David Frum and many observers think that he was excommunicated from the Cheney-dominated halls at the American Enterprise Institute because of a hard-hitting, honest appraisal of Republican self-delusion and hyperventilation over the health care battle.

If you missed Frum's humdinger of an essay titled "Waterloo", read it here. And here is the GOP empire's response.

This is powerful stuff. But honestly, Frum was far more over the top about Sarah Palin whom he saw as utterly unqualified on any level to serve as President of the United States. Frum basically split then with the neocons and pugnacious nationalists who dominate Republican party politics and committed himself to reviving a healthier, smarter, less nasty, more competitive and visionary Republican Party.

So, his criticism of Republican health care goose-stepping was nothing new.

In fact, Frum was hoping to make AEI the base of his efforts to bring a new set of compelling ideas about America's domestic and international policy portfolios to the GOP's leadership either in 2012, or more likely as a base for a successful presidential run in 2016.

Frum's firing had nothing to do with his article or the WSJ piece, with all due respect to Howard Kurtz.

The truth is hard to, well. . .I feel I have to reveal that the real reason for David Frum being fired is, well, "me".

It all started with dinner and a great dog named "Benson."

Before this mind-stretching dinner hosted by journalist and AT Kearney/Global Business Policy Council chief Martin Walker and Julia Watson, proprietor of the blog EatWashington, all was normal in the universe as Frum and I were on complete opposite ends of practically everything.

He once wrote of me as "lunkheaded" in an erudite Mark Twain-referencing critique [thankfully no longer on the internet] of something I had written about him involving the words "incipient" and "imminent." Long story that's not worth retelling. He wrote a piece once on the "dangers of creeping Scowcroftianism" when I was one of those in Washington responsible for perpetuating a revival of Scowcroftian writing and ideas. When we were on NPR radio shows together, he would be embracing neoconservative messianism to re-engineer the internal guts of other countries while 'd be saying that this was like the Borg in Star Trek. I'd say that the neocons either wanted to assimilate another culture -- and if that didn't work, annihilate it.

Frum's job was safe at AEI when we were on opposite sides.

And then Benson was there, at a great dinner -- and Frum and I are both complete suckers for dogs. Like major suckers.

Before I knew it, David Frum and I were both on the floor together with Benson between us, licking us lavishly together. I sort of felt like a once-divorced spouse of David who had been brought back together by the child. That's the power of dogs.

I did disclose our dog-bond on The Washington Note and feared that Frum would get fired then. In fact, I wrote:

I'm sharing this because I can't keep secret any longer the fact that I had a great time with David Frum, Danielle, and the rest -- and am going to be doing so again tonight.

I regret that David may get roughed up more by Bill Kristol and some of his friends at AEI for this disclosure than I will by my readers. . .or so I hope.

Silliness aside [actually it's all true], David, Danielle Crittenden, Julia Watson, Martin Walker, Moises Naim, and others had such a great evening of debate and discussion about the political scene that Frum and I began tentatively reaching out for more discussion.

I invited him to a few New America Foundation gatherings. He invited me to his holiday party -- and it was there that journalists like Jamie Kirchick and Eli Lake began to see that either David was trying to bring me their direction, or I was working to make Frum a Nixonian Realist-hugger. But for the most part, the journalists there kept mum.

We did a couple of shows together for Reason Magazine with Nick Gillespie -- and then we began to enjoy some high octane policy discussions over the Frum dinner table, in one of the most beautiful rooms I've been to in Washington. And Frum has two amazing yellow labs and a funky spaniel. Dogs!

But then just a few weeks ago, I met Frum in public for coffee at the Starbucks on Dupont Circle. I wanted to get a sense from him of how the neoconservative world was organized -- and how he was going to play a role in that world in the future. My believe is that David Frum and Francis Fukuyama, separately to some degree, are the first serious rebels in the neoconservative church that reject the unprincipled power grabs by their neocon siblings and cousins.

My hunch is that some new neoconservative churches that hearken back to the original thinking, and to some degree policy modesty, of Irving Kristol will emerge and Frum and Fukuyama are potential leaders.

While we were sitting in that crowded, noisy Starbucks, I thought I saw Bill Kristol walk by. There was someone with him who definitely looked right into my eye. Then, I saw his eyes widen to the limit when he saw who my coffee mate was.

They kept walking. But then, Frum tells me "now we need to keep this quiet -- you know us meeting and stuff." I didn't tell him that we were already "out."

And then just a couple of weeks ago -- the two guys who used to be the opposite of each other on virtually everything did a "blogging heads" episode together focused on US-Iran policy options titled "Warm and Fuzzy Edition."

I thought Frum would be fired the next day. A short clip of the session titled "Iran Regime Change?" appeared on the New York Times online oped page, after which a friend of mine at the Wall Street Journal chuckled and said he might frazzle Paul Gigot and even the great Rupert Murdoch with an anonymous email to them of the bloggingheads link.

So, bottom line is that in the world of ideas there are occasions when policy gladiators on opposite sides learn to respect each other, engage, perhaps even modify their views -- and become friends

I remember when Rahm Emmanuel made the following comment to the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza:

The public wants bipartisanship. We just have to try. We don't have to succeed.

In a political/policy context, I think responsible think tank wonks also have a responsibility to reach across the aisle, or attempt to do so -- as well as to 'think' and not rest lazily on ideological laurels.

But in contrast to Rahm's outcome on bipartisanship, Frum and I have been succeeding -- and so too have been other people in his circle and mine.

This is what the future could and should be made of.

It truly is a shame that the American Enterprise Institute didn't realize that it could reinvent its own place and relevance in Washington with the kind of creative bridge-building and policy innovation that Frum was pushing.

I apologize to David for being the real cause of his firing -- but I'm sure he'll be fine.

And the silver lining is that we'll probably have more time for dog dates. Benson!

