which would require the U.S. to undertake a good faith effort to identify all civilians killed in every military action we undertake. It's one of the more revolutionary ideas put forward by peace advocates, and one that should be adopted without delay.

Well-intentioned people can, no, must debate the conditions under which the U.S. should use military force. My own view is that decision-makers in Washington vastly underestimate the costs of military operations in lives, dollars, effectiveness, and international credibility. Doing our best to identify civilian victims and restore dignity, identity, and humanity to all sides of our military engagements will surely bring some of those costs to light.

-- Scott Paul

A reader noted that yesterday was World Refugee Day. To mark the occasion, the UN High Commission on Refugees released a report that counts over 10 million asylum-seekers this year.

That's a 14% increase over last year, thanks mostly to the estimated 1.5 million Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria. This is one "surge" that deserves serious attention.

For more on this, see Mark Goldberg over at UN Dispatch or Steve's earlier posts here, here, and here.

-- Scott Paul

CSIS Strategic Analyst Anthony Cordesman didn't use that metaphor exactly. Here is what he wrote in an email he sent me this morning along with his new report, "Still Losing? The June 2007 Edition of "Measuring Stability in Iraq":

The latest Department of Defense report on "Measuring Stability in Iraq" attempts to put a bad situation in a favorable light. It does not disguise many of the problems involved, but it does attempt to defend the strategy presented by President Bush in January 2007 in ways that sometimes present serious problems. More broadly, it reveals that the President's strategy is not working in any critical dimension.

The are enough indicators in the June 2007 report, however, to make it all too clear that the US is not making anything like the overall progress it needs to implement the President's strategy. Moreover, it is all too clear that the most import issue is not the "Plan A" of the Bush Administration, or any "Plan B" from Congress, but the sheer lack of any meaningful Iraqi political development of a "Plan I" for political conciliation.

As in Vietnam, the US can win virtually every tactical encounter. As in Vietnam, this is irrelevant without political unity, effective governance, and a nationalist ideology with more real world impact than its extremist, sectarian, and ethnic competition.

Part of the problem is that the US is trying to fight the wrong "war." The US does need to fight a serious counterinsurgency campaign, but this seems to be focused far too narrowly on both Al Qa'ida, which is only one Sunni Islamist extremist movement, and on the most radical elements of the Sadr militia. The US does not have an effective strategy or the operational capability to deal with the broader problem of armed nation- building, or with a widening pattern of civil conflicts.

The attached report analyzes both the strengths and weaknesses of the June 2007 report. It also provides a summary of the key trends in conciliation and governance, security, the development of Iraqi forces, economic development and aid.

Cordesman's sober, lucid, unsentimental analysis just lays out the picture in Iraq as it is -- not like he or any of us hope it might be. This kind of truth-telling needs much more air time.

-- Steve Clemons

I'll eliminate the suspense: I think it's pretty silly. I understand the Clinton campaign's desire to connect with its supporter base, develop loyalty, establish brand identity, and increase its candidate's accessibility.

Nothing wrong with that. But those goals could have been accomplished in ways that touch on issues facing the U.S. and the world, too. The way it was done seems a little shallow.

However, I did enjoy the spot announcing the end of the contest, which pays homage to the Sopranos and, more importantly, to Mt. Kisco Coach diner. The diner is a local fave for those of us from the Chappaqua/Mt. Kisco, NY area, as well as my destination as a teenager for many a breakfast and late night snack.

So in sum, Hillary's campaign song contest may lack in substance, but it is high on local flavor and sentimental appeal.

I've been away from the blog for a few days and should be back soon - with plenty of exciting stuff to report on and a few random thoughts here and there, too.

-- Scott Paul

Seymour Hersh has just published in The New Yorker a major interview with Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who led the Pentagon's investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The piece is titled "The General's Report."

Among the revelations Taguba shares is that he was ordered to focus on lower level soldiers in his investigation even though he felt that command knowledge and participation in the abusive techniques and practice of torture went very high in the Pentagon.

Also captured in the article, via the Washington Post:

Taguba also said that Rumsfeld misled Congress when he testified in May 2004 about the abuse investigation, minimizing how much he knew about the incidents. Taguba said that he met with Rumsfeld and top aides the day before the testimony.

"I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib," Taguba said, according to the article.

"We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."

Those keeping the score card on Rumsfeld need to add this "lying to Congress" case.

Although many no doubt believe that Rumsfeld misled, obfuscated, distorted and lied on a number of occasions -- getting a clear case with a witness and participant as important as Taguba is rare.

If I were Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, I'd call Rumsfeld back in for a chat -- under oath.

-- Steve Clemons

I've received a mountain of email lately -- some of it has asked for some more pics of Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner and his kid-sister Annie.

Well, here's one above of the pups sleeping which they do a lot of after some wild romps, runs, and walks that they get into on a daily basis.

I'll try to get some more up soon.

Wait. . .I want to put up a classic pic of the Oakster and me (I've posted it before) hard at work sorting out stuff in the office.

-- Steve Clemons

As many readers of this blog know, I hosted former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson's October 2005 cannon blast against the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" and the degradation of the national security decision making process in the White House.

Wilkerson has admirably been working full time since giving speeches, appearing in films and television shows exposing the machinations and duplicity of many who worked in this administration in preparing and executing plans to invade Iraq.

Wilkerson is fascinating and important in his own right -- but for many, he is also a proxy for his former boss Colin Powell's views. Powell and Wilkerson probably disagree on a number of things Wilkerson has said -- but he also agrees with much but has been silent. Wilkerson has helped create a "place holder" for Powell until he began to speak.

And now -- as of last weekend on Meet the Press, Powell did speak and called for the closing of Guantanamo.

I have written a commentary for the Guardian's "Comment is Free" site titled "Guantanamo and Colin Powell" -- and wanted to link it here.

Many of my liberal readers will probably rail against Powell, and perhaps he does deserve a lot of criticism. I am trying to both think through and explain his previous silence -- and why as well he is beginning to speak up now.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm halfway through a report on disaster management and peacebuilding by Michael Renner and my good friend Zoe Chafe at the Worldwatch Institute.

The frequency of disasters is likely to increase due to a number of factors, chiefly among them climate change. The report's most important contribution is its insight into how interdisciplinary approaches to disaster can actually make them peacebuilding opportunities. Chafe and Renner go into depth on a few case studies to make their point.

This should make some waves.

-- Scott Paul

I have no doubt that readers of this blog have noticed my more-than-occasional rants about insufficient U.S. funding for multilateral activities and institutions. Global poverty and U.N. peacekeeping are among the areas I've pushed for hardest through my " day job," but there's another that's just as much in need and even less noticed.

The shortfall in U.S. funding for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) threatens to undermine global efforts to monitor nuclear tests, especially in areas where the U.S. lacks access, like China, North Korea, and Iran. It's one more example of the Bush administration's unfortunate tendency to cut off its nose to spite its face.

To date, the only coverage of this issue was a short article in the Washington Times. It desperately deserves some more attention.

The brief history is as follows: President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits nuclear tests, in 1996. The Senate has never ratified it, but the U.S. has remained a member of the CTBTO, which is charged with implementing the agreement.

To do that, the CTBTO has begun construction of an international monitoring system to detect nuclear tests. For example, it was the CTBTO system that confirmed that North Korea's missile test last October was nuclear.

The administration rejects the CTBT and is split over funding for the CTBTO. It has never requested funding from Congress, and last year, the U.S. lost its voting rights in the Organization.

Without U.S. funds, which make up roughly a quarter of the CTBTO budget, the monitoring system won't be completed. Stations planned in strategically important locations - locations near China, Iran, and North Korea, where the U.S. has no nuclear "eyes and ears" of its own - won't be built.

And it would cripple one of the most critical nonproliferation tools available to the international community.

If the new leadership at State is really looking to heal some wounds with the international community, this is low-hanging fruit. Besides, do we really need fewer non-military tools to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Congress needs to right this wrong, pronto.

-- Scott Paul

Note: In a previous post, I noted that the DNC endorsed the ONE Vote '08 Campaign and urged the RNC to do the same. I have since been informed that the DNC and RNC have both endorsed the ONE Vote '08 platform. Congratulations to both.

A TWN reader just sent me this interesting article titled "Arab Journalist Knocks U.S. Credibility in the Mideast," that ran in yesterday's Daily Oregonian.

The title of the article aside, it's a very interesting inventory of views of America's Middle East mess as seen from an Arab perspective. Hafez Al-Mirazi, who was previously Washington Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera and now a senior correspondent in Cairo launching a new 24-hour news channel, Misr TV (and an occasional reader of The Washington Note), was speaking in a series organized by the Oregon World Affairs Council.

It's important for Americans to do some listening -- and to absorb some of the messages people like Al-Mirazi are transmitting.

Among the bullets that writer Ted Mahar garnered from Al-Mirazi's talk were:

America will face crises in the Middle East for years to come, largely because it has acted un-American.

. . ."Iraq is much worse than it was before the U.S. invasion," he said. U.S. mistakes included disbanding the Iraqi army, which has evolved into uncontrollable militias. Further, U.S. policies foment sectarian differences instead of seeking compromise.

