Thanks to all who entered The Washington Note's contest to name the Senate factions supporting and opposing John Bolton's nomination as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. There were more than 400 entries, and the decision has been extremely tough.

Though the judges were nearly seduced a couple of times by some brilliant zingers, I don't want to go "negative" in this campaign, and many of the most noteable catch phrases hit a bit harder than I'd prefer.

I'm also merging two of the best and will use my own judgment as to when to use the terms independently or together. I'll explain in a moment.

And one person who didn't make a submission gets a mug -- and that is Katie, the receptionist in the majority office of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was a trooper in taking all of our calls. She was overwhelmed yesterday and had no idea this issue was popping -- so though she might stuff it in the back of the cupboard or toss it, she gets a mug.

Winning for naming the anti-Bolton group is "Praktike" from this board, who questioned whether this was an effort worth fighting. He wins for "The America Alone Alliance."

Remember John Bolton's infamous line on America and the UN:

If I were doing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member [the United States] because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world.

The next WASHINGTON NOTE MUG winner is Ben Rosengart who also comments frequently on this. He made numerous suggestions, including "Mission Mockers" that seemed to remind me of a John Malkovich skit for some reason. But his winner is "The Leadership League." Simple, inspiring, and in the great bilateral traditions of American engagement and 'leadership' in the world. I liked it a lot.

I am going to use it, but the fact is that 90% of the 40 or so people I gave these to to rank kept picking David Meyer's "The UN-Bolted." It's clever, says a lot, and nearly works as "The UN-Bolted Leadership League."

Honorable Mention goes to Douglas McGray's "Ten Stories Coalition," which cleverly plays off of Bolton's line: "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

I recognize that these don't have the zinginess of "Faint-Hearted Faction" and "Conscience Caucus" -- but they are close enough. And I can use the UN-Bolted and/or Leadership League when the situation fits.

So, Mugs to Katie, Praktike, Ben Rosengart, and Dave Meyer. The mugs are on order now and will be sent to these winners with our compliments and congratulations -- and will be available to all soon.

Now we have to get to the real work of telling the Bolton story that he'd rather not have told.

-- Steve Clemons

I just received a phone call from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I was informed that the Committee will definitively not hold hearings on John Bolton's nomination next week and that they will occur some time in April.

I confirmed with my source in the State Department that the effort to fast-track Bolton has been successfully derailed -- thanks to your efforts and to the good sense and reason of Senator Lugar who does want to play honorably and fairly when it comes to these hearings.

It was important to make these calls today. While the State Department was pushing from one side on Lugar's staff, there was no resistance from the other. Many of you provided the resistance to make sure that this was not ram-rodded through.

And just to be clear, the Dem staff needed this too. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is pretty collegial -- so for Biden to take exception to a decision by Senator Lugar would require some reason. If there had been no civil society alert in this case and Lugar had made the announement on Bolton, Biden would have had little to give Lugar by way of excuses for delay.

So, today's effort was extremely useful on many fronts.

This is one small victory. Much more to do now.

But at least we have some time to prepare our case on the many, many better options Republicans have for Ambassador to the United Nations than John Bolton.

-- Steve Clemons

NOTE TO WASHINGTON NOTE READERS:

Please immediately call the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Majority Staff) office at 202-224-4651 and state that while you are not opposed to the Bolton Hearings themselves, you are asking Senator Lugar NOT TO ANNOUNCE THE DATE OF THE HEARINGS TODAY.

The committee staff is now aware that this is a matter of contention. If Lugar does not announce the Bolton Hearings today -- then they cannot be held next week. The first opportunity would then be during the week of April 4th.

This is important. Please call today -- Friday -- TODAY.

202-224-4651.

-- Steve Clemons

Dear Senator Lugar:

You are the kind of outstanding citizen committed to principled American leadership in the world that our Ambassador to the United Nations should also exemplify.

Many of your fans and those who feel that America must make some credible efforts at rebuilding bridges with parts of the world that have traditionally been friends and allies are hopeful that America will begin demonstrating fresh and revitalized, principled global leadership. President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations inflames world opinion and may undermine America's efforts to constructively assist in UN reform efforts.

