by Frank James

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in India to express U.S sympathy with India in the aftermath of last week's Mumbai terrorist attacks. Her trip to India was also in part to try and ease tensions between India and Pakistan since the attackers' ties to Pakistan threaten to cause the always volatile relations between the two countries to worsen further.

Reporters asked Rice questions that she essentially dodged so as not to inflame sentiment within Pakistan.

She also sidestepped a question that she clearly thought answering straightforwardly could have provided the enemy, that is, terrorists with too much insight into what intelligence officials know.

Her answers suggest just how combustible the South Asian situation is and how careful U.S. diplomats must be in navigating the minefield of Indian-Pakistani relations.

Here's the relevant exchange with reporters:

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, the Indians have handed over another list of 20 fugitives that they would like Pakistan to deal with or to turn over. What do you think Pakistan's response should be at this time in order to ease tensions between the two countries?

SEC. RICE: Well, first of all, the Pakistani Government has said unequivocally that it intends to cooperate. And President Zardari has told me that he will follow the leads wherever they go, and I think that is a very important commitment on the part of Pakistan.

by Frank James

This is something you don't see everyday, a U.S. secretary of state playing piano for Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace. It appears Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice decided to end her final trip to Britain as the U.S.'s top envoy with a crescendo.

I'm pretty certain we won't be seeing the next secretary of state, Sen. Hillary Clinton, concertizing for the Queen though, maybe, if her husband brings his saxophone...

Does anyone know why the Queen carries a pocketbook when she's in her own home?

by Mark Silva and updated

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will head to India this week with hope of defusing tension between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, with Indian officials pointing to culpable groups based within its neighbor's borders.

"President Bush has asked Secretary Rice to travel to India this week in the wake of the terror attacks that killed nearly 200 people, including 6 American citizens,'' White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said last night.

Rice already was leaving last night for a trip to London for a NATO meeting on Tuesday, and now plans to travel on to New Delhi by Wednesday.

"Secretary Rice's visit to India is a further demonstration of the United States' commitment to stand in solidarity with the people of India as we all work together to hold these extremists accountable,'' Perino said.

The Bush administration also has been widely criticized for having a foreign policy toward Pakistan based more on the U.S. relationship with former President Pervez Musharraf and that nation's agreement to cooperate with crackdowns on Al Qaeda forces within its borders.

The president, on the day of the attacks, said in a statement released from Camp David: "My administration has been working with the Indian government and the international community as Indian authorities work to ensure the safety of those still under threat. We will continue to cooperate against these extremists who offer nothing but violence and hopelessness.''

President-elect Barack Obama, at his morning press conference rolling out a national security team this morning, also allowed that he had spoken personally with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over the weekend to relay his concern for stability in the region.

by Mark Silva

Sen. Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, would have made a fine Secretary of State - and is among those whom President-elect Barack Obama has courted across party lines in his bid for an inclusive government.

But Lugar says he believes that Obama's national security team - reportedly to be led by Sen. Hillary Clinton at State and Marine Gen. James Jones as National Security Adviser - will do a fine job as well.

"I think they're excellent selections,'' Lugar said of Obama's lineup, in an appearance this morning on ABC News' This Week. " I think it will be a strong team. I would just say, as an individual, I look forward to working with each one of them. Bipartisan support of this team really is of the essence right now."

Lugar also downplays any conflict that might exist in former President Bill Clinton's profitable globe-trotting since he left the White House - noting that Clinton has agreed to disclose his foundation's donors and curtail his activities.

"I think it's a big step,'' Lugar said. "I think that the wide-ranging activities of
President Clinton are very substantial on this earth. They will continue to be... But I think the Obama campaign people have done a good job in trying to pin down the most important elements, and at this point hopefully this team of rivals will work".

Lugar was joined by Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat from Rhode Island, on the Sunday news show. See the rest of their remarks in this transcript provided, with thanks, by ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

by Frank James

It's possible the terrorists in Mumbai, India may have wanted to destroy tentative moves towards a better relationship between sworn enemies India and Pakistan, kind of like Hamas in the past launching attacks into Israel at times of progress between Israelis and the Palestinian Authrority.

As the New York Times reports:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The terrorist attacks in Mumbai occurred as India and Pakistan, two big, hostile and nuclear-armed nations, were delicately moving toward improved relations with the encouragement of the United States and in particular the incoming Obama administration.