Ending a dictator's rule seems a hollow goal, "because there are so many dictators in the Arab world who are friends of the U.S.," he said. With the Cold War over -- and won -- the U.S. should reject ties to any government leader not elected fairly.

. . .U.S. backing of Israel seems to be at the expense of Arab interests and will be an obstacle to order until truly even-handed sympathies are clear, he said.

"In the recent political debates, no Democrat said (the word) 'Islam,' while the Republicans competed to use anti-Islamic rhetoric," he said. The administration, he said, has made the word "Islamic" an adjective used mainly with words like "terrorist," "extremist," "militant," "radical" and anything but "religion."

The short article is a good, quick snapshot of the staggeringly high antipathy in the Middle East towards America, and in my view, Al-Mirazi is smoothing out the edges and being very diplomatic.

But kudos to the Oregon World Affairs Council for hosting speakers like a senior journalist from Al Jazeera. More around the country need to avail themselves of similar opportunities.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: Thanks to BG for sending the Oregonian article link.

(John Edwards' Senior Economic Adviser Leo Hindery and CNN Washington Bureau Chief David Bohrman at New America Foundation Dinner)

This is interesting news. John Edwards has appointed cables sports industry giant Leo Hindery
to serve as Senior Economic Advisor on his campaign.

There are not many Democratic CEOs in the cable television and sports business, but Leo Hindery is one. He has had a spectacularly successful career in the media and broadcast arena but his passion is restoring the health of the American economy and achieveing more equitable sharing of the growth and gains in that economy among its key stakeholders -- in other words with "workers."

Hindery has been one of the few CEOs who has argued that overall the current crop of American business leaders are shipping out jobs and manufacturing capacity overseas to benefit their own personal financial interests -- but are crippling their firms, their workers, and the long term health of American society.

While John Edwards may get a bump with his base for bringing on a guy who won the Le Mans Grand Prix, I think it's what Leo Hindery has been writing and arguing about economic public policy that makes him interesting.

Hindery's book It Takes a CEO: It's Time to Lead with Integrity and his interesting recent report on the American economy under the auspices of the Horizon Project give good insight into the kind of stakeholder-oriented economic counsel Hindery will most likely provide presidential candidate John Edwards.

-- Steve Clemons

I'm back from an interesting and informative conference put on by the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation.

I shared some reflections earlier and have a few more to throw out.

Senator Gordon Smith delivered a keynote this morning. I feel I should preface anything I write about Senator Smith by pointing out that he is the strongest voice in his party for a strong non-military international affairs budget, bar none. That's a hugely important role.

Now, with that out of the way, Smith's presentation was all over the map. For starters, he proposed that America is currently trusted, but not loved, and it is better to be trusted than loved. For evidence, Smith cited the lobbyists lining up outside his door who want military and economic assistance for other countries.

Somehow, that doesn't make the case to me that America is trusted. In fact, I think Senator Smith would be hard pressed to find any piece of evidence that could convince me that America enjoys the world's trust right now. Is he serious?

My other issue with Senator Smith: on one hand, he supports the administration's preconditions for negotiating with Iran, and stipulates that they may never be met; on the other hand, he discusses the need to exhaust diplomatic efforts before the military option is considered.

Now, my organization and I don't work directly on Iran, but the implication is obvious: diplomacy may be exhausted without even an attempt at direct talks. Helloooo?

Still looking for comments on how the Middle East might look today had strengthening the elected government of Lebanon been a top priority instead of, say, Iraq. Post away on the thread directly below.

-- Scott Paul

I'm taking a minute during lunch at America in the World to share a question I had during today's insightful panel on the Middle East. The panel consisted of Helene Cooper (moderator), Daniel Kurtzer, Ellen Laipson, and Daniel Levy.

Lots of good stuff from these folks, who are each very articulate and, in my view, on point. However, the conversation revolved around Israel, Palestine, and Iran.

The panel didn't have time to take my question, so I'll post it here (and editorialize a bit more than I would in real time). Hopefully we'll get some good reader responses.

We're all recognizing that peace, stability, moderate politics, and democracy promotion are enduring U.S. interests in the Middle East. Yet, one country is absent from this discussion.

You may be thinking I'm alluding to Iraq, but I actually want to bring our attention to Lebanon.

In the past five years, we've allowed Syria and Israel to undermine Lebanon - perhaps because we've been distracted or had misplaced priorities, perhaps because of the unintended consequences of different elements of our foreign policy, perhaps both.

I cannot escape the thought that the energy we have spent trying to install democracy in Iraq through military means would have been much better (maybe even best) spent on supporting the fragile - but existing - democracy in Lebanon.

So here's my two-part question. First, looking forward from, say, five years ago, how might the Middle East be different if supporting Lebanese democracy had been a top U.S. priority?

Second, what might the U.S. do to constructively support democracy and moderation in Lebanon today?

-- Scott Paul

I'm at the Hyatt Regency this morning at a conference jointly sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation. The topic? "America in the World."

Madeleine Albright kicked things off this morning. A couple of takeaways:

- Secretary Albright has long proposed that the U.S. is the "indispensable nation." That is to say, to solve the world's big problems, the U.S. has to be constructively engaged. Today, she suggested that China, too, is needed to solve major global challenges (she noted Iran, North Korea, Darfur, and climate change).

- Albright's view of things places Iraq as third in a list of problems the next President needs to address, after mainstreaming our values into our foreign policy and revitalizing international institutions. I'm not sure if she listed problems in order of priority, but I'm glad that Iraq isn't taking right, left, and center stage in her mind.

The coneference's first panel featured Tom Daschle (moderator), John Deutch, Gen. (ret.) Charles Wald, and Cathy Zoi speaking on energy and climate change as elements of our foreign policy. It is noteworthy that every member of the panel refuted the myth of energy independence, with Gen. Wald emphatically adding: "Energy independence is the worst thing that could happen."

More reflections later.

-- Scott Paul

(Ahlam Ahmed Mahmoud al Al-Jabouri; photo credit: Marc Perelman)

The Forward correspondent Marc Perelman has a moving and important profile in Salon of Ahlam Ahmed Mahmoud al Al-Jabouri who is now an Iraqi refugee in Syria.

A short clip from a piece that should be read in full:

Ahlam Ahmed Mahmoud al Al-Jabouri, a 42-year-old mother of three, belongs to another category of imperiled citizens-turned-refugees whom no one seems to care about. She is among thousands of Iraqis who have worked in seemingly less exposed positions for the U.S. and Iraqi authorities, carrying out administrative tasks, rendering basic services or, as in Ahlam's case, doling out crucial humanitarian aid to the people of her country.

But even delivering help to the poor, the handicapped and the displaced did not spare Ahlam from being labeled a traitor by some of her fellow Sunnis. In the past two years, Ahlam has been kidnapped and tortured, was forced to flee Iraq, and lost one of her teenage sons under dubious circumstances. Although she was officially recognized for her exemplary humanitarian work by the U.S. Army more than two years ago, U.S. authorities have done little to help her, and her struggle to find safe haven continues today.

Ahlam's ordeal casts light on the depth of the resentment among Iraqis in general, and Sunnis in particular, over the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the resulting sectarian conflict that has engulfed their country in the past two years. The fact that a respected aid worker like Ahlam has faced brutal reprisal speaks volumes about the fractured state of Iraqi society.

Nowadays, Ahlam lives with her family in a drab three-story building off "Iraqi Street," the new name of the main thoroughfare of Said Azainab, a destitute neighborhood of Damascus overflowing with tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees. This capital city has lured the vast majority of the more than 1.2 million Iraqis who have fled to Syria."

America could be doing much more than it is to help broker a final peace between Israel an Syria -- and the fact that Syria is hosting a flow of refugees into its country and not receiving major international assistance is something the U.S. ought to take notice of.

More soon. I'm flying from St. George, Utah today to New York.

-- Steve Clemons

This morning I dropped by the launch of ONE Vote 08, a campaign to raise the profile of global poverty and health in the presidential elections.

The ONE Campaign has done a remarkable job raising the profile of these issues generally over the past few years, and in a bipartisan way. By any measure, the Campaign has exceeded expectations.

This morning's event featured the African Children's Choir, former Sens. Daschle and Frist, and a number of celebrities, organizers, and other political types.

I stayed just long enough to hear the introduction and the statements by videophone from the four early primary/caucus states (Prepared remarks by current or former officeholders are rarely enlightening and I rarely stick around for them, though tomorrow's foreign policy conference held by the Center for American Progress will likely be an exception).

Starting out with about 20,000 volunteers in each of the four early states, ONE Vote should be a player with some influence. Apparently, ONE is putting $30 million into the 2008 race.

While everyone in the Democratic field has discussed the importance of addressing global poverty, John Edwards has been out in front on the issue for quite a while and deserves some recognition. Given how seriously former Republican officeholders are invested in the Campaign, Republican candidates may too embrace the ONE platform.