John Bolton has served in government a long time and deserves a fair hearing -- but that hearing must be fair for those who have serious questions and doubts about his candidacy.

The State Department is worried about the Bolton hearings and is pressuring your office to announce his confirmation hearings TODAY so that by the "six-day notification rule" those hearings can be held next week and before recess.

Please do the right thing. The fair and balanced thing to do is give advocates and skeptics a reasonable amount of time to make their case or lodge their concerns.

Please announce Bolton's hearings at a later date -- but not TODAY.

With sincere respect,

Steve Clemons

We will name the factions tonight -- but as one TWN reader said, "who cares -- we just need to get to work opposing Bolton's confirmation and flood the appropriate Senate offices with our views." Soooo right.

Well, the first Democrat to officially break ranks is Senator Ben Nelson who is playing the "Zell Miller Lite Strategy" and plans to vote to confirm Bolton unless he hears something to dissuade him in the next several days.

We hope to send him material to help him in that ultimate decision -- but you can help by contacting his office at (202)224-6551. You may try and connect with his foreign affairs legislative assistant, Eric Pierce, or his receptionist.

You can send an email to the Senator here or to senator@bennelson.senate.gov.

On other offices, let me just say that MOST OF THEM ARE NOT YET EVEN THINKING ABOUT THE BOLTON NOMINATION and have no idea that State is trying to fast track it. So, alert them -- and tell them to take a stand one way or another. Most of the caucus -- which I will report later -- is alleging to be undecided.

Senator Reid, you have some work to do.

-- Steve Clemons

Sidney Blumenthal's column today exposes the perversity of appointing John Bolton to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations.

Here are the most poignant lines in the piece, but I recommend reading it in full:

-- John Bolton has been named by President Bush as the US ambassador to the UN. "If I were redoing the security council today, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world," Bolton once said. Lately, as undersecretary of state for arms control, he has wrecked all the nonproliferation diplomacy within his reach. Over the past two decades he has been the person most dedicated to trying to discredit the UN. George Orwell's clock of 1984 is striking 13.

-- Bolton is an extraordinary combination of political operator and ideologue. He began his career as a cog in the machine of Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, helping his political action committees evade legal restrictions and federal fines. Helms, the most powerful reactionary in the Senate, sponsored Bolton's rise to Reagan's justice department. . .Bolton is often called a neoconservative, but he is more their ally, implementer and agent. His roots are in Helms's Dixiecrat Republicanism, not the neocons' airy Trotskyism or Straussianism.

This debate about John Bolton is not just about him, or the United Nations -- it is about restoring a sense of integrity and common purpose among the great nations of the world and restoring U.S. leadership after the debacle that preceded the Iraq War.

Appointing Bolton to this position is the same as smiling at and talking about fresh start with the international community, like Bush did in Europe, while at the same time sliding a sharp knife into the world's back.

-- Steve Clemons

The time line just got pushed up. This just in from a very well-placed source:

FYI, I'm hearing that they are trying to move this nomination very quickly because the longer it hangs out there, the more time opponents have to mobilize. The State Department's material for the confirmation hearing (Q&A, etc) is due by COB today; they hope to schedule his hearing for next week.

This person also said that at State, you can feel the "nervousness in the air" about Bolton's nomination. The powers-that-be there want to push this fast next week and catch the opposition off guard.

Folks -- this is important. Bolton is not the kind of constructive force America should have pursuing its interests in the United Nations.

We will soon be naming the Coalitions For and Against the John Bolton confirmation.

NOTE TO SENATOR REID -- Don't punt on this one. If you pull together the caucus quickly, demonstrate principled vision and strength on this outrageous Bush choice for the UN, there is a chance that some moderate Republicans may empathize. Let's talk.

More very soon. . .

-- Steve Clemons

I have kept my powder dry these last several days on John Bolton's nomination to serve as America's Ambassador to the United Nations. I have just been trying to get my head around this gesture by Bush & Co. -- and think that there is virtually no centrist ground to occupy when it comes to his appointment.