But no matter who turns out to be responsible for the Mumbai attacks, their scale and the choice of international targets will make the agenda of the new American administration harder.

Sharda Janardhan Chitikar, left, is consoled by a relative as she grieves the death of her two children in a terrorist attack while she waits for their bodies outside St. Georges Hospital in Mumbai, India, Thursday, Nov. 27, 2008. (AP Photo/Gurinder Osan)

by Frank James

As we Americans prepare for our Thanksgiving dinners today, it is with fresh awareness that evil is no respecter of our traditions or sensibilities.

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India have riveted much of the world and cast a horrible shadow. We are shocked but not surprised at the carnage caused by a previously unheard of group that apparently styles itself the Deccan Mujahadeen.

On this day of prayers, our thoughts and prayers include the people of India and the many victims of the mayhem, both Indian and Western.

After 9/11, a French newspaper headline said: "We are all Americans" in solidarity. Today, we are all Indians, especially we Americans who have experienced epic terrorism too.

by Frank James

There's this CNN video flying around the Internet from the G20 meeting last weekend that shows President Bush walking on the stage for the "class photo" and no one shaking his hand.

Rick Sanchez, the CNN anchor, said it looked like Bush was snubbed because he's unpopular and a lot of people on the web have adopted that interpretation.

It's an example of people seeing what they want to see.

Here's an alternate explanation. The G20 has a weird protocol where the leader of the host nation doesn't shake hands while walking on stage for the final photo op with other leaders.

Each of these events is choreographed to the nth degree including where all the leaders stand. Looking at the video, it would also be possible to come to the view that many of the world leaders were feeling weighed down that day since they walked along the stage with their heads bowed.

But what they're actually doing is looking for their marks which are taped to the carpet on the floor.

Just another example of why what you see is not always what you think you see.

by Frank James

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, raises an important question about the possibility that President-elect Barack Obama could name Sen. Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state.

Friedman questions whether the relationship between Obama and Clinton can become so close that Clinton would be viewed by foreign leaders as speaking for Obama, of having his full backing, when she enunciates policy, or if there would always be some doubt about that.

My question is whether a President Obama and a Secretary of State Clinton, given all that has gone down between them and their staffs, can have that kind of relationship, particularly with Mrs. Clinton always thinking four to eight years ahead, and the possibility that she may run again for the presidency. I just don't know.

When it comes to appointing a secretary of state, you do not want a team of rivals.

That's the rub. To be effective, a secretary of state can't be thought to be freelancing or have an agenda other than that of the president's. If nothing else, it prevents confusion and the kind of misunderstanding that can literally prove deadly to someone.

A successful secretary of state almost needs to be a president's alter ego or right hand, as James Baker was to the first President Bush or Madeleine Albright was to President Bill Clinton, knowing what the president wants to accomplish and doing it. Because of the decline in U.S. standing abroad and the challenges of terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan, among others, there's little margin for error or infighting.

Is it possible for Clinton to be throw herself completely into the task of making Obama's foreign policy a success is the key question before Obama right now in these days before he makes his choice for the State Department officially known.

by Frank James

Gen. David Petraeus today took over the U.S. military's Central Command which has responsibility for some of the most critical and combustible parts of the world, including the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Petraeus is the closest the U.S. has to a conquering hero of Iraq for his execution of the surge in Iraq is widely agreed to have been masterful and responsible for much of the reduction in violence there.

Which makes it interesting that Petraeus was smacked down by the Bush Administration on an idea he had to visit Syria after assuming his new command.

by Frank James

Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington today of, among other things, the need for the U.S. to modernize its nuclear weapons capability. I'll deal with what he said on that score in another post.

But I was struck by part of an answer he gave about Iraq during the Q&A session following his speech. A questioner asked him what further steps should be taken to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Gates essentially said Europe could and should do more to isolate Iran. Then he related a fascinating story about something he personally experienced three decades ago involving Iranian officials:

I will tell you, you know, there has been a lot of conversation about this. I have spent 30 years in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate. When Jessica (Matthews, now president of the Carnegie Endowment) and I were working together under Dr. Brzezinski -- I was with Zbig when he was at the 25th anniversary of the Algerian revolution. And we got word that the Iranian leadership wanted to meet with him. This was October 1979. And Zbig got permission to do this. So we met with the prime minister, defense minister and foreign minister of the new Iranian revolutionary government. I think it was the first senior-level meeting with the Iranian leadership since the revolution.

by Frank James

Russian premier and puppetmaster Vladimir Putin sure knows how to kick a country when it's down.