-- Steve Clemons

Wow. When the unexpected happens in an election, it's a good market test of whether balloting really does serve as a credible system of expressing the public's will.

Incumbents hardly ever lose -- particularly in the Middle East.

Despite Hamas winning the elections in Palestine a few years ago, President George W. Bush nonetheless maintained the mantra that those elections were the fairest and freest yet held in the Middle East. And they were -- though we ended up punishing the victors.

And today, it has just been announced that Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya coalition has won the most seats in Iraq's parliament.

There may be trouble ahead. I don't think al Maliki will step back easily or will be enthused about playing the minority role in a coalition government.

But these election results are surprising as it's rare to see incumbent governments in the Middle East lose, or if they do lose -- to let that loss be actualized.

Watch out Ahmed Chalabi. We hear that Ayad Allawi is not his greatest fan.

More soon. Off to Philadelphia.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Ralph Gomory, one of the nation's leading thinkers about technology, innovation, and the productivity health of national economies. Gomory previously served as IBM's Senior Vice President for Science and Technology and subsequently as the immediate past president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

This essay first ran on The Huffington Post.

In the United States, innovation has become almost synonymous with economic competitiveness. Even more remarkable, we often hear that our economic salvation can only be through innovation. We hear that because of low Asian wages we must innovate because we cannot really compete in anything else. Inventive Americans will do the R&D and let the rest of the world, usually China, do the dull work of actually making things. Or we'll do programming design but let the rest of the world, usually India, do low-level programming. This is a totally mistaken belief and one that, if accepted, will consign this nation to second- or third-class status.

The latest offender to advance this line of thought is Thomas Friedman, who has prominently displayed this familiar and entirely incorrect line of thought in the New York Times. Unfortunately, this idea is one that is widely accepted without careful thought about either its truthfulness or its consequences.

Truth and Consequences

Cheap labor abroad is cited as the incurable handicap that explains why the United States cannot compete. But cheap labor doesn't explain the fact that Japan and Germany, both high-wage countries, are successful in the automobile industry. Nor does it explain how semiconductors, a model of a high investment, low-labor content industry, are mainly made in Asia. The premise that the inescapable burden of competing against low wages means failure is simply not correct.

Perhaps even more disturbing than the lack of truthfulness is the fact that we are not addressing the consequences of not competing. There are some inescapable truths about any economic good, be it a manufactured good or a service: (1) you either produce it in your own country, (2) you trade something you do produce for it, (3) you do without it, or (4) you import it and promise to pay later.

We are moving steadily away from producing what we need in this country. We are also moving away from producing on a scale that enables us to trade for what we do need. Rather than do without, we are increasingly importing things with a promise to pay later. This cannot go on. When our trading partners, especially China, no longer want to loan us hundreds of billions of dollars a year to be paid later, we will have little productive capacity left and we will be a poor nation.

Friedman is only the latest to assume that we can avoid this fate by emphasizing designs, ideas, and R&D and trading them for the items we need. This is an attractive idea; we often hear about innovation parks and university research centers and often their work is both exciting and good.

But the chasm-sized flaw in this otherwise alluring proposition is scale. Balancing trade on ideas and R&D simply cannot be done. The most elementary analysis shows that the scale is entirely wrong. As one who spent many years as the head of research of a large corporation, I know how much R&D matters; I also know how small it is. Eight percent is a very large percent of revenue to spend on R&D. Even in manufacturing, which is relatively R&D intensive, 4 to 5 percent is typical. It is really wrong to think that you can scale up R&D to be big enough so we can trade it for the huge quantity of things we need but don't make in this country.

A Strange and Unworkable Strategy

Ignoring the issue of scale, Tom Friedman goes on to quote authoritative Chinese sources who say that by the end of the decade China will be dominating global production of the whole range of power equipment. To Friedman's approving eye this just means that China is going to make clean power technologies cheaper for itself and everyone else. Friedman says that Chinese experts believe it will all happen faster and more effectively if China and America work together with the United States specializing in energy research and innovation, at which, he asserts, China is still weak, while China will specialize in mass production.

It is probably true that all this will happen faster with the specialization Friedman describes, but where will we be at the end of that process? China will be making power equipment cheaply, but the chasm is still there, so what will we have to trade for it? Power equipment will be cheap in China, but if we adopt this approach it may well be unaffordable in the United States.

Meanwhile the Chinese wisely welcome our nascent innovations and turn them into products. They are building plants, making things manufacturable, and adding them to their growing GDP. Friedman's article contains an excellent example of this. He describes a U.S. developer with a new approach to solar-thermal power, whose proposal to the U.S. government asking for small scale support was easily outbid by a Chinese offer that was far larger and was aimed at much larger scale plants.

Specializing in R&D, but sending its fruits on to others is a strange and completely unworkable strategy for a nation.

Other Issues

Thinking of innovation as a standalone activity without production has other major flaws. First, our global corporations, understanding that innovation and production are in fact closely tied, are rapidly moving not only production but also R&D overseas. Intel's CEO made this very clear when he said that the goal of Intel's new plant in China is to support a transition from "manufactured in China" to "innovated in China".

In addition, the standalone innovation approach leaves most Americans entirely out. After all, only a very small portion of Americans are engaged in R&D. At a recent meeting I heard "The only thing that matters is innovative and passionate people." These people do matter, but they are very far from being the only ones. This attitude misses the point that it was all our people, working in many different work settings, that made this country prosper. And all of them will all be needed in any viable future for our country.

What We Must Do - The Role of Trade

We need successful industries and we need to innovate within them to keep them thriving. However, when your trading partner is thinking about GDP rather than profit, and has adopted mercantilist tactics, subsidizing industries, and mispricing its currency, while loaning you the money to buy the underpriced goods, this may simply not be possible.

The ability to compete in a world that is half-mercantilist, half-free is inescapably tied to effective trade policy. Our present policy is to beg. We ask countries like China to stop the subsidies and currency mispricings because they are creating a one-way flow of underpriced goods; goods that are destroying jobs on a large scale in many of the most productive sectors of our economy. But why should they stop? It's working for them.