I originally thought that Bob Zoellick's lateral move from serving as U.S. Trade Representative to the position of State Department Deputy Secretary finally showed some gains of the realists over the neocons in the Bush administration. Bolton's nomination though demonstrates that neocons are still in dominance throughout government -- and within State, shows that realists and neocons are neck and neck.

Bolton's portfolio within the State Department bureaucracy keeps him and his retainers well-placed to both spy on and constrain Rice and Zoellick.

Here is the deal. I just don't think America's core interests can be served by this appointment. I don't mind a U.N.-skeptic going to the United Nations, but at least that skeptic needs to believe in the essential role and function of a reformed United Nations -- and needs to be a constructive force in achieving that goal.

I have thoroughly read through Bolton's statements and writing and can find nothing that indicates that he would be anything but destructive.

Democrats and moderate Republicans have to stop ceding decisions to the President when those decisions are so harmful to the nation as a whole. We have to stop saying, "we will oppose the President even though Bolton's nomination will probably go through."

We need to embarrass the government on this decision -- and suggest better alternatives, other Republicans who would be a far better choice as our representative to the United Nations, than John Bolton.

Here is what we need from you in the blogosphere -- and I realize that some of you may not agree that this fight is worth the effort. Please indulge those of us who feel that opposing Bolton is in your interest, as well as ours.

We need language to reward and inspire Senators willing to oppose Bolton -- and language that shames those willing to stand with Bolton and who essentially want the United Nations to be a non-entity. It is worth remembering that Bolton once stated, "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

Josh Marshall has been successful with this kind of approach by first launching his Faint-hearted Coalition and Conscious Caucus in the Social Security Privatization debate. He has now launched the Credit Card Corps and the Consumer Champs in the battle over bankruptcy legislation.

The challenge of those of you interested is to help generate language that might divide the world (well, in this case the U.S. Senate) between those inspired by principled global engagement (a long-time Republican norm) and those not.

A couple of good ideas thus far include:

The UN-Bolted
(those opposing Bolton)

and

The Ten Stories Coalition
(those supporting Bolton -- or who are undecided)

But rather than having a flurry of brain-storming sessions with folks I know, it would be interesting to hear from those of you who are creative word-smiths.

The winner will get the very first Washington Note coffee mug -- that are now in production.

Thanks for your support -- and brilliant ideas -- in advance. We need this language fast.

-- Steve Clemons

When you have time today, read this very long and very good commentary by famed editor Tom Engelhardt on Woolsey, Podhoretz & Co. on their contrivance of World War IV.

I particularly like this excerpt:

"World War IV" does many other useful things as well. It moves the goalposts into the future, way off there in an endless generational struggle. In other words, it conveniently excuses much that might otherwise seem baleful or ridiculous in the present.

It becomes possible to write, as Earl Tilford, former director of research at the U.S. Army's Strategic Studies Institute, did: "This is World War IV. Forget the sleazy sickness of Abu Ghraib. Stop mouthing meaningless slogans like, 'Bush lied, soldiers died.' Steel yourselves for a long, bloody fight. This is a war we must not lose."

-- Steve Clemons

George Soros must be getting ready for some incredible windfalls. Korea, Russia, and now Japan have discussed diversifying their foreign reserves portfolios and essentially offsetting their heavy dollar dependency with other currencies.

Shockwaves. Some of us have been saying that this would happen -- and have held the position ever since the current account deficit began to skyrocket from it's long term average of roughly 2% to 6% of GDP.

This in from Reuters:

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Thursday that diversification of Japan's foreign-exchange reserves was "necessary," rekindling speculation in the currency market that the government could shift its reserves, the world's largest, out of dollars.

When asked about the risks of having reserves too concentrated in one currency, Koizumi told a parliamentary committee, "I believe diversification is necessary."

What Japan is doing is diversifying its political portfolio.

Let's review the latest dynamics in Japan's policy positions and whether they represent a net negative or net positive for George Bush, who spends a lot of time mentioning Koizumi in his press conferences.