Many Americans right now are preoccupied with the fight against America's military adventurism - a noble cause indeed, and one that deserves to stay on the front burner. Unfortunately, this fight crowding out discussion of other critical foreign policy problems, like global poverty.

It is also starting to give rise to a dangerous myth: that our past and current mistakes render us incapable of constructively engaging in global affairs. That myth is giving rise to a kind of neo-isolationism in both major parties and needs to be thoroughly debunked.

Real U.S. leadership, which puts diplomacy first and invokes a spirit of partnership and common cause, can go a long way towards addressing extreme poverty, as well as many other global problems. Without that kind of participation from the U.S., those problems will surely go unsolved.

Here's hoping the ONE Campaign can help move that agenda forward.

-- Scott Paul

Pete Pace is out, and it's good for the country.

This is not quite on the same par as Truman firing MacArthur, but a civilian leader firing a general now and then can be healthy -- particularly when that General -- America's top general -- ventures into political matters that have absolutely nothing to do with his responsibilities as he did in writing a character commendation to the judge before Scooter Libby's recent sentencing.

Some will argue that Pace was simply "not renewed" rather than being fired. Well, when Brent Scowcroft "was not renewed" as Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Scowcroft told a number of friends he had been "fired" by the younger President Bush. In this case, Pace was fired.

Pace had responsibilities to oversee the national security needs of an entire nation -- for Democrats and Republicans -- and in our tradition, the senior echelons of the U.S. military are supposed to be non-political while still in uniform. Pace went over a big red line in his letter of support in Libby's case -- and all of his enemies in and out of the uniformed services have pulled their knives out.

In a similar political spat, Pete Pace was brown-nosing the President (he thought) in his condemnation of homosexuals as immoral. Again, this is another political issue he should have remained out of -- but given his responsibilities in managing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, there is reason why he might have commented to some degree.

But Pace's comments weren't structural -- weren't designed to affirm "don't ask, don't tell." They were political and denigrated a group of Americans currently serving in the military with honor -- at exactly the same time he has allowed the issuance of over 125,000 "moral waivers" in the case of other Americans entering the military with serious criminal violations on their record.

What really drove Pace's comments is he thought they would put him in a better place with the White House and the President himself.

What the General just didn't get is that despite the grand theater of social conservatism and near constant flirtation with James Dobson by the White House, the fact is neither the President nor the Vice President want to talk about or hear about the "gay issue." Bush rejected former Senator Dan Coats as Secretary of Defense when he was the front-runner for the job because Coats wanted to reverse Don't Ask, and Don't Tell with "Ask, Investigate, and Prosecute" as well as to get women as far out of military roles as possible. Bush dropped Coats fast.

Another bizarre thing I learned about Peter Pace recently -- both from an old girlfriend of his who lives in Chestertown, Maryland as well as former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson -- is the guy manages the truth pretty flexibly.

When Wilkerson blasted the White House and the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" with his famous speech of October 19, 2005, Rumsfeld was eventually asked what he thought of Wilkerson and his views. Rumsfeld decided to stick it to Col. Wilkerson by pretending he didn't even know who the 16-year long close aide to Colin Powell was. But at one press conference, Rumsfeld turned to Peter Pace and asked if he knew Wilkerson -- and Pace denied even knowing him.

What I know is that Wilkerson once reported to Pace -- but it wasn't expeditious at that moment for Pace to recall he was Wilkerson's overseer when Wilkerson was succeeding a Director of the U.S. Marine Corps War College, Rick Donnelly, who died from an aggressive cancer while still on active duty.

The Donnelly situation was very emotional for those close to him. Then Commandant of the US Marine Corps, General Charles Krulak, orchestrated Rick Donnelly's "death on active duty" after learning that the cancer he had was terminal -- something "every Marine Lawrence Wilkerson knew" as well as Wilkerson himself "applauded with vigor." Donnelly's commitment to the Marines was heroic -- and Pace would have remembered this situation well -- and Wilkerson's and Krulak's roles. Krulaks's management of this situation allowed Donnelly's family to receive the benefits of a soldier who died on active duty as compared to a medical discharge. Donnelly continue to work with Wilkerson right until the point where he could no longer bear the pain and had to be committed to Bethesda.

Pete Pace had little to do with this orchestration of Donnelly's passing -- but knew of it and spoke at Donnelly's funeral and had significant interaction with Wilkerson.

That's something odd for General Pace to have forgotten, but when Lawrence Wilkerson was helping many of us to see inside the warped decision-making structure in the White House that Cheney and Rumsfeld had hijacked, Wilkerson was probably not on the "recent memory" lists of many who wanted to maintain their position with Rumsfeld.

It's good to have Peter Pace out. The military is powerful enough in this country without inappropriate political posturing by its top commander in matters dealing with complex social issues like gay rights or weighing in on the degree of sentence deserved by a senior White House official convicted of a serious federal crime.

It's time to move on to Admiral Mike Mullen -- who is an outstanding leader, first rate. . .and someone I will write more about shortly.

-- Steve Clemons

I spent my morning meeting kids at Barnard Elementary School in D.C.'s Petworth neighborhood. I talked a bit about the problems I care about and learned a good deal about the problems they see as relevant to them.

It turns out that violence, pollution, and crime matter a lot to the Barnard kids, both locally and globally. And - who'd have figured - it takes teamwork in Petworth to solve problems just like it takes teamwork to solve problems at the global scale.

The kids learned about diplomacy at the United Nations. We made a circle, joined hands across the circle to make a "human knot," and then tried to untangle ourselves. The lesson: just because you're strong and have a loud voice doesn't mean that yelling or pulling hardest will solve problems.

We learned that the United Nations - and the world - works best when we work together and recognize that we're all in the same boat.

It's amazing how many of the solutions we need today are intuitive. Teamwork, active listening, not bullying, and humility really are second grade-friendly concepts.

Is it depressing that the current administration doesn't get it? It sure is. But the fact that kids understand these concepts so easily does give me hope.

-- Scott Paul

President Bush just appointed former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman to serve a five-year term on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council.

Mehlman wins a few points in my book for trying to expand the reach of the Republican Party and perform genuine outreach to minority communities. His apology to the NAACP on behalf of the Party for its role in exploiting racial divisions was extremely classy and brave.

But let's be honest: Mehlman is best known for managing President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. Specifically, he is responsible for organizing the disastrous Bush/Cheney foreign policy into a series of succinct talking points that framed thoughtful critics as spineless wimps.

Mehlman will be lonely among his peers on the Council as a partisan political operative, though some former officeholders and fundraisers do occupy the post as well.

On its face, there's nothing directly wrong or immoral about Mehlman's appointment. Plum, honorary posts are doled out all the time as a form of political patronage - much too often, in my opinion.

And as appointments go, given Mehlman's efforts to outreach to minorities, there is some logic to this one.

Still, this deeply offends my sensibilities. To re-elect President Bush, Mehlman played on the fears of a nation in its most vulnerable hour.

Mehlman exploited a great human tragedy - the 9/11 attacks - for purely political purposes. That he will be the public face for the commemoration of an even more ghastly human tragedy seems sadly ironic.

-- Scott Paul

I've just spent a morning meeting the dynamic and extremely impressive Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom -- followed by a talk I gave (but can't report on) in the most famous lion's den of movement conservatives about the positives and negatives of President Bush's foreign policy efforts. Now, I'm at Hay Adams preparing a talk for a group of visiting German journalists. There hasn't been much time for absorption of the news -- not to even speak of analysis.

But here's the "news alert" I just got from the Associated Press:

Thousands of Turkish troops have crossed into northern Iraq to chase Kurdish guerrillas operating there, Turkish officials tell AP.

I haven't had any time to think this through -- or to check with other sources and commentators. But one question is what do American troops do in this case when we are allied with Kurds and Turks?

This was one of the major nightmare scenarios that regional war planners and intel analysts have been deeply concerned about. Now, it's a reality.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

And the word is 30 months in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Obstruction of federal investigations is serious. I do feel somewhat badly for Libby in this -- as he's clearly taking much of the heat for this to protect Cheney, who many think should be paying the fine and doing the time.

-- Steve Clemons

Applied Materials, the largest semiconductor equipment manufacturer in the world is getting into the business of clean technology and clean energy.

Applied Materials -- which is known as AMAT for all NASDAQ junkies out there -- is venturing into solar cell production, and I have asked Applied's CEO, Mike Splinter, to give a talk about this today at 1 p.m. in the Senate Energy Hearing Room.

The talk is "What a National Energy Strategy Should Include. . .From Silicon to Photovoltaics -- A NASDAQ Blue Chip's Trip into Solar Cell Energy Production."

If there are folks nearby who want to be TWN's guest for lunch and are close to Dirksen Senate Office Building 366 (like staffers who read the blog), come on over. The New America Foundation/American Strategy Program staff will clear you if you mention that you were invited by me.

We have about 60 folks attending -- and lunch will be served.