He trash talked the U.S. today for its "irresponsibility" in handling the financial meltdown and to get the Wall Street bailout done. He said it raised questions about the U.S.'s world leadership.

Here's an excerpt of a Reuters story:

MOSCOW, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin criticised the United States on Wednesday for what he said was the country's inability to deal with the financial crisis affecting the global economy.

"And what is really sad is that we see an inability to take appropriate decisions. This is no longer irresponsibility on the part of some individuals, but irresponsibility of the whole system, which as you know had pretensions to (global) leadership", he said.

We're sure Putin is many things but saddened at the predicament the U.S. finds itself in is probably not one of them.

by Mark Silva

Candidate George W. Bush, in the first presidential debate in 2000, dismissively vowed to avoid "nation-building," suggesting that was a pursuit for liberals.

And President George W. Bush, in the run-up to the Iraq war, disregarded the will of the United Nations and asserted that America had a right to launch a pre-emptive military strike in the interest of preserving its security.

Yet now, near the end of his presidency, with the U.S. entrenched in nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush has largely cast aside his go-it-alone approach, calling on the UN to embrace a "multilateral" vision to protect the world against terrorism.

"We [have] witnessed successes and setbacks, and through it all a clear lesson has emerged: The United Nations and other multilateral organizations are needed more urgently than ever," Bush said Tuesday in his final address to the UN General Assembly.

The image of Bush, whose administration's contempt for the UN has at times been palpable, lecturing that very body on the importance of multilateralism was striking. But in fact, it was simply an exclamation point on the president's steady march toward treaties, peace talks, foreign aid and other multinational efforts that he and his neoconservative advisers derided in no uncertain terms as they took office.

In his second term, Bush has engaged in negotiations that have produced an agreement for civil nuclear power cooperation with India and made concessions with European leaders on climate change. He has assembled a NATO coalition for the ongoing fight in Afghanistan.

Bush has plowed unprecedented aid into Africa, securing a $50 billion commitment to combat AIDS and other diseases. He has pushed hard on "six-party" nuclear talks with North Korea and peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

"In some ways, what has happened reminds me of an apocryphal story about Harold Macmillan," said Anthony Cordesman, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, reciting the wisdom of the retiring former British prime minister on the greatest challenge for a statesman: "Events, my dear boy, events."

Cordesman added, "The problem with this president is that reality does intervene, but it sinks in slowly."

See the rest of the story on Bush at the U.N. in today's Tribune:

by Frank James

New York is still the U.S.'s most cosmospolitan city. So what better place to take a world tour without actually leaving the U.S. and having to whip out that new passport? And you can do it in less than a day.

To that end, as we reported earlier, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was in New York to meet with a three heads of state who were in New York for the United General Assembly meeting, and a man who was a head of state in his own mind, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Also on her schedule: rock star Bono.

Here are a few pictures from her whirlwind day which was all about giving Palin a foreign policy gloss.

The press shouts questions to Republican vice-presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin after her meeting with Colombian president Alvaro Uribe Velez in New York City. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

Palin with Alvaro Uribe President of Colombia at the Colombian Mission Residence in New York. (Photo by STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images)

Palin departs after meeting with Henry Kissinger at his New York office. (Photo by STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images)

by Mark Silva

President Bush and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a couple of leaders with Harvard credentials on their resumes, met for dinner at the White House last night, a multi-course affair featuring rib-eye and punctuated with vintage wines.

Uribe, in an exchange of toasts before dinner, praised Bush as 'this warrior for the well-being of the democratic values'' and "one great leader in the fight for the well-being of democracies.''

It's telling, however, that one of the best allies whom Bush has courted in South America represents a nation with which the U.S. Congress will not ratify a free-trade agreement.

Now, at a time when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has expelled American diplomats, Bush counts on the alliance of a friend whose government, Colombia's, has been threatened by narco-terrorists supported by the Venezuelan government.

In Colombia, the FARC terrorists refer to Chavez as the "Angel.'' In Venezuela, the megalomaniac of a president refers to Bush as the "Devil.''