1. (+) Japan extends term of service for its approximately 600 non-combat Self-Defense Forces stationed in Iraq (and Australia commits 450 new troops to protect the Japanese since the Dutch have pulled out).

2. (-) Japan pursues UN Security Council Seat and for the Europeans and others in the mix, regularly underscores the importance of the United Nations.

3. (-) China replaces the United States as Japan's largest trading partner.

4. (+) America gets Japan to publicly declare what has been privately understood for years -- that Taiwan's security is Japan's concern as well and is explicitly mentioned in the last revision of the U.S.-Japan Joint Defense Guidelines.

5. (-) Japan fails to show up on September 9, 2004 at treasury bill auction. Still uncertain as to whether someone overslept, got the date wrong, or whether this was a subtle political signal.

6. (-) George Bush discovers this week that he has been misled by Koizumi on re-opening Japan's markets to American beef after the last Mad Cow disease scare. Whereas Koizumi once said that this was a done deal, he is now saying he is working on it with no date for resumption yet in place.

For the first few years after 9/11, the policy positions between Japan and the United States on every front were identical -- so close in fact that Japan seemed to blend into U.S. policy so closely that Japan didn't seem to matter anymore. It largely disappeared as a force in D.C. -- whereas Europe whose portfolio of confrontation and collaboration with the U.S., depending on the issue, saw its stock and presence rising.

Although Japan Ambassador to the U.S. Ryozo Kato would regularly state that Japan-U.S. relations had never been better than during the last few years -- the truth is Japan-U.S. relations have never been more thin or fragile. Koizumi positioned Japan as America's lap dog since September 2001 and Kato and Japan's Foreign Ministry have opted for a low-visibility, below-the-radar-screen type of interaction with administration officials where Richard Armitage, Michael Green, and Jim Kelly orchestrated U.S.-Japan deals with a few gatekeeper Japanese officials. Simple. Uncomplicated. But anything but robust.

Today, it seems Koizumi is realizing he has leverage with America because of his loyalty and the deployment of troops in Iraq. And he is also realizing that he is "over-bought" in his America-only portfolio.

He is now diversifying -- and it is fascinating to observe.

Watch out....Japan is coming back as a force with which to reckon.

-- Steve Clemons

According to a New York Times article out today by Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt, a high-level panel is going to report to President Bush that our intelligence on Iran's arms is inadequate.

This hasn't stopped the grind towards an Iran confrontation though. Porter Goss recently gave a statement that sounds exactly like the pre-Iraq War accounts of their nuclear, biological and chemical weaposn programs.

According to the Times:

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

I am not in a position to know whether Iran is trying to feverishly produce WMDs or not. I have spent time with Michael Ledeen -- who along with James Woolsey -- comes as close to a modern Dr. Strangelove as anyone, and Ledeen sees Iran as the hub of all evil in the world. Afshin Molavi, my colleague at the New America Foundation, paints an entirely different picture.

The point is that given our unbelievably faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs, America's credibility on the intel front is non-existent and needs to be re-established.

My proposal for the time being is to defer to the law of averages and give the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) the lead on Iran.

INR got Iraq right -- and as Justin Rood's excellent article in the Washington Monthly explains -- while they don't always get "it right," their batting average is higher than any other intelligence bureaucracy in our government.

What does INR say on Iran? That would be interesting to know. . .

-- Steve Clemons

Tom DeLay will be upset. Another liberal pol got a job in Washington -- and is even co-opting a well-placed conservative.

My friend Steve Elmendorf who ran Dick Gephardt's world for more than a decade has tied up in a lobbying enterprise with Jack Oliver, "former money man for President George W. Bush and a one-time campaign aide to almost every big-name Missouri Republican."

Besides serving as Gephardt's Chief of Staff for a decade and running his boss's failed presidential bid, Elmendorf served as Deputy Campaign Manager on the Kerry Campaign. After Kerry's failure, I sat next to a big-time fundraiser for the Dems on a plane to Chicago who said that "the only person who ought not to be fired and barred from the next several presidential campaigns is Elmendorf."