We must move to balanced trade. With balanced trade every dollar of imports is matched by a dollar of exports of goods or services produced here in the U.S.A. We are fortunate that there are in fact ways to balance trade. One very attractive way is to adopt some version of Warren Buffet's Import Certificates plan, which Buffet has described in a remarkably insightful Fortune article.

We should act now to balance trade. We should not continue to beg while jobs disappear and our productive ability erodes.

What We Must Do - Motivating our Companies

Today our companies are motivated to take innovations abroad, produce there and import the goods into the United States. Increasingly we can expect services also to go overseas. We must produce here in the U.S.A., to employ the people of this country, and we must keep their activities effective by a steady stream of innovations in design and production. While other countries roll out a welcome mat of tax breaks and subsidies for our companies because their common sense tells them that their people being employed in productive work is the road to being a rich country, we provide no incentive for U.S. companies to produce here.

We cannot continue to have our corporations, faithful only to the interests of their shareholders, engage in a one-way flow of jobs, technology, and innovation out of the country. We need to realize that with globalization the interests of our country and of our global corporations have diverged. We can realign the interests of corporations with those of our country by rewarding companies that are productive here. And that can be done in ways that are consistent with our history and with the limited capabilities of our government.

Conclusion

Specializing in innovation is an attractive idea, but a misleading one; an idea that blinds us to what we really need to do.

We need to do more than produce exciting new ideas; we must also be able to compete in large productive industries. This requires us to both balance trade and to motivate our corporations not only to innovate, but also to produce in this country. While this is hard to do, it can be done. Specializing in innovation, though often recommended, is in fact a delusion, an alluring path that in reality will lead us straight downhill.

-- Ralph Gomory

While Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee were hosting a lot of the top tier Washington Post crowd and others at a dinner saluting Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller on the publication of Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife, I was hosting a very cool crowd focused on present life in the Middle East with Al Jazeera Director General Wadah Khanfar.

Not sure how much fun the afterlife discussion was at the Quinn-Bradlee household, but Restaurant Nora's guests last night were stirred up by Khanfar with some tough talk on the world Al Jazeera covers.

Khanfar gave a tour de force read of the tectonic realities in the Middle East today. His talk was mostly off the record at the request of the audience who wanted him to go further than what he would have said on the record. I told Khanfar that if he gave a bland, say nothing presentation that he put off the record that we would be finished, kaput, over.

He totally delivered with a provocative, mind-stretching, sometimes uncomfortable survey of Arab world dynamics and analysis of America's engagement in the region.

Attendees last night included former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson, Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA), Bush administration Counterterrorism Adviser to the President Fran Townsend, the New York Times' James Risen, They Knew They Were Right author and National Interest Senior Editor Jacob Heilbrunn, Economist Washington Bureau Chief Peter David, Former Federal Elections Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, Media Matters' MJ Rosenberg, the Palestine Note's Fadi Elsalameen, former Newsweek Senior Foreign Correspondent and CSIS Global Terrorism expert Arnaud de Borchgrave, the Boston Globe's Farah Stockman, realist Ron Steel of the University of Southern California, former USAID Deputy Administrator Hattie Babbitt, NBC's Janet Donovan, National Public Radio's Marilyn Geewax, Eric Melby of the Scowcroft Group, Kim Ghattas of the BBC, Nell Derick Debevoise of Tomorrow's Youth Organization in Nablus, Palestinian-American business leader Hani Masri, the Washington Post's Garance Franke-Ruta, and others

For those interested, here is a video clip of an excellent presentation that Wadah Khanfar did for the American Strategy Program of the New America Foundation in July 2009.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest post by Jonathan Guyer, a program associate at the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force.

Today at the New America Foundation, Zogby International President and CEO John Zogby will be unveiling an extensive survey of American perceptions with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The numbers suggest a widening partisan split between Democrats and Republicans on settlements, how the U.S. should lead negotiations, and attitudes toward Netanyahu and Israelis.

Yet there is a strong bitpartisan consensus that, "continuation of the conflict has a negative impact on U.S. interests in the Middle East."

Whether or not the squabbles along the way could have been foreseen, the Zogby survey and two other polls of American opinion suggest that the American public is likely to be supportive of President Obama's Middle East peace push.

The organization Avaaz's poll of 1000 Americans exhibited support for getting tough with either party during peace negotiations if necessary. Meanwhile, J Street's poll of American Jews shows that 73 percent support the U.S.'s active role in helping the parties resolve the conflict even when that translates into stating publicly its disagreements with Israelis and Arabs.

The presentation of the new poll's findings will be followed by a conversation with Arab American Institute President Dr. James Zogby, Media Matters Senior Fellow M.J. Rosenberg, and the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force Co-Director Amjad Atallah. TWN Publisher Steve Clemons will moderate the discussion.

-- Jonathan Guyer

-- cartoon by The Washington Note's Jonathan Guyer

I had an interesting chat a few days ago with George W. Bush Institute Executive Director James Glassman, who served as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy during the latter part of the G.W. Bush administration. He was also Chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Glassman occasionally gets heat for a book he co-authored once on where the dow jones index would eventually go. Ultimately, he may be right -- but in this business, ideas entrepreneurs who take risks should be appreciated, not ignored.

James Glassman has been a policy entrepreneur in risk-averse Washington, DC for a long time -- and he and I have become good friends debating each other on quite a number of fronts. But I respect his creativity and integrity.

While at the State Department, Glassman conceived a better mission for his work than what I thought existed before -- focused not on nudging others around the world to like us but rather to express their own views, no matter how critical of the US or passionate about other issues, in ways that were non-violent.

Glassman also helped generate buzz around what he calls "Diplomacy 2.0".