The Colombian president, who pursued post-graduate studies at the same university that gave the president of the United States his master's degree in business administration, comes from the city, Medellin, which once protected one of the most powerful drug syndicates in Colombia, the Medellin Cartel, which wreaked havoc on the streets of Miami and elsewhere.

Mr. Bush has traveled to Cartagena -- a fellow dressed as Juan Valdez came around the press filing center with bags of coffee beans for the visiting reporters --- and now Mr. Uribe has come again to Washington. Uribe has managed to survive many years in the leadership of a nation allied with the U.S. in an attempt to root out the drug trafficking that once threatened to bring down his government.

Yet Bush cannot deliver the free-trade agreement that Colombia is seeking, with Democratic congressional leaders and U.S. labor union leaders unalterably opposed to the tariff-abolishing deal.

"With patience, with constancy, we will get approval of this free trade agreement. This is not the end of our relationships,'' Uribe said in toasts last night. "This is one step forward to move closer and closer in the democratic brotherhood of these two nations.''

Bush has chided the Congress for blocking the trade agreement: "Today's unprecedented and unfortunate action by the House of Representatives ... is damaging to our economy, our national security and our relations with an important ally," Bush said in April, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi effectively signaled that the treaty was dead.

The controversy also plays out in the presidential election campaign, with Democrats opposing the agreement and Republican presidential nominee John McCain supporting it. Colombia ships coffee, fruit, oil and clothing, its biggest exports, to the U.S. free of duty. The agreement would require Colombia to eliminate tariffs on U.S. goods, with trade between the two totalling some $18 billion in 2007 last year.

But the Bush administration, in pursuit of its "freedom agenda'' and promotion of democracy, cannot deliver a trade deal to the one nation that probably has done more to cooperate with U.S. interests, in the assault on the international drug trade, than any other in South America, and has lost its diplomatic ties with the one nation, Venezuela, which represents the longest-running democracy in the region. .

by Bay Fang

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, answering widespread criticism that she had not stood up to Russia enough in the past month, talked tough to Moscow on Thursday, saying its invasion of Georgia had achieved no strategic objective, and that Russia's leaders were taking the country "on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance."

Her speech, hosted by the German Marshall Fund, was meant both to warn Russia against further provocations, and to rally European allies to work with the US to oppose Russian aggression. She spoke directly to these allies in the speech, saying, "We cannot afford to validate the prejudices that some Russian leaders seem to have: that if you pressure free nations enough - if you bully, and threaten, and lash out - we will cave in, and forget, and eventually concede."

While rejecting the idea that the US and Russia were entering a new Cold War, Rice spelled out the consequences of Russian actions, saying that its bid to join the World Trade Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was in jeopardy, and its agreement with the US on civil nuclear cooperation had been put on hold. In answer to a question, she added that in the wake of the crisis over Georgia, more decisions were being made by the G-7 nations instead of the G-8, thus excluding Russia.

Rice, a former Soviet scholar, has been widely criticized for not personally taking a forceful enough stance against Moscow after Russia's invasion of Georgia last month.

by Bay Fang

It was a forum on foreign policy, but one of the five secretaries of state on stage chose to make political news. In answer to a student question about whether electing the first African American president would send a message to other countries, Colin Powell, President Bush's first Secretary of State - and the first African American to hold the position - said it would be "electrifying."

He added, "I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for yet," saying he wanted to study their platforms and hear the debates before making a decision.

Speaking at an event at the George Washington University alongside four other former Secretaries of State, Powell elaborated that Sen. McCain had been a close friend and colleague for 25 years, but that he did not want to vote for him solely on the basis of their friendship, just as he did not want to vote for Obama just because he was a fellow African American.

A four-star general who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before he became the 65th Secretary of State, Powell's endorsement is coveted by both parties. Although he remains a Republican, he has been critical of President Bush's handling of Iraq, and has said he would not have agreed with the decision to go to war had he known the evidence against Saddam Hussein was exaggerated. He has also voiced opposition to the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

by Frank James

Among the areas we can expect the Obama campaign and Democrats to come out swinging on today is on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's answer, during her ABC News interview with Charles Gibson, that the U.S. has the right to launch military attacks against al Qaeda amd the Taliban inside Pakistan without prior approval of that nation's government.

Here's her exchange with Gibson:

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

Sounds like a yes to me.