Deirdre Shesgreen reports:

One of the oddest new couplings will be announced today: Jack Oliver, former money man for President George W. Bush and a one-time campaign aide to almost every big-name Missouri Republican, is teaming up with Steve Elmendorf, longtime confidant to former Rep. Richard Gephardt and former adviser to Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid.

The pair will head a new lobbying wing of St. Louis law firm Bryan Cave. Oliver and Elmendorf would not name any prospective clients, but they are pitching their fat Rolodexes and insiders' political perspective to lure Missouri clients and other interests to sign up with their new venture.

She continues:

At first blush, they seem an unlikely match.

Elmendorf describes himself as "pretty liberal." Oliver says he's a George W. Bush-style "compassionate conservative."

Elmendorf, 44, is a gruff, bare-knuckled veteran of partisan combat who has mostly stayed behind the scenes, leaving the limelight to Gephardt and Kerry. Oliver, 36, is gregarious and polished and is nurturing his own political ambitions.

Talking with many of Elmendorf's friends over the last year, the most referenced traits mentioned are that no one is smarter on grass-roots politics, mobilization, and the like -- but that he's not a "people-person" (like Jack Oliver) and not a glad-handing type. In fact, even the report linked above emphasizes "he has never been a gregarious glad-hander."

Elmendorf's gruffness may seem impenetrable to many who know him -- but he's really got a soft side.

Elmendorf has a second home not far from mine in Chestertown, Maryland, and the town goose died recently. Yes, a big white goose, with lots of character and attitude -- named Lucy. A real goose, not a human pretending to be one.

I couldn't be at Lucy's memorial service near the dock on the Chester River where Lucy ruled her domain. Apparently, Lucy's ashes were released into the river.

Word is that Elmendorf made it to the service and some even said that a small tear could be seen in the corner of his left eye. It might have been the light -- but I think it's evidence that Steve indeed has a soft spot.

Good luck to Steve Elmendorf and Jack Oliver. We need more odd bedfellow partnerships in this town.

-- Steve Clemons

Unless you are a Japan watcher, this post probably won't interest you -- unless you are into royals. And most Japan watchers for that matter aren't interested in the imperial family and the goings-on within Japan's secretive aristocracy. But I am going to write about this Tokyo soap opera anyway.

I was somewhat dismayed yesterday by Crown Prince Naruhito's "official apology" to his parents. Last May, the Crown Prince made the public comment, "It is true that there were developments that denied (Crown Princess) Masako's career as a diplomat as well as her personality."

Allegedly, this statement triggered icy relations between the Chiyoda Palace, occupied by Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko and the Akasaka Palace occupied by the Crown Prince and his wife. In fact, Imperial Household staff short-hand references to the Emperor and his son by just calling them "Chiyoda" and "Akasaka".

But here's the deal. I don't buy the story that Naruhito's mom and dad are so upset. What has happened is that the Imperial Household Agency, the massive, largely secret bureacracy that manages the affairs of Japan's imperial family, was irritated by the Crown Prince's honesty, and lapse of protocol.

In fact, the Imperial Household Agency's behavior about this seemingly innocuous statement. Well, it's not innocuous -- it was an endearing admission from Japan's next emperor that lives lived on the other side of the Imperial moat can be stifling and exhausting. But the Imperial bureaucracy's resistance to such modern honesty belies their desire to keep the imperial institution lurking in Japan's political system in case the opportunity for "Imperial revival" presents itself in the future.

Japan's emperor has rarely been a powerful force unto himself (or herself -- as there have been female emperors in Japan's ancient past) but has always been an important instrument of legitimacy for whatever force was ruling Japan. There have been times, however, where the Emperor did emerge as a powerful player -- as in the case of Emperor Meiji -- and the Imperial Household sees itself as cocooning the Imperial line until such a case arises again.

This has kept the Imperial household a favorite of right-wing zealots in Japan and the consequences for individuals, journalists, politicians, or other social leaders who publicly question whether the Imperial Household should exist -- or disparage the emperor or imperial system in any way -- run a real risk of being beaten up, or even killed, by imperial institution-loving thugs.