Above is a short clip that I think presents some thoughts on Iran that deserve air time. I would be hesitant to go as far as Jim does in advocating a stronger US appropriations approach for the kind of communications he suggests as I don't want whatever organic movement exists inside Iran to become (any more) tainted by countries outside.

Here is a longer audio version of the event (here is video) held at the New America Foundation.

Try and listen to Glassman's views and if you feel moved, debate the merits or not one way or another in a civil manner. Screeds about Jim's Dow book or conservative credentials are not helpful or interesting.

More later. In Tripoli now. Back to DC tomorrow via Dubai.

-- Steve Clemons

(Photo Credit: Blogs4Brains)

This is a guest note by Anya Landau French, director of the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative. This post originally appeared at The Havana Note.

The Washington Post's Eva Rodriguez, a daughter of Cuban immigrants, served up some tough love to the illegal immigrant community in "The Mexican Flag Has No Place In Immigration March," following yesterday's Washington, DC march for immigration reform.

Did they not choose to come to this country, and did they not know that they either entered illegally or illegally overstayed visas? Of course they did. Do they not appreciate that one of the things that makes this country great is the rule of law -- unlike, sadly, some of the countries we leave behind? If so, undocumented immigrants must take responsibility for their plight.

I don't intend to debate the broader issue of immigration reform here, though clearly, our system is just as Rodriguez calls it: dysfunctional. (We're happy to have illegal immigrants come and - cheaply - move our lawn, clean our homes, wash our dishes, and gut and package our meat and poultry, until they get caught, sent home, and a new batch arrives.)

Rodriguez points out that she knows all too well the desperation that drives illegal immigrants to America - her parents left Castro's Cuba in 1960, and were lucky to be welcomed here in the United States. And that got me thinking about the one group you won't likely see represented at these marches: Cuban Americans. Why? Whereas all other illegal immigrants run from the law as long as they are in the United States, Cubans run to the law.

Thanks to the U.S. 'wet foot, dry foot' policy (and the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act which left the door open to Cubans who arrive by illegal means), as soon as an undocumented Cuban sets foot in the United States, no matter how he arrived, he will be entitled to government-funded adjustment assistance. After one year, he can apply for permanent residency. His path to citizenship was secure from the moment he arrived.

No other illegal immigrant gets that kind of treatment. It's just one of the many ways in which United States policy continues to help distort Cuban reality. Maybe I'm just doling out tough love here, but would it hurt to treat Cuban undocumented immigrants the same as we treat other undocumented immigrants? Yes, it probably would. But maybe that would lead us to face the supreme irony of our policy toward Cuba. When we ban nearly all trade and travel to the island, is it any surprise that tens of thousands of Cubans choose to leave the island for the one country that offers a guaranteed path to citizenship?

-- Anya Landau French

There has been no shortage of hand-wringing about America's current unemployment crisis, which is unprecedented in modern times. But what has been lacking is a set of concrete proposals to address the jobs crisis in concert with other significant problems facing the United States: creaking infrastructure, climate change, and massive current account and fiscal deficits.

To refocus the debate on sustainable economic redevelopment, the New America Foundation, Economists for Peace & Security (EPS) and Bernard Schwartz are hosting "Jobs, Investment and Energy: Meeting President Obama's Challenge," a symposium that will bring together leading politicians, academics, and policy thinkers to offer recommendations for the economic redevelopment of America.

Event details are available here.

I have pasted the full agenda below.

8:30am - Registration & Breakfast

9:00am - Welcoming Remarks

James K. Galbraith
Economists for Peace and Security

Bernard Schwartz
Chairman, BLS Investments
Member of the Board, New America Foundation

9:15 to 9:45am - Keynote Speaker

The Hon. Edward G. Rendell
Governor of Pennsylvania

9:50 to 11:00am - Session One: How to Budget for Jobs & Investments

chair
Allen Sinai
Decision Economics

featured speakers
Marshall Auerback
RAB Capital Plc

Linda Bilmes
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

James K. Galbraith
Economists for Peace & Security

11:00 to 12:10pm - Session Two: Rebuilding America: How to Do It & How to Pay for It

chair
James K. Galbraith
Economists for Peace & Security

featured speakers
John Alic
Consultant
Pew Center for Global Climate Change

Sherle R. Schwenninger
Director, Economic Growth Program
New America Foundation

John Robert Behrman
Democratic Executive Committeeman
Thirteenth Senate District of Texas

Michael Lind
Policy Director, Economic Growth Program
New America Foundation

12:10pm to 1:30pm - Session Three: Energy and Climate: What is the Program?

chair
Richard Kaufman
Bethesda Research Group

featured speakers
Marcellus Andrews
Barnard College

Kate Gordon
Energy Policy, Center for American Progress

Charles Hall
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Lisa Margonelli
Director, Energy Policy Initiative
New America Foundation

-- Ben Katcher

Assassinations have their costs, and the UK is penalizing Israel for the Mossad's use of British passports in the assassination in Dubai of Hamas military leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.

UK Foreign Minister David Miliband has been particularly incensed by the Mossad's alleged actions and will be addressing Parliament on Tuesday regarding the expulsion.

More here.

-- Steve Clemons

I have only been in Libya a few hours but am intrigued with this place and the people here.

Libyan Leader Muammar al Gaddafi's pictures are everywhere -- but at least they are creative and have some panache compared to what one finds in some other countries with dominant political bosses who have no style.

Gaddafi is working overtime pulling major summits into Libya -- particularly the Arab Summit which will take place here next week. Just last week, he celebrated the 40th anniversary of his takeover of the country's government and giant celebratory posters and placards are all over the city.

Tomorrow, I will be meeting one of Colonel Gaddafi's sons, Seif, who has supported programs that purport to de-radicalize violent Islamists. I'll know more about the program after some meetings tomorrow, but at least Libya figured out a way to seriously confront the reality of political Islam. The U.S., as of now, has no real strategy regarding political Islam -- other than sticking its head in the sand.