I'll be putting copies of the speech, and probably a video clip, on the blog later.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

One of the things that few people know about James Wolfensohn is that when he served as Special Emissary of the Quartet in Palestine/Israel matters, Wolfensohn put his own private money on the table to help fund infrastructure and to help Palestinian businesses ship strawberries to Europe. I was in Israel in December 2005 and met an impressive retired Israeli general who was working hard to try and implement aspects of the framework agreement that Condi Rice had then hammered out with Israelis and Palestinians.

The general -- who was clearly sympathetic to the need to support the Palestinians and to end the idiotic interventions in and disruptions of Palestinian life and society -- nonetheless said that Palestine's "infrastructure had been wiped out; there was nothing there to work with." He blamed his own nation, Israel, for doing this -- and Wolfensohn and others involved at that time were feverishly working on ways to reestablish infrastructure of competent personnel in government, in the private sector, in any part of Palestinian civil society. And thus, Wolfensohn used some of his own money to try and do what he could to just get a competent firm and infrastructure established to stop Palestinian strawberries from rotting and get them on to tables in Europe.

Wolfensohn is a person who doesn't need to work and doesn't need to invest in strawberry transport. He doesn't need to write op-eds about global economic development. He can ignore all of us.

But he's one of these "big personalities" who wants to make a mark on the world and wants to improve things. In my mind, George Soros is one of these big personalities who wants to do important and admirable things in the world; so too are others across the political divide -- like Mark Malloch Brown, Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Sachs, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Zoellick, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and I could go on.

Wolfensohn has just published an oped in the International Herald Tribune in which he describes what he sees as a four speed world. From the article:

We are at a pivotal moment: World economic growth is posting a 30-year high, yet the consensus on globalization is splintering. With $51 trillion in annual global income, we have the resources to eradicate extreme poverty and promote prosperity, but the G-8 and the international financial institutions it controls are struggling to be effective. Unless our institutions keep pace with changing economics, the chasm will continue to grow between rich and poor.

This is because the world has moved beyond the old divides of North-South and East-West. While being more interconnected, it is now rapidly breaking into four tiers of varying levels of prosperity and hope. I call this the Four Speed World.

The first tier are the rich countries, including the United States and Europe, which for the last 50 years have maintained 80 percent share of global income while accounting for only 20 percent of the world's population. They will continue to enjoy improvements in living standards, but their dominance is being contested by emerging economies.

These emerging economies, comprising a second tier of about 30 poor and middle income nations, have learned how to leverage the global economy. With sustained growth at 7 percent or more per year, countries like India and China will soon become global leaders.

A third tier -- a much larger number of economies, perhaps 50 in all -- have experienced growth spurts, but also periods of decline or stagnation, especially once they hit middle income country status.

Spanning from Latin America to the Middle East, these economies have been forgotten by the G-8 leaders. They are neither poor enough to warrant special aid, nor sufficiently large and fast-growing to be major players in global growth. Yet more than a fifth of the people in the world live in these countries.

A fourth tier, a billion people, live in the poorest countries, which continue to stagnate or decline. These countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, gain little from globalization but are among the most vulnerable to its adverse effects, such as climate change and higher natural resource prices. The human tragedy engulfing this group is a huge concern and political challenge to the rest of us.

In the next 50 years, 3 billion people will be added to the 6 billion already on the planet. Barely 50 million will be added to the rich world; most will increase the second, third and fourth tiers.

Wolfensohn is reminding everyone that the world is interconnected, whether the rich nations want to fully acknowledge that or not. Bob Zoellick is in Ghana today and Ethiopia tomorrow because Africa matters to the US and Europe -- and we must get serious about remedying a global divide between the hyper-wealthy nations and the hyper poor.

He's on target. The question is why isn't Wolfensohn -- who has put his own money behind the Palestinians on strawberries, has donated a load of money to try and move progressive thinking forward on global economic development, and is attempting to constructively guide our appreciation for the important role of the World Bank (also in the article) -- not being given a "major problem portfolio" to solve?

Europe, the U.S., Japan -- the United Nations -- should not let people like Wolfensohn sit too long without big challenges because big personalities and cosmic thinkers of his sort who don't really believe in gravity and predetermined fate are the ones who actually can change the path of the railroad track we are on.

For those interested in some of the work Wolfensohn and others are generating, check out the Wolfensohn Center for Development at Brookings.

-- Steve Clemons

I received a note last night that another of the people who was responsible for opening many doors for me in Washington when I first moved here in 1994 died yesterday.

I'll never forget him telling me that while I should also maintain a constructive posture in policy debates, I shouldn't be afraid of breaking some china and challenging conventional thinking. He was not pleased when I met him of how homogenized the thinking in DC was becoming.

C. William "Bill" Maynes was the editor of Foreign Policy magazine for 17 years and was President Emeritus of the Eurasia Foundation.

I owe much to Bill and will greatly miss him in this town.

-- Steve Clemons

This afternoon, World Bank President nominee Robert Zoellick departed on a grueling two-week long "global listening tour" to check in with key stakeholders and clients of the Bank.

Zoellick is hitting Africa first -- before Europe. The first trip defines much of the mission. He is going to Ghana, which chairs the Africa Union now. He then goes to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia which is the official headquarters of the Africa Union.

Then, Bob Zoellick will travel to South Africa; then up to London, Paris, Berlin, and Oslo. While Norway is not part of the European Union -- in Zoellick's estimation, Norway is hitting way above its weight in Bank matters. Then before the trip is over, he will jump continents to Mexico City and Brasilia.

Sources report to TWN that the travel agenda and listening tour Zoellick has embarked upon would have been completely global if the U.S. government had sprung for a plane -- but it seems that the U.S. government may be skittish about doing too many favors for the next World Bank president given the trouble that Paul Wolfowitz got in for getting employment favors and help from the Pentagon and State Department for his girlfriend. (actually I have no idea why the USG wouldn't help out with a requested plane -- but my speculation seems reasonable I think)

Ding Dong. . .Note to US government -- helping Bob Zoellick accomplish his "actual mission" and help connect with key stakeholders around the world is not an inappropriate exercise to support. The USG should have lent the Bank a plane for this important trust-revitalization effort. That's the least we could have done for the length of time we stretched out the Wolfowitz ordeal.

Bob Zoellick nonetheless is reaching out to think tank players in DC and around the world to help him build support networks that feed him advice and counsel. I know some of the players, and they are first rate and would impress World Bank professionals.

In my view, he has committed to a whirlwind, minimal sleep exercise (five nights of sleeping on planes) to "show respect" to Bank stakeholders as well as to get the "healing process" underway inside the Bank, and outside.

My only concern about Zoellick's first steps is that he may be trying to do too much, too fast. His appointment will most likely come through near the end of this month -- after ratification by the World Bank board of directors. And his bridge-building and "listening sessions" are exactly what is needed at this time.

But Zoellick -- who was Senior Co-Captain of Swarthmore College's cross country team -- knows the difference between sprints and long-distance running. He's at the start of a marathon, and while he may want to make some early moves to establish the crowd's confidence in him -- he can't be the rabbit in this race. He needs to plan for a long haul.

There is a lot of inaccurate speculation in the blogosphere that Bob Zoellick is another neoconservative following in the footsteps of Paul Wolfowitz. This simply is not the case. The evidence that some critics provide is that Bob Zoellick signed a 1998 PNAC letter advocating war against Iraq. The truth is that Zoellick is a pragmatist in policy affairs and well known to be one of the best and brightest of the James Baker crop of political practitioners.

Roughly half of PNAC's letters dealt with the Middle East broadly -- and focused particularly on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. The other half focused on China and standing by the Taiwanese in their incremental push for independence from the mainland. Zoellick is a realist on China -- and is author of the "China as global stakeholder" template for talking about China's rise and the terms of its international engagement. This is completely antithetical from PNAC and neoconservative views.

I have learned that Bob Zoellick has met all of the Bank's executive directors -- or just nearly all of them already.

Folks are scrambling to know more about him, his management style, and his ideas. One of the other interesting tidbits I picked up today in trying to learn his views on climate change is that Zoellick was one of the "heroes" who got the US government to sign on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Zoellick headed the US effort and was the guide for EPA Administrator William Reilly through that effort.

Today, I have spoken with a number of environmental leaders at organizations such as the World Resources Institute who have said that Zoellick has been actively engaged with them -- from the early 1990s up til now. I was surprised to learn this given the general hostility of the Bush administration to environmental friendly and climate change oriented policies.

In any case, I still have a number of emails from World Bank staff members -- some who were involved in the insurrection against Paul Wolfowitz -- who are worried about Zoellick.

I remember the first tremors I heard about Wolfowitz's internal decisions in the Bank which preceded much of the mainstream furor that later followed. In January 2006, this blog actually broke the story of Wolfowitz pushing his cronies, Robin Cleveland and Kevin Kellems, which the Financial Times and Washington Post later turned into major stories.

Zoellick is under the watchful eye of many now -- in ways that Wolfowitz was not, particularly 18 months ago when I started digging into Wolfowitz's decisions on bank management and projects. He is one of the smartest policy players in Washington, in my view, and will work quite vigorously to start out on the right track -- and then will hopefully keep going.

More later -- but wanted to get the word out on Zoellick and his global "listening" and "show the world respect" trip.