The antics that have played out between Imperial dad and son only add to the worst side of Japan's imperial mystique. And it is my view that the Emperor himself is a puppet of these bureaucrats and that the Imperial family itself is caught in the intrigue of the staff surrounding this family.

For years, Empress Michiko was treated badly by her in-laws, the Emperor Showa and his wife, who detested Michiko's commoner status. I have had the opportunity to meet the Emperor and Empress a couple of times -- usually at cultural events in Japan, once at an art tribute to woodblock print artist Yoshihiro Mori and another time at a reception and dinner for the 75th Anniversary of the America-Japan Society in Tokyo.

I took former California Governor George Deukmejian, who happened to be in Tokyo, to that America-Japan Society dinner and found myself automatically upgraded to a far better table than I would have had alone and got to attend the reception preceding the dinner with Emperor Akihito and his wife. Jimmy Carter was there.

When the imperial couple, who were smiling and bowing, shaking hands, even, worked through the room and got to me -- with Jimmy Carter just standing to my right (and I knew that the Imperial couple was moving towards him, not me), I mentioned the name of a woman, Noriko Matsumoto -- a really wonderful person who worked on my staff at the Japan America Society of Southern California in Los Angeles and who had left Japan after a terrible divorce and raised her young daughter alone in America. I had heard that Noriko had been in school with the Empress -- so I decided to be indiscreet and ask about this.

When I mentioned Noriko's name, the Empress's face got all contorted, and she actually grabbed my arm with both of her hands, looking close into my face, and said "Noriko, Noriko...where is she? How is she?" Jimmy Carter then commented from the side -- somewhat irritated I think that I had preempted the quick move of the couple to him -- that "this Noriko must really be something."

My point in recounting this anecdote is that the Empress seemed desperate for a connection to her past and seemed in that moment as if she were near some kind of breakdown herself. The Emperor was very kind, smiled, shook hands, but he was not indifferent at all to his wife and her obvious concern for Noriko Matsumoto. Not too long after that, the Empress lost her voice and stopped speaking to anyone for a very long time.

There are responsibilities and pressures of living as a member of the Imperial household that became obvious to me then -- and it was clear to me in my moment at that reception with Empress Michiko that this family knows how important "humanity" and human connections are. That is one of the reasons I just don't buy the notion that the parents are angry at Naruhito for expressing concern about his wife's circumstances and her sacrifices to be a part of their family.

I knew Masako Owada pretty well when she worked at Japan's Foreign Ministry and got in some hot water for jokingly calling her "damn stubborn" when the Los Angeles Times asked me about her. I meant this comment only in the best of senses and with admiration actually because she was tenacious and very smart.

In a somewhat crass article about Masako's engagement to the Crown Prince, the Los Angeles Times ran this 1993 clip in a really silly article:

* And Masako, don't sell out.

But Clemons believes you're in the power position: "I give her three years and she's going to start knocking down walls."

My point at the time was that I thought that Masako Owada's tough backbone and independence would be something that finally brought the sprawling, self-indulgent Imperial Household bureaucracy to heel.

I was completely wrong -- and I feel quite badly that Japan has so overtly and symbolically stifled the dynamism and independence of a brilliant, career-minded woman who in her imperial role might have revolutionized the position of women in Japan and might have helped restore the importance of "merit" in a system corrupted by age-old personal networks.

If Naruhito's dad was ticked off by his son's comment about the pressures his wife must have felt giving up her career aspirations, then his father has done a major disservice to all Japanese women. But again, I just don't buy it. These bureaucrats who work vigorously to maintain an other-worldly aura and mystique around the imperial household create tension in a model of Japanese democracy that can accept a transparent constitutional monarchy -- but the characteristic opaqueness of this system is clearly at odds with democracy.

Crown Princess Michiko may get her revenge -- and will hopefully raise her daughter, Aiko, to have the same stubborn brilliance she has. And with no other male prospect on line, Japan may just revise its Imperial Household Law to allow a woman to ascend the throne as empress. Most Japanese would like to see this done.