I just had an exchange with my friend Arnaud de Borchgrave, one of the world's greatest chroniclers of the Middle East over the last six decades.

De Borchgrave sent an email to me on the occasion of my first trip to Tripoli:

Steve,

I first went there [Tripoli] one month after the Colonel took over Sept 1, 1969 and I've interviewed him at length six times since then.

Alexandra* grew up there as her father was the first US ambassador to Libya after independence in 1952.

She was present at two of my interviews, shooting covers for Newsweek.

He's maintained himself in power since the age of 27! Can't be dismissed as a fruitcake.

-- Arnaud

*[de Borchgrave's wife, Alexandra Villard de Borchgrave]

I was up at the UN General Assembly meeting when Col. Gaddafi was on a bit of a long rant during his time on stage -- and reminded folks on a CNN show that listening to Libya's leader speak for an hour, or two, or three -- was well worth cooperation on other fronts, particularly in Libya suspending its nuclear weapons program.

I also have a hunch and some hope that Gaddafi is going to use the Arab Summit to arm twist the Egyptians and Saudis to stop playing games with Fatah and Hamas and to remove the blocks each of them have had at various points in resecuring a unified Palestinian government, something Ban Ki-Moon also called for in more general terms on Sunday.

As it stands, the Saudis are ready to support a unity government in Palestine -- but the Egyptians, who are allegedly trying to broker a deal between Fatah and Hamas, are according to my sources actually blocking things (in part because of US pressure).

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Daniel Mandel. Daniel is a Program Associate for the New America Foundation/Next Social Contract Initiative.

(Photo Credit: Samuel Sherraden)

There has been no shortage of hand-wringing about America's current unemployment crisis, which is unprecedented in modern times. But what has been lacking is a set of concrete proposals to address the jobs crisis in concert with other significant problems facing the United States: creaking infrastructure, climate change, and massive current account and fiscal deficits.

A new paper by New America Foundation/Economic Growth Program Director Sherle Schwenninger and Policy Analyst Samuel Sherraden explains what Washington needs to do to get serious about doubling U.S. exports:

Expanding exports can help offset weak domestic demand caused by household deleveraging, allowing us to work out of debt without a loss in output and a fall in our living standards. But like other Obama administration initiatives, the strategy the president articulated falls short of the goal...Does one really think that the promotional efforts of an Export Promotion Cabinet will result in a $1.6 trillion dollar increase in the sales of U.S. produced goods and services abroad?....

If the Obama administration is serious about its goal of doubling exports over the next five years, it will need 1) a currency policy to ensure a fair and competitive playing field; 2) an international strategy to promote global growth and the rebalancing of the world economy; and 3) a coherent manufacturing strategy to onshore more investment and production so that increased external demand results in increased U.S exports.

To refocus the debate on sustainable economic redevelopment, the New America Foundation, Economists for Peace & Security (EPS) and Bernard Schwartz are hosting "Jobs, Investment and Energy: Meeting President Obama's Challenge," a symposium that will bring together leading politicians, academics, and policy thinkers to offer recommendations for the economic redevelopment of America.

Speakers include Governor Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, EPS Chair and University of Texas-Austin Economist James K. Galbraith, who has outlined a series of innovative job-creation proposals; Lisa Margonelli, Director of the New America Foundation/Energy Policy Initiative; and SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry Professor Charles Hall, a leader in the burgeoning field of biophysical economics.

This event will be held this Tuesday in the Rotunda Room of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center and will STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note.

Event details are available here.

-- Daniel Mandel

Greetings to readers of The Washington Note from Tripoli, Libya. This is a place I never really thought I'd get to -- but I'm here. And after just an hour, I'm finding all sorts of things of interest.

When I was last in Istanbul and in Beijing, I couldn't get on to YouTube -- and frequently when I travel, I have a tough time accessing Facebook.

Libya passes the Facebook test and YouTube test with flying colors. No blocks that I have run into yet. Twitter works too.

On another front, I just saw that an interview I did with NPR's Michele Kelemen just appeared on line.

Here's the link to the whole transcript and show but also a teaser:

Mr. ROBERT SATLOFF (Washington Institute for Near East Policy): I think the idea that the Israelis somehow have to meet an American test to show their commitment to peace is quite odd and strange in credulity.

KELEMEN: Satloff is hoping that this is just a passing storm, though he does have lingering concerns about a trust deficit in the relationship. The initial AIPAC response didn't say anything about what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could do to restore trust. So, Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation decided as a joke to rewrite to the AIPAC statement for his blog, urging Israel to take immediate steps to diffuse tensions with the U.S.

Mr. STEVEN CLEMONS (New America Foundation): I just kind of did a 180-degree flip, and I actually did it in four minutes. I re-wrote it in four minutes. It got a lot of play on the Internet.

KELEMEN: Clemons says it's time for well-meaning supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship to encourage more responsible behavior from this Israeli government, particularly on the issue of expanding Jewish settlements.

Mr. CLEMONS: The whole notion that there's no space or no light between the U.S. and Israeli positions is a ridiculous formulation because we're both sovereign governments with interests that often converge and some interests that diverge, and we're going to have to occasionally wrestle over those.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Anyone watching the health care debate unfold this past year couldn't help but note that it had the feel of a badly run, badly managed sports season in which the President's team nonetheless is going to end up holding the trophy cup.

Some time between 6 pm and midnight eastern, there will be a vote in the House of Representatives that passes health care reform. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already getting rave reviews in the media for taking a dead health care package and breathing life back into it and beating and kicking the legislation through a very tough crowd in her House of Representatives.

Pelosi deserves the praise.

President Obama is said not to be really turned on to a challenge unless he is being tested and feels like he is losing. It's said -- by chroniclers like Richard Wolffe in his book Renegade: The Making of an American President -- that Obama then decides to get on his game, and change things up on his team and in his approach, and then really pushes hard.