-- Steve Clemons

I have just come by a lucid, excellent analysis of the recent "formal negotiations" between Iran and the U.S. which took place in Baghdad written by Iran expert and Columbia University/School of International and Public Affairs scholar Gary Sick.

I reprint this analysis with permission, as it is not currently available on the web:

US-Iran Talks, 3 June 2007

by Gary Sick

On Monday [May 28], the United States and Iran sat down together in the office of the Iraqi prime minister in Baghdad to discuss mutual concerns about Iraqi security. It marked a turning point in the hostile but impersonal relations between the two countries that many had feared would turn to war. That has not happened. In case there was any doubt about it, Condoleezza Rice said on Friday that "The president of the United States has made it clear that we are on a course that is a diplomatic course," and she refused to speculate on a military option. Skepticism is still in order, but it is evident that something is happening in US policy. Here is my own take in the form of a Q & A:

Q -- Is this meeting really a big deal?

A -- It is a big deal. Iran and the United States have not met face-to-face in a formally acknowledged bilateral meeting of substance (even in the presence of a mediator) since before the hostage crisis in November 1979.
The respective domestic policies and political sensitivities of both countries have conspired -- the word is deliberate and accurate -- to prevent such a meeting for nearly 28 years.

Q -- Then why now?

A -- The decision-making process in both Washington and Tehran is extremely murky, and one is reduced to reading tea leaves to divine meaning and purpose in either capital. But in my view, the imminent dangers of the Iraq crisis have persuaded both countries to reject the advice of their respective hardline factions, at least for the moment, since neither Iran nor the United States can expect to construct a coherent policy in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region without some measure of cooperation from the other.

Q -- Aren't their objectives too far apart to permit meaningful negotiations?

A -- Actually, as US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and others noted after the meeting in Baghdad, the two sides started in almost perfect agreement about their mutual objectives. Both sides would like to see Iraq remain a single political entity, with central authority in the hands of a freely elected government, and with no sectarian/civil war.

That would permit the US to declare a victory of democracy-building and would likely insure Iran of a relatively sympathetic Shia-dominated government and relative quiet on their western border. The big questions are tactical -- what does each party do to get to that outcome? -- and that is the essence of negotiation.

Q -- Won't this be sabotaged by hardliners on either side who are opposed to any kind of reconciliation between the US and Iran?

A -- They are trying and will continue to try. Thus far, and quite surprising to me, the political leadership in Washington and Tehran, who despise and distrust each other, have stuck to their guns even as they showed a lot of defensiveness in justifying their decision to talk. There have been no shortage of pretexts for a breakdown.

In the days leading up to the talks in Baghdad, Iran arrested a number of Iranian-American scholars and the US introduced the largest naval armada in recent history into the Persian Gulf for rather provocative exercises. The United States continued to hold five Iranian Revolutionary Guards who were arrested in Irbil in January and have been held incommunicado ever since on charges of espionage. Iran claimed that the US had sent agents into Iran to foment dissent among separatist movements from the Turkish to the Pakistani borders.

Yet both sides simply continued with the talks.

Q -- Are both sides willing to make the kind of domestically unpopular political decisions and tradeoffs that would be required for any kind of real progress?

A -- I'm not sure that either the Iranians or the American leadership are sure of the answer. It depends on what the other side has to offer. I suspect that the Bush administration has chosen to ignore all of its past rejections of bilateral talks with Iran because it is convinced that no orderly withdrawal of US forces in Iraq is possible without some measure of Iranian cooperation.

Similarly, Iran must think that some measure of cooperation with the Great Satan is required -- despite the howls of anguish from their ultra-conservative base -- if order is to be preserved in Iraq as the US occupation begins to wind down.

Q -- This doesn't sound like George Bush. What makes you think he has changed his stripes?

A -- I suppose that whatever change has occurred is strictly due to necessity, not choice. As Peggy Noonan puts it with incomparable brevity, speaking of Bush and his advisers in the Wall Street Journal, "Desperate straits have left them liberated" from their conservative base. Remember, we are talking four years after the invasion of Iraq: a lot of the enthusiasm for foreign adventures has cooled.

As to Bush's personal role in all this, just look at the people he has lately nominated for all the major posts in his administration who are major players on this issue: Josh Bolten as White House chief of staff, Bob Gates at Defense, General Petraeus in Iraq, Adm. Fallon as Centcom, Ryan Crocker as ambassador in Baghdad.

Whatever their personal differences and backgrounds, these are not ideologues, and several of them have expressed forcefully and publicly their lack of interest in an expanded war and/or their interest in engaging Iran diplomatically.

Bush could not have been unaware of the political pedigrees of all these recent appointees, and he must have had more ideological candidates to choose from -- did Dick Cheney have nothing to do with the selection process? A few days ago, in response to charges that the "crazies" might still choose to go to war, Condoleezza Rice said (with perhaps just the slightest touch of exaggeration?) "That policy [the diplomatic course] is supported by all of the members of the cabinet, and by the vice president of the United States."

We don't have to accept that as revealed truth, but however he got to this point, Bush now openly talks about his "Plan B-H" referring to the Baker Hamilton report -- something that was unthinkable just a few months ago.

Q -- Can you attach a timeline to this change? If you're right about a fundamental shift, when did it happen?

A -- The Bush administration does not share its innermost deliberations with me or any outsider, so one has to judge on the basis of external behavior. On April 11 undersecretary of state Nicholas Burns gave a speech at the Kennedy School at Harvard.

Burns is a cautious diplomat who protects his flanks and never gets out ahead of the action. In that speech, referring to his congressional testimony a few days earlier, Burns said that "diplomacy is our best course of action in blocking and containing the Iranian regime; that a military confrontation with Iran is not desirable, nor is it inevitable if we continue our skilled diplomatic course and have the patience to see it play out over the mid- to long-term. I am confident that we can avoid a conflict and see our strategy succeed." I take that as evidence that the internal battle was over by the end of March and that Cheney and those around him had lost, at least for the moment.

Q -- You paint a very rosy scenario. Does this mean that the path of US-Iran relations will be smooth from here out?

A -- I am very conscious of the fact that political analysts earn their keep by being cynical and negative. They can tell you fifty reasons why something desirable will not happen -- then, if it happens, give you an instant fifty reasons why it was inevitable all along. I don't want to lose my good standing in the fraternity by being too positive, so let me toss in a few negatives.

Although the hardliners in Iran and the US seem to have been outflanked for the moment, they are still there and they are very persistent and powerful.

According to blogger Steve Clemons, "The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

"Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously."

Helene Cooper, in Saturday's New York Times, identifies the individual as David Wurmser, the principal deputy assistant to Mr. Cheney for national security affairs.

In Tehran, the security services are arresting every American scholar or journalist who is working in Iran or simply visiting a relative and tossing them into the dungeons of Evin prison, at least in part as an effort to pressure the US to release the five Iranians who have disappeared into the secret American dungeons in Iraq.

In the past weeks we have had unprecedented shows of military force, ugly demonstrations of individual persecution, reports of US subversive actions inside Iran, and capture of 15 British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf. Both sides are being creative and insidious.

So fasten your seat belts. This ride has just begun.

-- Gary Sick

Sick's material is important to ponder and digest. It's not naive and full of wistful thinking about what might be doable in ideal circumstances between Iran and the U.S., but it does give us insight into the possible and practical, given the enormous mistrust between both sides.

I think he lays out the probabilities compellingly -- and I agree with him that what Ryan Crocker and those behind him like Nick Burns, Negroponte, and Rice achieved in Baghdad is good news -- though the American and Iranian efforts to lay new track in the relationship is fragile and subject to potential serious sabotage by stakeholders in both governments.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: This is a well-done interview on broad Iran issues that Columbia Magazine writer Paul Hond did with Gary Sick a few months ago. Well worth review.

-- Steve Clemons

In my debate commentary below, I could not recall a vote in the Senate or House regarding Bill Clinton's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I doubted there had been one since I thought that the measure had been enacted through Executive Order.

It turns out there was such a vote codifying the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" order in the House of Representatives just as Bill Richardson stated.

However, he stated in the debate that he voted against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Not so say the record keepers.

He voted for the provision which passed 301-143.

There are just a lot of votes to remember I guess. Tough to remember them all.

-- Steve Clemons

UPDATE: Steve Ralls of Service Members' Legal Defense Fund has an excellent update on the confusion over Richardson's votes on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I think that Ralls removes any doubt about Bill Richardson's commitment to a policy better and different than the failed policy that the Department of Defense is now using.

I'm not traveling so am going to watch and report on the Democratic presidential debate tonight. I'm not expecting a lot. The frontrunners are still a bit too much "Bush-lite" for me. For more, see this essay by Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Edward Luce on "timidity" in Democratic presidential ranks.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer has opened this up and is giving the audience the general playbook.

Terror, terror, terror -- the first question is a high fear one directed to Obama. Hasn't the Bush administration succeeded in keeping the homeland safe? as exhibited by the arrest of three individuals trying to blow up JFK Airport? Obama replied that we are less safe today because of Bush's actions -- not safer. He might be right, but the response is still pushing that fear button -- sort of like Fred Thompson saying today that "we are fighting evil."