When Emperor Akihito was installed, 14 Japanese female attorneys sued the government arguing that the Imperial Household Law that prohibited women from becoming emperor was unconstitutional.

Article 14 of Japan's Constitution reads:

Article 14 [No Discrimination and Privileges]

(1) All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic, or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status, or family origin.
(2) Peers and peerage shall not be recognized.
(3) No privilege shall accompany any award of honor, decoration, or any distinction, nor shall any such award be valid beyond the lifetime of the individual who now holds or hereafter may receive it.

I never heard what happened to their lawsuit -- which meant that it went nowhere most likely.

However, it is time that Japan's elected legislators came to Masako's rescue -- pried open the walls of secrecy that surround Japan's imperial system -- and made the institution more democracy-friendly than it is in its current form.

Michiko and Masako should rebel and just walk out across their respective moats and start campaigning for "healthy families" in Japan -- which includes women living more fulfilling lives in careers they choose and ending the political correctness about women subordinating themselves in male-dominated corporations (and imperial families).

Ok -- enough on Japan's Imperial Problem.

I just needed to think about something other than John Bolton being appointed American Ambassador to the United Nations. More on that later.

-- Steve Clemons

James Woolsey has been on the speech circuit, most recently at the 2005 Camden Conference up in Camden, Maine. I wonder how much folks are paying him to come up and scare them with his World War IV rhetoric.

Woolsey believes in an economy of scale when it comes to fighting our enemies -- and might as well just blur them all together. He argues that we are fighting three prongs of totalitarianism -- Iranian theocrats, al Qaeda supporting Islamists, and supporters of Saddam Hussein.

One of the soldiers who spoke at a Gunner Palace screening I recently helped host made the apt comment, "though there wasn't a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda before the war, there sure as hell is one now. . ." Woolsey conveniently ignores the fact that the ecosystem of battle we have designed drew together al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents -- because America chose that line of attack, not because there was any substantive connection there.

And those theocrats in Iran were pretty much at war with Iraq -- until we removed their chief nemesis to the north -- so that we could take on all of them at the same time.

Woolsey has been talking about World War IV for a long time, but now he is re-casting it as what will be the "longest war of the 21st Century." Let me put words in his mouth -- though he says the war will "last decades," he is getting ready to call this the new "hundred years war."

Here is the report:

Former CIA chief James Woolsey said Sunday the United States faces three totalitarian movements in the Middle East and that conflict between the West and Islamic militants will continue for years. The three groups at war with the Americans are the clerics who control the theocracy of Iran, the Islamists who support al-Qaida, and the supporters of Saddam Hussein, the deposed leader of Iraq, he said Sunday at the 18th annual Camden Conference.

Describing himself as the nearest thing to a neoconservative those attending the Camden Conference would hear, Woolsey said he supports the U.S. war with Iraq, while at the same time outlining what he believes are the mistakes of policy that led to it.

Forget Monica. I am still furious with Bill Clinton for appointing Woolsey to the CIA and empowering this guy.

-- Steve Clemons

This is from pages 22-23 of U.S. District Court (Charleston, South Carolina) Judge Henry Floyd's important decision in the case of Jose Padilla:

2. Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus

Accordingly, in light of the foregoing discussion and analysis, it is the judgment of this Court that Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts One and Two of the Petition, as well as his Petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be GRANTED.

Judge Floyd sounds like a strict constructionist.

Here is what George Bush said about judges and the U.S. Supreme Court in the second presidential debate:

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

Can someone please remind the President what he said.

Release Jose Padilla, or charge him.

-- Steve Clemons

(ed. note: thanks to JR for sending this.)

Gavin Sheridan does a great job challenging a post of mine on an 'over the top' tennis match on top of an exotic building in Dubai.

He rightly accuses me of over-reacting to a tennis match and over-reaching by using this as a metaphor of some of the problems in the Middle East.