This is exactly what President Obama did on health care -- and he too deserves huge credit.

I am waiting to see what the final package looks like when it comes to women's reproductive rights and some other issues. The kick-in periods for some important pieces of this legislation are years away. I think it is a big mistake not to have a public option out there for people as I don't see how cost containment is achieved without such an option.

But that said, I am for health care reform, not only for the merits of helping Americans deal with pre-existing condition nightmares but because of the massive opportunity costs of this legislation that distracted from so many other key problems the country is facing now.

Obama is already telling folks that he needed health care checked off to be able to move to jobs and immigration, but there's a lot that desperately needs serious attention on the foreign policy plate.

And we hope that the President will take stock pretty soon -- realize he's not doing well on foreign policy, and show the same sort of 'getting his game on' approach there as he has done on health care.

Congratulations President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and others on the White House team for what looks to be a victory tonight -- even Rahm (!).

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: I believe health care reform legislation will pass the House tonight, but I will be on a plane to Tripoli, Libya this evening and won't be able to blog it then. So, I wanted my comments up now. I will be at the AIPAC annual meeting today before the health care vote. Best, Steve Clemons

I thought that President Obama's Nowruz message to Iranians was -- like last year -- excellent. I think that this kind of public diplomacy is enormously important in reaching out for the prospects of change -- even if the Iran government is recalcitrant.

Here is a clip from the transcript:

I said, last year, that the choice for a better future was in the hands of Iran's leaders. That remains true today. Together with the international community, the United States acknowledges your right to peaceful nuclear energy - we insist only that you adhere to the same responsibilities that apply to other nations. We are familiar with your grievances from the past - we have our own grievances as well, but we are prepared to move forward. We know what you're against; now tell us what you're for.

For reasons known only to them, the leaders of Iran have shown themselves unable to answer that question. You have refused good faith proposals from the international community. They have turned their backs on a pathway that would bring more opportunity to all Iranians, and allow a great civilization to take its rightful place in the community of nations. Faced with an extended hand, Iran's leaders have shown only a clenched fist.

Last June, the world watched with admiration, as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West; and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.

The United States does not meddle in Iran's internal affairs. Our commitment - our responsibility - is to stand up for those rights that should be universal to all human beings. That includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear; the right to the equal administration of justice, and to express your views without facing retribution against you or your families.

I want the Iranian people to know what my country stands for. The United States believes in the dignity of every human being, and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice - a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy, and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran's borders. That is the future that we seek. That is what America is for.

Interestingly, a report has just surfaced that Neda's fiance, Caspian Makan, who became a voice and face of the opposition movement in Iran has visited Israel and may meet Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Suffice it to say that his stock value as a leader of Iran's opposition has just declined as Iran's government will be able to point to the optics of collaboration and support from Israel. This may just be one of those accidents or errors in judgment that people thrown quickly into the international spotlight experience.

I think we need to work toward a day when Persians, Arabs, Jews, and others can travel freely throughout the region without having to play a shell game about passport stamps and not fear the consequences of people of any persuasion entering any of the countries in the Middle East.

But regrettably, Israel and Iran aren't there yet -- and Caspian's trip to Israel unfortunately taints the optics -- though I don't think the substance -- of the Green Movement's legitimacy.

-- Steve Clemons

According to the Washington Post's Glen Kessler, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a surprising comment to the BBC this week. She said that the recent US-Israel confrontation was "paying off".

This would imply that the public declarations on both sides of the relationship being at historic lows was more John Bolton-like bluster deployed tactically to try and win some leverage rather than a real break. If someone in outer space was feeling really generous toward the Obama administration, one might even consider the tiff a sign of real strategy.

But not on this planet. What has been completely missing from President Obama's Israel-Palestine efforts is serious, deep engagement in the complex challenges there. He has an envoy, George Mitchell, who seems to be groveling for Israeli and Palestinian support.

We've seen systemic irresponsibility on both the Israel and Palestine sides of the equation for a very long time -- and it amazes me that Dennis Ross and other well-informed advisers to the President aren't making it clear that at this point, only a process that actively involves most of the responsible stakeholders in the region will move past the paralysis. That demands an expression of Presidential expectations of what a final status package might look like -- and would make clear what the US, Arab neighbors, Europe, the UN, and Russia would expect Israel and Palestine to abide by.

There has been no sign that the administration is willing to deal with the region as it is - rather than as it might fantasize about. The failure of negotiations under George Mitchell, the failure to get Israel to agree to Obama's cessation of settlement demands, the recent blow up during Biden's visit -- all of these cannot be blamed on the regular pin-up target for problems in the region -- Hamas.

Hamas has been mostly quiet despite the assassination, allegedly by the Mossad, of one of its military leaders. Hamas was negotiating directly with Netanyahu's government over a prisoner exchange, and Hamas has been a credible participant in unity talk efforts brokered by the Egyptians.

The reality behind the scenes with these negotiations is that Netanyahu doesn't want to achieve Shalit's release and secure a deal with Hamas -- both because it will empower Hamas and put him in an odd spot. The Egyptians are both brokering a unity government peace effort in Palestine with one hand and blocking it with the other.

The Egyptians, the Americans, and Netanyahu are the blocks on dealmaking in the region that might lead to a different equilibrium that could be more productive than the mess we have now.

Has the US even noticed the shift in Hamas' behavior? Are we doing anything to test the reality of this shift or to take advantage of it?

I think not as George Mitchell is still chasing a "too much, too late" strategy to shower so-called Palestinian moderates with his attention, US resources, and his 'hopes.' Mitchell also doesn't get that Israel-Palestine is a globally significant fault-line unlike Northern Ireland which could have raged a few hundred more years without having the same global consequences of an unresolved Israel-Palestine conflict.

Whether the US is going to punish Israel for its ongoing settlement misbehavior or appease it doesn't really matter.