John Edwards said that the "Global War on Terror" is a bumper sticker, a political slogan that has masked Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, spying on Americans, and the like. He's right.

Hillary Clinton disagrees wtih Edwards (and with me). Terrorists are suicidal terrorists -- "and we are not safe enough." More fear.

Ahhh...Kucinich lays it out. The "Patriot Act", he says, has undermined the liberty of citizens in this country. He would repeal it as unconstitutional. Brave. One really wishes he was more of a front-runner.

Now to Joe Biden. Why were the others on the stage with Biden wrong to oppose the President's spending bill for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Biden supported the legislation. He has made the claim that he has fought the President's plan with a hard and real plan of his own, and he's right. Biden wouldn't challenge his Democrat colleagues on their votes.

Hillary Clinton voted for every funding bill in the past regarding this war -- and has now changed track. Blitzer asks why. She says they are all united now -- all on the stage -- of wanting to bring the war to an end. But yet her opener was all about what an unsafe world this has become.

Obama makes the point that he opposed the war before John Edwards did -- said John Edwards was four and a half years late. Hillary piles on by saying that this is "Bush's war" (she is right) -- and said that Bush keeps the war going (she is right), but she's not being honest about the extremely intense complicity between Congressional Democrats and this President in launching this war.

Check out this cool "Talk Clock" on Chris Dodd's website. He needs to get some more air time.

Bill Richardson doesn't seem on top of his game. He's usually more direct and bold -- but got caught off guard by Blitzer on a Darfur/genocide question that led into an inchoate response dealing with keeping troops in Kuwait and Afghanistan.

Mike Gravel is doing his thing -- puncturing the logic of those who want to keep a military edge on our foreign policy. Thinks the insurgents and the Iraqi population are inseparable at this point -- much like Vietnam.

Kucinich wants to stop all funding for the war -- but having no funding bill. He's a purist -- not too practical actually -- but very compelling. Biden gets hot -- and he's doing a great job now. "It takes 67 votes to end the war!" And he is right that there are no such 67 votes. . .not yet. Nice burst, impressive, and articulate.

John Edwards has a good line: "We have to reestablish trust with the American people as President." Edwards was being honest and gave credit to Barack Obama for opposing the war from the beginning -- and admitted that he, Edwards, was dead wrong in supporting the war. Neither Hillary nor Edwards felt guilty for not reading the National Intelligence Estimate report on Iraq.

Gravel believes that no one who voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution deserves to be President of the United States. He suggests that they don't have "moral judgment."

Hillary doesn't get it. She's calling Bush wrong for the institutionalized deception about the buildup to the war -- and Bush's refusal to allow inspectors to go back in. But what Wolf Blitzer is NOT pushing is the illogic of the mission creep that occurred when Bush (with an assist from Congress) expanded the theater of conflict from Afghanistan to Iraq.

That was the error! We were taking on bin Laden and his protectors. Saddam Hussein was a classic thug who could be dealt with in a classic "thug management system" that America, Britain, and Europe broadly aren't bad at. Bin Laden was different. Blitzer is not pushing Hillary in the fact that her own calculus should have driven her to scream about this illegitimate expansion of the war to deal with Hussein, who was clearly already mostly contained in a British-American straight jacket.

Bill Richardson does not believe we need a 700 mile fence on our border with Mexico. Nice statement by Richardson. Biden voted for the fence because there was no alternative, but he's also not a strong supporter of the new border architectural enhancements. Ahhh. . .Obama voted for the fence too!

But somehow Obama jumped from the fence to border patrol and the guy with TB who slipped through the border. And like -- will a fence -- or better trained border guard really fix that? I think he didn't connect there.

Should English be the official language of the United States? Only Gravel said yes. Obama retorts that that kind of question is designed to divide us. (One might say that questions about evolution vs. faith-based alternatives does the same. . .but nonetheless I want to know).

Hillary has the answer. "English should be the national language of the United States, but not the official language because of the legal ramifications." She's right actually.

Dodd is also right is that we need more language training in the country -- but he's getting too hot about a relatively unimportant political issues. Too much passion about the wrong thing can be a killer.

Chris Dodd's Talk Clock has Dodd and Gravel trailing the others. Dodd deserves way more time -- but he's got to break in about stuff that matters.

Argghhhh. . .Obama doesn't understand the realities of health care. He says that the big difference between his health plan and that of John Edwards is that the latter plan insists on mandated coverage for all Americans. Obama just doesn't think some people can carry that load.

The reality of the health care debate is that there are too many people who CAN AFFORD health care who are electing NOT to be covered, and their defection from the system makes it very hard to cover the risks and costs of those at the lower end. A mandate is absolutely essential to get everyone covered in a reasonable way. Even a key libertarian writer, Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine wrote that such a mandate system combined with the continuation of a private health care system was the only way to get real coverage that all could accept. Obama is wrong on this, and someone needs to tell him.

Chris Dodd says that America is 42nd in the world in infant mortality. That is incredible, and I didn't know it.

Edwards says that you must get everyone in the plan -- or many millions will be left uncovered. Obama just cut off Blitzer and kept the debate going by talking about Information Technology in rural hospitals. Everyone in the room with me just groaned -- and complaints about Blitzer's weak moderating hand just became the gossip of the moment.

A question about gays in the military for Hillary Clinton -- Was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" a mistake of the earlier Clinton administration? She says it was a "transition policy." She properly says that this policy is being applied in a discriminatory fashion. She's absolutely right, and her answer was impressive. She quoted Barry Goldwater -- America's most famous 20th century conservative in my view -- who said "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight." Can't say I like the metaphor, but it's a good point.

Now to Biden on the same question. Biden says "Peter Pace is flat wrong." Ok. I'm gonna vote for Biden. . .at least at this moment. He's actually doing the best of anyone tonight with his boldness, his theater, and he's got his verbosity way under control.

Bill Richardson thinks that he voted against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I don't think that there ever was a vote -- as I believe that Clinton did this by executive order. I think that Richardson may have meant that he voted against the "Defense of Marriage Act." Not sure here, but I think Richardson may have misspoke.

Bill Richardson said that the ideal job for Bill Clinton was as Secretary General of the UN -- but that probably won't happen. Richardson believes the former President is needed in the Middle East and that he would make the perfect Middle East Peace Envoy.

Barack Obama isn't saying what he'd do with Clinton other that that "we need solid diplomacy" instead of "bluster."

Hillary believes in using former presidents to correct the severe damage of the last eight (really 6 1/2) years. Nothing more specific about Bill.

Chris Dodd is outlining an impressive plan on a national energy policy -- but nothing about reducing the price of gas. The real answer is to keep the price of oil high, via a tax to fund alternative development.

Gravel, who has no chance of winning this race, says it clearly. He not only looks at the apparent price of gas -- but suggests that the blood and money defending that oil supply is an implicit subsidy. Gravel's money quote to Americans: "You are paying $7.00 a gallon and don't even know it."

John Edwards wants to go after the big oil companies and basically thinks that they are gouging Americans. That's not a good enough answer for most -- but probably makes the trial lawyers crowd happy.

Bill Richardson scored with his "Apollo Plan" and his inspired talk that we need to conserve, innovate, create new options. He does have a good plan that he didn't get enough time to describe.

Biden thinks that we need to fix America's energy problem by driving far higher CAFE standards on automobiles.

We are now having a three-minute break.

The "Talk Clock" shows Joe Biden at 4 minutes and 45 seconds; Hillary Clinton at 9:25; Chris Dodd at 4 minutes; Edwards at 7:06; Grave at 2:59; Kucinich 2:28; Obama 8 minutes and 19 seconds; Richardson 7:23; and Blitzer 8 minutes and 23 seconds.

Anderson Cooper just asked whether anyone noticed that John Edwards keeps calling Senator Clinton, "Hillary" rather than the former. I noticed, and found it odd -- but smart. Too much respect of each other is not a winning style. He's putting her down in a pleasant way. But she's not letting him get an inch from her on that. Very interesting how the body language stuff matters on TV.

Voter questions are now up.

The first question has really already been covered. How would you (meaning the candidate) end major military operations in Iraq? Kucinich gave the same answer that he did before -- though he did thank the teacher for her and her husband's "service."

Barack Obama is asked what he thinks of Kucinich's response since Obama wants to increase the size of the military by nearly 100,000 troops. (actually 92,000) Obama evaded the question.

Chris Dodd thanks the lady for her service too -- they all will no doubt before the evening is over. Says that every president must do what must be done to "make America safe and secure." He might cut the F-22 among weapons systems that ought to be reviewed with respect to 21st century threats facing America.

The next questioner has asked why American servicemen can't be treated in hospitals of their choice. Barack is trying to be way to knowledgable and in the weeds on this one. Too micro. Too wonky. Barack advisors need to know that he gives awesome speeches, but his responses lack the luster he needs. I'm eavesdropping on a room FULL of Obama fans and none of them are too thrilled right now.