Now, during a August 2007 foreign-policy speech, Obama said:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

by Frank James

One of the day's most intriguing and important stories is the New York Times piece which reports that President Bush issued secret orders in July to let the U.S. military launch Special Forces ground operations in Pakistan against suspected and proven terrorists without the permission of that unsteady ally's government.

We've known that the Central Intelligence Agency was already operating in Pakistan. There've been a number of instances in which alleged practitioners of terrorism have been taken out by missiles launched presumably from unmanned Predator aircraft.

But the NYT story gives us more to chew on:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

by Frank James

One of the most notable polling results at the time of the 2006 elections was that Democrats had closed the national-security gap versus Republicans who held a long and significant advantage in that area. That was short-lived.

Unfortunately for Democrats, the gap has reopened. Democrats are regaining the reputation with voters as wimps.

Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner has just released a survey that indicates that voters perceive Republicans once again as far and away better on national security issues than Democrats.

Forty nine percent of those surveyed thought Republicans were better on national security while 35 percent thought Democrats better. When it came to combating terrorism, 48 percent thought Republicans superior to Democrats while 33 percent gave Democrats the advantage.

According to the Greenberg study researchers:

The national security credibility gap is returning. Old doubts about Democrats on security, after diminishing during 2006-2007, have begun to re-emerge: concerns that Democrats follow the polls rather than principle; that Democrats are indecisive and are afraid to use force; and that Democrats don't support the military. Because these weaknesses are longstanding and deeply ingrained, and because Republicanweaknesses are newer and do not yet have a label associated with them, Republicans continue to win on many security issues.

The Greenberg poll, done for the think tank Third Way, echoes a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which found a large lead for Republican Sen. John McCain over his Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama, with McCain holding a ten point lead over Obama on the question: who would be better on the Iraq, a 25 point lead on the handling of international crises and a 28 point lead on being better able to handle terrorism.

Results like these in part explain why the Republicans stressed the military and terrorism at their recently completed convention in St. Paul, Minn. They were trying to run up the score on the Democrats in the national security area.

by Laura Olson

Additional international support will be necessary to establish a lasting peace along the Georgian-Russian border, former Speaker of the Georgian Parliament Nino Burjanadze said Thursday.

Burjanadze spoke on the conflict at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney began his visit to Georgia's capital.

Her talk comes after an announcement Wednesday of $1 billion in U.S. aid to help Georgia rebuild its infrastructure.

by Bay Fang

Just when many believed the crisis in the Caucasus had been averted, tensions between Moscow and Washington are cranking up again.

As Moscow formally recognized the independence of the breakaway territories at the center of its war with Georgia, the US dispatched military ships bearing aid to a port city still controlled by Russian troops.

Traveling in the Middle East, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Moscow's move "regrettable," and said that its formal recognition of the territories "puts Russia in opposition to the Security Council resolution to which it is a party."

Speaking at a press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah, Rice said the U.S. regards Abkhazia and South Ossetia as "part of the internationally recognized borders of Georgia," and that the move to change their status would be "dead on arrival" in the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia and the US are both permanent members

Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov shot back that Russia was simply bowing to the will of the people by recognizing the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. "Non-recognition by Russia, after all the Georgian leadership did, would not have been understood by the population of Russia or the population of the northern Caucasus," he said on a conference call with reporters, adding that 80 percent of Russians and a much higher percentage of those in the Northern Caucasus supported the independence of the disputed territories.

He added that there were no plans to integrate the territories into the Russian federation. "That is a hypothetical question, and we're not in the guessing business," he said in response to a question from a reporter. "What they wanted when they asked us is recognition as independent country."

by Frank James

Russians will no doubt view it as a Polish poke in the eye; top Russian officials have said as much.

But in the wake of Russia's invasion of the Republic of Georgia, the Republic of Poland has officially sided with the U.S. on a key issue that had previously found it uneasily poised between the Bush Administration and the Russian government led by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and signed a pact to allow U.S. missile interceptors on Polish soil. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Warsaw today to sign the agreement at a very well-publicized ceremony.

Polish officials had been slow-walking discussions with the U.S. over the missiles for months. Even though the U.S. has insisted that it wanted the interceptors in Poland to counter the potential threat of Iranian ballistic missiles, the Russians have adamantly opposed the U.S. missiles, saying they viewed them as a threat because the missiles could weaken Russia's deterrent force of nuclear missiles.