What does matter is whether the Secretary of State expresses a sense of vision and direction for the region that rises above Israel's regrettable behavior and moves beyond the fragmentation and incompetence of the Palestinian government. All eyes and ears will be waiting for some sign that the administration has strategic depth during her speech before the annual AIPAC national policy summit on Monday.

If not, she will be reinforcing the sense much of the world has of Obama's lack of seriousness about America's geostrategic position. She will be reinforcing a global profound sense of doubt about America's ability to achieve the objectives it declares itself committed to.

And as Joe Biden warned appropriately during the campaign, President Obama will continue to be tested and tested and tested -- not just by Netanyahu but many other world players who sense lack of resolve, an absence of strategy and weakness on the US side.

It took Kennedy the Cuban Missile Crisis to finally regain his balance and restore American global credibility.

I wonder what crisis Obama will finally have to confront to restore global confidence in him -- and what risks that will entail.

This article first appeared at the Middle East issues blog, the Palestine Note.

-- Steve Clemons

(Photo Credit: Mariurupe's Photostream)

As I have written on this blog before, I think that the debate surrounding H.R. 252 - a non-binding resolution approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this month that calls the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 "genocide" - is very complicated and offers no simple and easy solutions.

One's position on the issue depends in part on the lens through which the analyst is observing the question. Commemorating tragedy does not always align with the promotion of American national interests.

On balance, I am inclined to oppose the resolution for three basic reasons.

1. The United States' priority today should be to help Turkey and Armenia normalize their relationship and move forward. H.R. 252 will stoke nationalist anger in Turkey and is therefore most likely counterproductive to that goal.

2. Turkey is an extremely important ally of the United States - a country whose cooperation is vital on a range of the United States' most urgent national security challenges in the Middle East. Ominously, U.S. favorable ratings in Turkey are abysmal at a time when Turkey's democratization process is making its politicians more responsive to popular opinion than ever before.

3. We do not have a lot of friends among Muslim nations. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that positive relations with the Middle East's only Muslim democracy remain strong.

Despite my position, I want to share the European Stability Initiative (ESI)'s recent newsletter on this issue, "Turkey's Friends And The International Debate on the Armenian Genocide," which provides some useful background on the issue while arriving at a different conclusion than my own.

I found the following refutations of common Turkish fears particularly noteworthy.

On Turkish fears that the resolution could lead Armenia to make territorial claims on parts of Turkey:

The question of territorial claims is a red herring in the recognition debate. Though it has been on the agenda of a vocal nationalist minority in Armenia (and in the Diaspora) for decades, border revision has never been part of any Armenian government's policy. Armenian nationalists' claims, based on the never-ratified Treaty of Sevres, have not managed to secure any international support. Normalization of ties between Turkey and Armenia, in any case, would put them to rest once and for all. This, in fact, is exactly why some Armenian nationalists have second thoughts about establishing relations with Turkey.

On the question of reparations:

The argument that recognition, be it by countries in the EU or the US, will allow Armenians to sue the Turkish government - is widespread in Turkey. It is also false. The Armenian genocide has been officially recognized by more than 20 countries: if recognition would pave the way towards restitution, these countries' courts must surely be flooded with Armenian lawsuits? In fact, not a single genocide-related claim has successfully been made against the Turkish government anywhere in the world - this, despite genocide resolutions having been passed in countries like France, Germany and Russia....

The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the area of property restitution makes it clear that Armenians could pursue compensation or restitution claims only if the Turkish state were to establish a legal base allowing them to do so. An International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) study in 2002 - is just as unambiguous on the issue. Although the events of 1915 had "all the elements of genocide" ICTJ concluded that "no legal, financial or territorial claim arising out of the Events could successfully be made against any individual or state under the Convention." The European Parliament recognized in an 18 June 1987 resolution "that the present Turkey cannot be held responsible for the tragedy experienced by the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and stresses that neither political nor legal or material claims against present-day Turkey can be derived from the recognition of this historical event as an act of genocide."

You can read the full newsletter here.

These facts are important, but I am not convinced think that they lead to the conclusion that the United States' Congress should involve itself by passing H.R. 252.

-- Ben Katcher

The Dutch premier newspaper, the NRC Handelsblad, has this past week run a candid interview done by DC Bureau Chief Tom-Jan Meeus with John Bellinger III, who is defending Obama administration attorneys from vicious attacks launched by Liz Cheney.

Bellinger served as Condoleezza Rice's senior counsel at the Department of State and also was the senior lawyer serving at the National Security Council during Rice's tenure there. Bellinger was one of the most active opponents within the Bush administration to the torture-embracing legal culture promulgated by Cheney National Security Adviser and later Chief of Staff David Addington.

Here is the entire interview in English, but I pulled these interesting quotes:

ON RICE

. . .I think that many of the initiatives she took as Secretary of State have been continued by the Obama administration. The big policy changes were implemented on her watch, in Bush' second term. And Obama obviously has the same pragmatic and moderate approach.''

ON THE SIMILARITY OF BUSH' AND OBAMA'S TERROR POLICIES:

Q: The bottom line is that the Bush and Obama terrorism policies are very similar?

JB: Oh, absolutely. The military commissions have been maintained. The policy of renditions has been maintained. The idea of holding people indefinitely under the laws of war and without trials has been maintained. There has been no movement on the Geneva Conventions. The president has said he affirms the conventions but the president has not announced that he holds these people as prisoners of war. So all the policies that soured U.S. relations with Europe during the Bush administration have been continued. There has been more continuity than change.''

ON TRYING KSM ON A MILTARY BASE:

Q: The possibility is raised that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed will not be tried in a civilian court. How do you see that?

JB: I hope it is not true. I think the administration would prefer that not to happen. It will be an embarrassing reversal of their policies. (...) And it is hard to tell at this point where the Obama administration will come out. I think the administration is still trying to do this on a safe facility, perhaps a military base. I know that they explore both the legality and the practicality of establishing a federal court, for a one time purpose, in the middle of a military base.''