Richardson would give her son/husband -- said husband. . .but it is her son deployed in Iraq -- who would get a "Hero's health card." Ugh. Richardson lost me on that one. It's great to help veterans -- but please, let's not become the Soviet Union in the way we obsess around the military and nationalistic features of our already militarized and hyper-nationalistic nation. I know my views will be controversial, bur Richardson is not on a good track here.

Frank Luntz, if advising Obama whom he likes basically, would be pissed right now for the number of "numbers" that Obama has thrown at his public in his response about VA health care policy. Way too complex.

Wow. A question about Iran. Would you use force or diplomacy?

Hillary believes we should have been using diplomacy for years now -- and implicitly criticizes Bush for being late to the game and allowing much progress in Iran's nuclear program with nothing from our side. Wolf Blitzer asks what if diplomacy with Iran fails? She won't get into hypotheticals -- but says the Bush administration doesn't believe in diplomacy -- and actually took a huge swipe at Cheney who the administration sent to the Middle East and questioned how that could be seen as diplomacy. (Here is the clip of Cheney's comment on Cheney's "so-called diplomacy". Sizzling.)

John Edwards thinks that we need carrots and sticks with Iran. Nuclear fuel and economic opportunities on one side -- and economic sanctions and isolation on the other.

Biden would do away with "the policy of regime change." Yes. He's so right. You can't negotiate easily or confidently with parties if they think that the moment after a deal this nation will try to destabilize iran's government. But Biden said "if they have a missile on the pad, I'd take it out."

The question is about Pakistan to Hillary. How do we reconcile the US relationship with Pakistan when it is not a democracy. She lays out both sides saying on one side Musharraf is not interested in democracy and on the other is a key person we depend on for security help in the region. She suggested a "high profile" group of American advisors who might help Musharraf and Karzai (in Afghanistan) do what was needed to help accomplish American security objectives -- but that apparently fell on deaf ears when she suggested this idea to the White House.

Obama made the good point that we should not have allowed ourselves to become distracted by Iraq when we were going after bin Laden in Afghanistan.

John Edwards made the sensible point that given the fragile state of Pakistan's society and the rising radical Islam there -- that we have no idea what might come after Musharraf if his government fell.

I just missed something -- so check the transcript. Was in the restroom -- and came out and Bill Richardson was saying "I was there." I think he's talking about Darfur and genocide. Did Bill Richardson say that the way to move China on Darfur was boycotting the 2008 Olympic games? Geez...

I debated Richard Perle on Crossfire in April 2001 and he made that same proposal when we were in the middle of a crisis with China during the spy plane incident. Take some points away from Bill Richardson on that. John Edwards just jumped in on Richardson's side -- against Chris Dodd who wasn't silly about this -- and so Edwards loses some points too.

My crowd here is saying that Bill Richardson has given (so far) the worst answer of the night on the China/Sudan issue and that Richardson would boycott the 2008 Olympics to get leverage on China with Sudan. No one here buys that. And it seems like a "Bush-lite" answer from a candidate who has been otherwise impressive with his commitment to complex engagement with all international stakeholders. Richardson gave up more territory.

Kucinich got asked about "national service" mandates. Kucinich opposes mandated service. Dodd opposes mandatory service too. Both think people should be inspired -- and be given the opportunities to serve the nation if they choose to.

What is the definition of "rich" one New Hampshire self employed guy just asked the candidates. Obama said that in his health care plan, $250,000 of annual income clicks the rich register. He'd roll back the Bush tax cuts to that level of wealth. It's clear that Obama really needs to smooth out his responses. Way too wonky.

John Edwards uses the $200,000 a year level as the rich line. Edwards just suggested his "college for everyone" proposal -- sounds somewhat interesting, but we certainly didn't get enough time on that idea.

Bill Richardson is a strident budget hawk -- wants a constitutional amendment on balancing the budget and wants a line item veto. What's odd is that he doesn't get that there is no way for America to invest in itself and to reverse some of the serious current economic erosion without a Keynesian approach in the post-Bush years. We just need to dramatically invest in our public infrastructure -- and Richardson doesn't believe in that.

Kucinich got a hot line in. "We need to stop borrowing money from China to wage a war in Iraq." He said a lot of other left-pleasing stuff too. But his first line on China was the best.

Would Chris Dodd give up appropriations earmarks for Connecticut if elected? The question implied that earmarks are corrupt. Dodd thinks that we need something along those lines -- but not a firm straight-jacket. Dodd thinks we need national fiscal discipline to get financial house back in order. I don't think that any of the candidates realize that the right answer is that we need new public investment that is focused on high productivity possibilities for the nation.

Hillary did a good job reaching out to Middle Class Americans who reminded the nation that we had a balanced budget six years ago -- but that the real story is the way in which the Middle Class is shrinking and bearing more and more burden while the rich acquire more wealth.

Biden calls for "public financing of elections" as the way to end the special interest demand for earmarks. He makes a lot of sense on this. I like that he thinks about the underlying drivers of political realities. More of the candidates need to do this.

Edwards highest priority in the first 100 days is to travel the world and try to re-eastablish America's moral authority in the world.

Hillary Clinton's first priority would be to end the Iraq War if Bush had not yet done it.

Obama would focus on ending the Iraq War -- and then get his health care plan passed.

Richardson would revitalize education -- get science and math out into the schools (?). Has anyone told him that the federal government's role in education in the nation is. . .like. . .hyper-small?

Biden, in his first 100 days would defuse the tensions with North Korea and Iran -- and bring the war in Iraq to a close.

Kucinich said that he would stop funding the war -- and then a bunch of other stuff. . . like a non-profit health care system for all, cancelling NAFTA, withdrawing from the WTO, etc.

Gravel said that he wants those on the stage today -- part of the American leadership now -- to get these problems fixed.

A lot on the table.

My quick response is that Biden did well -- so did Hillary. Obama lost some points. He is just too wonky, unclear, and occasionally just stuck in the weeds. Edwards held his own and neither gained nor slipped. I think Richardson dove a few points. Kucinich made his crowd happy. Dodd unfortunately didn't score as well as he should have. . .and Gravel is where he was before.

And here is the final on the Dodd "Talk Clock."

-- Steve Clemons

TWN has been making a few waves here and there this week. Let me share four items that may interest some:

1. Helene Cooper in the New York Times today confirms the general picture of a piece I wrote last week that reported frustrations with Bush's policy course on Iran by Cheney and his team. Her piece is a whopper -- and Secretary of State Rice seems to be sending a signal not just to the media that she's in charge, but to Cheney too.

The same piece ran as a cover story in today's International Herald Tribune and has generated an email deluge here at TWN.

2. Edward Luce of the Financial Times published this piece today asking why Democratic presidential hopefuls still seem to be talking in the same national security grooves as President Bush. Our views are featured.

3. The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof published this item on his own blog, On the Ground, supporting my views about David Gordon -- who is about to take over as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.

Let me post his item below for those who have a hard time with the Times firewall:

Realism in the Bush Administration?

by Nicholas D. Kristof

The Washington Note has an interesting post saying that David Gordon, now the vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, will be announced as the new head of Policy Planning at the State Department.

That's very interesting, because David Gordon is first rate and not ideological, and because Policy Planning is a key portfolio in any administration in developing long-range policy. Of course, hard-liners in the Office of the Vice President can still out-maneuver the sensible people, as they have for most of the last six years, but it's nice to see good people appointed to top posts.

Steve Clemons, who writes the Note, says that Gordon's appointment is indicative of better people going into posts more recently, and maybe there's some truth to that. If the administration had started with Bob Gates and Gordon England at the Pentagon, instead of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, with Zoellick at the World Bank -- and, best of all, with somebody like Tom Ridge as vice president rather than Cheney -- then Bush might have avoided a failed presidency.

Bush also might have done better in preserving his reputation if he had just been defeated for reelection, so that his fans could blame today's problems on John Kerry.

4. Finally, Here is a radio MP3 clip I did yesterday with AntiWar Radio's Scott Horton. It's more on Iran, Cheney, and the shenanigans Cheney's team have been pulling despite some excellent work by others in the Bush admnistration.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

I hinted earlier this month that opponents of the Law of the Sea are terrified that Senate action on the treaty would expose their political weakness. Evidence is already turning up to support my claim.

Paul Weyrich wrote recently that the conservative effort to kill the Law of the Sea is all but over and that the treaty's opponents are in for a stinging defeat. His exact words: the possibility of stopping U.S. participation in the Law of the Sea is "next to impossible."

Hearings are expected later this month or in early July. When the treaty finally comes to a floor vote, only a small, extreme minority will vote against it.

I need to make two disclaimers about the title of this post. First, as I've mentioned before, I don't think "war for oil" accusations are sufficient to explain the ideological foundation for current U.S. military misadventures. Second, there is a bit of hyperbole in this title.

The facts are as follows: one of the most important reasons to join the Law of the Sea is that the treaty recognizes some important American legal rights regarding maritime resources. First, it would give the U.S. government exclusive rights to allow exploitation or conservation of resources in a large area off the U.S. coast called its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which covers an area larger than the 48 continental United States combined.