Despite official Polish denials, the fact that the deal was finally reached with great alacrity after Russia's Georgia invasion has been interpreted by U.S. foreign affairs analysts as a direct result of Russia's aggression against a former Soviet satellite state.

In this instance, the Russians apparently are being reacquainted with the law of unintended consequences. Their actions in Georgia hastened the very consequences they found so undesirable, American interceptors in Poland.

by Frank James

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 26 nations completed their meeting today and issued a condemnation of Russia for its recent invasion of Georgia.

Of course, if NATO had proceeded on Georgia's application for NATO in April, perhaps that would've been enough to keep the Russians from invading Georgia in the first place according to no less an expert than former Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns who spoke today at a meeting of the Atlantic Council of the U.S. a non-profit organization devoted to improved U.S.-Europe relations.

Burns said:

"I wish the NATO leaders at Bucharest had taken the decision at Bucharest several months ago, to admit Georgia under the Membership Action Plan. That would've been a very clear signal to the Russians that the Georgians have a right to seek their own future, as do all countries in Europe."

But, alas, NATO didn't make Georgia a membership candidate and the Russians are in Georgia.

Today, NATO reiterated its support for Georgia:

A peaceful and lasting solution to the conflict in Georgia must be based on full respect for the principles of Georgia's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity recognised by international law and UN Security Council resolutions.

The nations pledged to help Georgia rebuild infrastructure destroyed by the Russian invasion. Also, notably, the NATO states didn't agree to any punishment of Russia. Instead, they held out the potential that if Russia doesn't leave Georgia, things may go badly for Russia:

The Alliance is considering seriously the implications of Russia's actions for the NATO-Russia relationship. In 2002, we established the NATO-Russia Council, a framework for discussions with Russia, including on issues that divide the Alliance and Russia. We have determined that we cannot continue with business as usual. We call on Moscow to demonstrate - both in word and deed - its continued commitment to the principles upon which we agreed to base our relationship.

by Kim Barker

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The resignation of President Pervez Musharraf on Monday ends an era in Pakistan and could pave the way for a stronger civilian government that is more independent from the army than any government in Pakistan's 61-year history.

But it also could open the door to more political uncertainty and the potential that no one in the ruling coalition will be able to take charge of the troubled nation at a critical time, analysts said.

Everything depends on what happens next -- including whether the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, who replaced Musharraf in the post last November, continues to distance the army from politics and focus on fighting extremists, and whether the ruling coalition political parties can work together.

Musharraf's much-expected exit after almost nine years as president adds to the fragile country's turmoil at a time when the U.S. is asking it to do more to counter a growing militancy along its border with Afghanistan. Pakistan's significance extends far beyond its national boundaries --it has nuclear weapons, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists are thought to be hiding along its rugged borders.

The U.S. considered Musharraf a key ally in the war on terrorism, but his support of the U.S. contributed to his unpopularity and his eventual downfall. His political opponents accused Musharraf of playing a double game--supporting the U.S. while allowing elements of the military, and particularly the country's major spy agency, to support their onetime Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

Musharraf, who seized power in a bloodless military coup in 1999, also lost popularity in the past 18 months because of his own political missteps. His attempt to fire the country's popular and independent chief justice in March 2007 sparked national protests. His declaration of emergency rule and firing of the country's top judges Nov. 3 drew international condemnation and led to the election of a new ruling coalition in February. Earlier this month, the coalition said it would attempt to impeach Musharraf.

In recent weeks, U.S. officials have been largely quiet about their ally. On Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Musharraf had been a friend to the U.S. and one of the world's most committed partners in the war against terrorism. "For this, he has our deep gratitude," she said.

Rice also said the U.S. would continue to work with the Pakistani government and that respect for the democratic and constitutional processes in Pakistan was fundamental to the country's future and to the fight against terrorism.

Kim Barker writes for the Chicago Tribune. Read her full analysis on the resignation of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and see a report by White House correspondent Mark Silva on the Bush administration's stance on Musharraf's departure at ChicagoTribune.com.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf on Aug. 18, 2008 from a handout photo distributed by the government's Press Information Department. Photo credit: EPA/Press Information Department

by Frank James

It's official. Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf pulled a Richard Nixon, announced his resignation on national TV to avoid impeachment.

Unlike the U.S.'s 37th president who merely had to depart Washington after he stepped down following Watergate, Musharraf must navigate whether he can stay in Pakistan or go into exile.