I think that John Bellinger is right that Obama's steps thus forward in managing combat detainees have been very similar to the Bush administration. This is regrettable as I think that former White House Counsel Gregory Craig was on the right track in getting GITMO shut down and a better legal process in place before Rahm Emanuel derailed his efforts.

Bellinger is also opposed to a military tribunal solution for KSM's trial -- and essentially rebukes Liz Cheney's campaign against Obama administration Department of Justice lawyers with his comments about the continuity between the Bush and Obama policies.

Interesting read.

-- Steve Clemons

The U.S. economic recovery is in serious need of a course correction.

The policy measures pursued to date have failed to produce a sustainable recovery of demand and investment, have reflated financial assets but at the expense of much needed job creation, and have done little to correct the global imbalances that helped cause the crisis.

The New America Foundation/Economic Growth and Smart Globalization Program is hosting a national economic policy forum today to discuss these issues.

The event will STREAM LIVE here at The Washington Note.

Details below.

New America Foundation National Economic Policy Forum
THE U.S. ECONOMY: PLOTTING A COURSE CORRECTION
New America Foundation -- 1899 L Street NW, 4th Floor; Washington, DC

8:30 to 9:00am - Registration & Coffee

9:00 to 9:05am - Introductory Remarks

STEVE CLEMONS
Director, American Strategy Program
New America Foundation

9:05 to 9:45am
A No-Nonsense Discussion on U.S. Economic Growth and Jobs

THE HON. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND)
Chairman, Democratic Policy Committee
United States Senate

LEO HINDERY, JR.
Chairman, Economic Growth Program/Smart Globalization Initiative
New America Foundation

9:45 to 11:00am - Session 1
Jobs, Public Investment & Infrastructure: Serious vs. Non-Serious Policies

THE HON. BRUCE BRALEY (D-IA-1)
Chairman, House Populist Caucus
U.S. House of Representatives

MICHAEL LIND
Policy Director, Economic Growth Program
New America Foundation

ROBERT KUTTNER
Co-Editor, The American Prospect
Author (forthcoming), A Presidency in Peril: The Inside Story of Obama's Promise, Wall Street's Power and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future

11:00am to 12:15pm - Session 2
Wrestling with Currency, Mercantilism & State Capitalism: Time for a New Plaza Accord?

SHERLE R. SCHWENNINGER
Director, Economic Growth Program
New America Foundation

JOSEPH GAGNON
Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics

THE HONORABLE PAULA STERN
Chairwoman, The Stern Group
Former Chairwoman, International Trade Commission
Former Member, President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations

12:15pm - Closing Remarks

-- Ben Katcher

I always have time for entertainment/communications industry CEO Leo Hindery and Senator Byron Dorgan -- and this morning I will be with both of them at a New America Foundation forum on what is needed to chart a credible new course for the US economy.

Both have been important leaders in calling for a policy pivot in the way the Obama administration thinks about high wage job creation, strategic national investments, manufacturing competitiveness, and infrastructure development.

The event will stream live tomorrow morning starting at 9 a.m. eastern -- but I thought I'd share a video clip I did with Hindery a couple of weeks ago on the subject of green jobs -- as well as a Financial Times oped titled "America Needs to Invest in Jobs -- And Fast" that Leo Hindery co-authored with former U.S. Senator Donald Riegle.

If you are in DC, you are welcome to attend. Address information and schedule at this event link.

Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA-1), among many other interesting policy practitioners, will be with us as well at the meeting just before going to the White House for the signing of the HIRE Act.

More in a few hours.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note exclusive to The Washington Note by Iran expert and well-known diplomatic correspondent Barbara Slavin, author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation

What Iran Threw Away

A senior U.S. official Wednesday confirmed that the United States offered the first civilian nuclear cooperation with Iran in three decades under the terms of a deal that Iran walked away from last fall.

Daniel Poneman, Deputy Secretary of Energy, said that had Iran accepted the deal - under which it would have shipped out two thirds of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium for further processing abroad - the U.S. would have inspected a 40-year-old reactor in Tehran to see if it was operating safely.

"We would have been well disposed to be helpful," Poneman said at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "We were willing in support of IAEA efforts ... to help assure that the Tehran research reactor was safe."

Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, told reporters after the meetings with Poneman in October that "one of the aspects in addition to the fuel is the control instrumentation and safety equipment of the reactor" and that "we have been informed about the readiness of the United States in a technical project with the IAEA to cooperate in this respect."

A U.S. official said on background that the United States would examine the reactor, provided to Iran in the late 1960s when Lyndon Johnson was president and the Shah ruled Iran. However, Poneman's remark was the first on the record confirmation of this.

This deal sweetener was well received by those close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and allowed him to cast the package in a positive light.

Iranians much prefer U.S. technology to Russian nuclear knowhow. Some Iranians suggested that U.S. assistance might extend to the Bushehr reactor if a deal could be struck on the LEU. Bushehr, which was begun by the Germans in the Shah's time, is now a "mess," one official told me, a "hodge-podge of technologies" that Iran is afraid to run because it might "blow up."

Ahmadinejad's numerous opponents within Iran's complex political hierarchy attacked the LEU deal as a sell-out -- in large part because he had undercut their efforts to reach a nuclear understanding with the United States in the past.

Poneman said Wednesday that the offer remained on the table. Beyond the U.S. examination of the reactor, Russia and France would further refine 1200 kilograms of Iran's low-enriched uranium and turn it into fuel rods for use in the research reactor, which produces medical isotopes for treatment of cancer and other ailments and is due to run out of fuel by the end of this year.

"It has not been formally withdrawn," Poneman said of the deal. However, he confided later that the U.S. is "not chasing Iran" and that the Iranians know who to call if they are interested in coming back to the table. Otherwise, the United States will keep moving down "the pressure track" to increase the cost to Iran of its nuclear defiance, he said.

-- Barbara Slavin