Second, it would also extend rights to U.S. firms over the American Extended Continental Shelf (ECS), or the part of the continental shelf that extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the coast.

Finally, participation in LOS would allow U.S. firms to apply for licenses with the International Seabed Authority, which guarantees the claims of these firms on sites in the deep seabed.

These are very important protections for the U.S. and they are good both for conservation and the U.S. economy. That's why environmental groups and the oil and gas industry agree that the U.S. needs to accede to the Law of the Sea.

According to multiple, well-placed sources, Frank Gaffney has a whopper of an alternative: he thinks that force, or at least the threat of force, should be used to compel other countries to recognize U.S. rights in the sea. Gaffney believes this is preferable to accession to LOS, under which U.S. legal rights would be recognized and disputes could be settled peacefully and equitably.

On second thought, the title isn't as hyperbolic as I first thought it was. And if you don't think Law of the Sea prevents military conflicts over resources, a quick refresher on the "Cod Wars" between Iceland and Great Britain is in order. The short version is that between 1958 and 1976, Iceland made a series of unilateral claims to exclusive economic rights beyond its territorial waters that Great Britain didn't recognize. The British Navy was sent to accompany its trawlers into disputed areas, and military conflicts and standoffs ensued.

We should all be shocked at the suggestion that the U.S. should use its military to protect narrow economic interests, especially when such a clear and widely recognized legal framework exists to avoid conflict. In addition, Gaffney's approach would put tremendous strain on the U.S. armed forces. The U.S. Navy can't be expected to send a destroyer to protect every American oil rig.

Let's be honest: this is not a left versus right issue, nor is it even a liberal versus conservative issue. Environmental groups and oil companies are supporting LOS together. The White House, the Pentagon, and the Department of Homeland Security are supporting it. The Coast Guard is supporting it. The American Bar Association is supporting it. International cooperation, faith, and peace groups are supporting it. Every ocean industry in the country - fishing, shipping, telecommunications, and manufacturing, to name a few - are all supportive of U.S participation in the Law of the Sea.

The treaty's few opponents are trotting out the same tired and, in some cases, factually incorrect arguments that they've been parroting for over a decade. The Law of the Sea pits a few extreme unilateralists against everybody else.

If there are any LOS opponents on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - I understand there are probably between 1 and 3, but no one has yet made his/her opposition public - I hope they call Gaffney as a witness for the hearings so the public can hear more about his alternative to LOS.

-- Scott Paul

The first Director of Policy Planning at the State Department was George Kennan. The 25th will be National Intelligence Council Vice Chairman David Gordon. The formal announcement is likely to be made in the next two weeks.

David Gordon is an outstanding choice for this key position in America' foreign policy establishment. Gordon is polymathic and knows that there is an enormous gap between yesterday's threats and tomorrow's. He worries about the declining water table in China. He thinks about resource wars and about the proliferation of "half-states", or "failing but not quite totally failed" states. He has great facility with classic military and geostrategic thinking -- but he's been trying to work through the many dark nightmares outlined by people like Robert Wright, Robert Kaplan, and Bill Joy for some time.

A few years ago, I spent a great weekend with Dave Gordon and about 20 other top tier national security thinkers at a meeting organized by Al Gore National Security Advisor Leon Fuerth at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund's Pocantico retreat. We were all there to hammer through a futurist/policy planning framework that Fuerth has been developing for some time titled "Forward Engagement." Frankly, Fuerth's views deserve far greater discussion than they have thus far received (and if Fuerth reads this, I should get signed back up with his efforts).

Gordon was the perfect partner for this discussion on network effects and "forward engagement" to confront complex future policy challenges and was working then on his Global Trends 2015 report -- and gave a brilliant "chat" about China, its development and what hard choices China's rise meant for the rest of the world. The meeting was off-the-record but suffice it to say that virtually none of Dave Gordon's roster of concerns matched those in normal, smart wonk society. He was thinking about global competition on a different level, far beyond the simple, binary and immediate. I remember clearly, for instance, the two of us discussing China's deep political and economic involvement in Latin America and Africa, something that was not 'then' on the radar of most other policymakers or even China watchers.

I had originally recommended that the current "Acting Director" at Policy Planning, Matthew Waxman, be retained to provide a 21st century take on how American foreign policy and national security efforts could be reorganized -- perhaps via some vehicle like a modernized version of Eisenhower's brilliant Solarium exercise. Waxman is a younger version of David Gordon, and the two should make an outstanding team for the period of time they work together. (Recently, I spoke at a forum of well-heeled legal types in New York and met a dean or two of some prominent law schools and understand that a bidding war may be in play to lure Waxman to a teaching position). Whether Waxman stays or goes, it would be wise for the high priests in America's foreign policy establishment to keep someone of Waxman's talents and moral clarity "in the network" -- and working with Gordon.

Why is it only in the twilight of this administration that we are seeing highly sensible appointments -- and a new commitment to healthy "deal-making"? It is regrettable that someone of Gordon's intellectual capacity and stature now has just a year and half to try and do something constructive in his new role. The reality is that America's place in the world seems to be slipping -- perhaps from a globally hegemonic, ordering role to something like another better-than-average great power -- and most of George W. Bush's political capital has been spent, often on low-return battles like the recent Wolfowitz struggle.

On the bright side, Bill Clinton at the end of his presidency gave himself about 45 days flat to solve definitively the Palestinian-Israeli problem and to normalize relations with North Korea. Not enough time. But the Bush administration has 19 months to work vigorously to turn this dismal mess around.

The constructive players in the administration, at this point, include people like Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten (he has made HUGE difference in general change of course of this administration away from Cheneyesque pugnaciousness), Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Deputy Secretary John Negroponte (yes -- for all the critics who have a problem with Negroponte, you need to take another look -- he is winning bureaucratic battles for Condi now against Cheney's team), Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns (whose success at 'lots' of new international deal-making that was preempted in the last few years make him a great potential successor to Bob Barker on The Price is Right), Legal Adviser John Bellinger, and now David Gordon succeeding Stanford's Stephen Krasner in George Kennan's famous job.

Others on the side of light include Secretary of Defense Bob Gates who is strongly backing the Diplomatic Team (and by reports I've received is in the clear lead -- though not demanding credit -- in laying out a new strategic road map for American interests in the Middle East). Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense, is running DoD far more competently than Paul Wolfowitz did. Mike McConnell at the Directorate of National Intelligence and Michael Hayden have completely turned around a convulsing, dysfunctional intelligence establishment that was being ravaged and distorted by Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone into something far more ordered and constructively supportive of the current foreign policy and national security missions.

Make no mistake about my enthusiasm for the rising A Team here. I am supportive of them -- but I oppose what this administration did in Iraq and think that American power and prestige in the world have suffered because of a self-inflicted, disastrous mistake that has shaken global trust in American leadership and purpose. The adoption of a so-called "war paradigm" by the administration after 9-11 showed that our government doesn't have trust and faith in our own sacred norms as a democracy during times of stress.

Frankly, it's only during stress that the true character of a nation or political system become evident. Constitutional protections, civil liberties, transparent government and the like never matter when its only convenient -- but when there is a challenge to them.

There is still time to get some of America's foreign policy and national security house back in order. A team is assembling that can -- if driven and inspired by what is best for the nation rather than cynical political reasons -- make some progress.

Many believe that the Policy Planning perch at State has slipped in significance over the years, but in my view this perceived slippage had more to do with the massive increase in complexity of global challenges and threats and the failure thus far of any administration -- Democrat or Republican -- to compellingly reorganize American and global structures and resources to deal with this complexity. But the position, in my view, can be extremely important.

Other policy planning directors other than Kennan include a roster of some of America's most distinguished national security thinkers. These include Paul Nitze, Walt Rostow, Winston Lord, Anthony Lake, Stephen Bosworth, Peter Rodman, Richard Solomon, Dennis Ross, James Steinberg, Morton Halperin, Richard Haass, Mitchell Reiss -- and even Paul Wolfowitz should make this list of notables.

I think David Gordon is one of a small handful of people who can bring wisdom, excellence and policy entrepreneurship to the Policy Planning activities at the State Department. He will be surrounded by increasingly depressed people who know that the chance to "do great things" during this administration is becoming increasingly constrained by the realities that face every President near the end of his tenure.

Gordon is a fun guy -- and a funny guy, but he's also serious and should ignore the naysayers. That said, he can't win in this environment by being "the fun guy" too much. He needs to pick the one or two policy arenas in which he wants to make a profound difference -- and tenaciously fight for them.

There are a lot of new good people -- working together finally -- in this administration. But Vice President Cheney, and his national security spearcarriers -- David Addington, John Hannah, and David Wurmser -- will be out there to sabotage and oppose him at every turn. These rivals can't be seduced to support David Gordon's logic. They need to be out run, embarrassed, exhausted, pushed out of the room, or crushed.

That's how one wins against Cheney's followers. David Gordon's appointment is a sign that smart realists are ascendant.

-- Steve Clemons