But he makes the points I was trying to make much better than I:

Perhaps a better example would be the two artificial islands currently under construction, almost all sold to Western investors, or maybe the World, a network of islands, again almost all sold to Western investors. Or maybe the Burj Dubai, set to be the tallest building in the world - Dubai Marina, thousands of apartments, massive yachts, and yes you guessed it, almost all owned by the "haves"

Yes the imported Pakistani and Indian construction workers earn about $120 per month for 288 hours work, in temperatures reaching 50 degrees Celsius, but a tennis match on top of the Burj is nothing compared to the Burj itself, where a room can cost up to $10,000 per night, and where Agassi had the pleasure to stay.

Thanks Gavin.

-- Steve Clemons

This USA Today editorial makes a point that I have been trying to emphasize in Washington circles: freedom, liberty and equal protection are only real if they are observed during times of high social stress. During World War II, American society interned innocent Japanese-Americans because of the fear that this U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were potential spies for their ancestral home.

This may have been true -- but American values were trampled and tainted by this repugnant incident.

Personalizing the issue with the line, "Picture yourself in this scenario. . .," the USA Today editorial comments on the case of Jose Padilla, whom U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd has ordered the U.S. government to release or charge.

Here is a key excerpt:

Despite the clear language of the Constitution that prohibits detention without trial, the Bush administration insists that it can indefinitely hold Padilla -- or anyone else it chooses -- as an "enemy combatant" without trial or even formal charges.

Padilla is one of a handful of Americans known to have been swept up in the war on terror, but he is the lone suspect not released or handled by the courts. So far, he has received only indictment by press conference - and with dubious credibility at that.

The article concludes with:

Perhaps he is a threat. Perhaps there's reason for suspicion but not enough evidence to convict. Or perhaps the government erred in arresting him and would rather not admit it. Without a trial, there's no way to find out.

This case is not just about Jose Padilla. It's about every citizen's liberty. If the foundations of freedom crumble under the stresses of the war on terrorism, the terrorists will have won.

If George Bush had the powers of a Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, even a Hu Jintao, Padilla would probably be quietly executed and permanently "disappeared."

George Bush is not an absolute monarch and not a despot. He is, however, far beyond his constitutional rights and must deal with Padilla within the constraints of American law, cognizant of this individual's human rights.

His Attorney General, however, is living up to his reputation and simply asserting that the President has a right that simply does not exist. No law has been passed by Congress giving the President such extraordinary powers -- and if passed, the Supreme Court would no doubt strike it down as blatantly in violation of the Constitution.

To preserve American liberty, we may need to let a very dangerous person go, but it is critical that we do so or charge him with a crime. Otherwise American values only have traction when they don't count. When times are easy, it's very easy to talk liberty and freedom -- but these only matter when times are tough, as they seem to be now.

Charge him, or let Padilla go.

Not too long ago, I had a conversation with one of the top terrorist/Al Qaeda trackers in Scotland Yard. I asked if in his view any of the five or so British citizens who had been detained and later released from Guantanamo were a serious threat. These individuals had become darlings of the British press, talking about how they had been innocent victims and had no relationships to al Qaeda. They spoke openly about the abuse they suffered.

The response from this Scotland Yard guy was important. He said that he had no doubt at all that each of the five (maybe six) detainees was guilty and a serious threat. However, he said that Americans had extracted information from these people in extra-legal circumstances and that none of the discovered information could be used in British courts to charge these alleged criminals.

He said he was bothered by Guantanamo on many grounds -- but the chief reason being that it undermined British security by pursuing a course with these detainees that put them beyond British law when he saw no reason why these people could not have been tried and convicted with the evidence that Scotland Yard had been assembling.

The British had no choice but to immediately release these Guantanamo detainees. That said, he told me that they are all being carefully watched and monitored.

Despite many people perhaps taking issue with ongoing British surveillance of these people, I have no problem with it -- and I find that what the British did a testament to their own belief in their cherished values of liberty and democracy.

The Padilla case is a blight on the Constitution and our democracy -- and though this fellow may indeed be a deranged and dangerous person though he may just as well be a fine, upstanding citizen -- all Americans, conservative and liberal, should realize that this person's plight could be his or her own.

They too should be calling for his release, to protect their own freedom.

-- Steve Clemons