The Chicago Tribune's Kim Barker, in Islamabad, has a comprehensive report on Musharraf's exit from the Pakistani stage through a speech in which he protested that he was, indeed, human:

Many insiders said his resignation was part of a deal allowing him to avoid the humiliation of a public impeachment in Parliament and perhaps avoid criminal charges for actions during his almost nine years as president, including seizing power while army chief in 1999, declaring emergency rule in November, and firing the country's top judges, also in November.

In his speech, Musharraf defended his tenure and said he was resigning to spare the country from the ordeal of impeachment. He said if he were impeached, the government would not be able to prove any charge against him.

by Mark Silva and updated.

For Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state and an expert on international relations with the Russians, it's a remarkable statement - the one she made today - that, as a result of the conflict with Georgia, Russia's reputation is "in tatters.''

"Russia already has paid a price,'' Rice said in an interview this morning on NBC News' Meet the Press. Western leaders, going forward from a negotiated ceasefire in Georgia, still must assess the impact of Russia's "disproportionate'' military action there, Rice maintains, but the Russians already have damaged their hopes of "integrating'' with the West and maintaining a position in modern international arrangements such as the Group of Eight.

"Georgia will rebuild,'' Rice said flatly. "Russia's reputation may not be rebuilt.''

This is a notable statement from an administration that once hoped to forge a new relationship with the Russians. Early on, after meeting with then-President Vladimir Putin, President Bush famously maintained that he had gotten "a sense of his soul.''

Bush said then that he trusted Putin - Bush said he wouldn't have invited Putin to his Texas ranch if he didn't trust him. Bush traveled to Moscow, and to Putin's dacha, where Putin handed the American president the keys of his antique Russian car.

Rice maintained today that Bush was right to give Putin the opening that he did, offering the Russians a path to participation in the modern world. "The Cold War is over,'' she said today, as she and Bush have reiterated in recent days.

But as a result of the Georgian invasion, she told Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday this morning, ""I think there's no doubt there will be further consequences. I would note that there have already been significant consequences for Russia.

"You know, any notion that Russia was the kind of responsible state, ready to integrate into international institutions of the political, diplomatic, security, economic kind, that this was a different ... that reputation's, frankly, in tatters, and so that in itself is a significant consequence,'' Rice said on FOX.

On the question of the G-8, which includes Russia: "I would just note that I have been meeting by phone, telephonically, with my G-7 foreign minister colleagues because Russia is a party to the conflict, and this has been a useful forum for doing that. But we're not going to do anything hasty. I think Russia is already paying a significant price."

It was the Russians, Rice said in both venues today, who have made the wrong choices. Now, as the Russians promise to retreat tomorrow to the military lines they held before the conflict in Georgia, the long and rocky ride of the soon-retiring George W. Bush and now-Prime Minister Putin is nearing its end. Russia has a new president, Dmitry Medvedev, viewed by many as merely doing Putin's bidding. It most likely will be left to Bush's and Rice's successors to determine what "price'' everyone will pay for the state of affairs today.

by Mark Silva

A ceasefire has been signed in Georgia, but President Bush, retreating to his ranch in Texas for vacation, faces a rougher relationship with Russia than he has faced during his entire presidency.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met the president at his Prairie Chapel Ranch for a briefing this morning on her trip to Tbilisi, and she plans to return to Europe for further talks next week. At 9:55 am EDT today, Bush plans to make a public statement from the ranch.

But all is not calm. The avowed personal bond of trust between Bush and former President and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has been all but broken. Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev, has insisted that Georgia was the "aggressor'' in this most recent flare-up of a long-simmering dispute. In any event, the president's secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has suggested that foreign policy cannot be built on trust alone.

Now, in the months remaining of Bush's final term, the United States faces an erstwhile adversary which Bush accuses of "bullying'' its own neighbors. Russia has jeopardized its "aspirations'' of a place at the table of modern industrial nations, Bush says. And Russia accuses the U.S. of not only meddling in its affairs, but also taking its own provocative actions with an agreement to place missile defenses in Poland.

In the midst of all this, the small nation of Georgia, held out by Bush as one of the landmarks of the modern "freedom agenda,'' its "Rose Revolution'' in 2003 a beacon for other nations. In his weekly radio address today, Bush attempts to explain why Georgia matters.

"Some Americans listening today may wonder why events taking place in a small country halfway around the world matter to the United States,'' Bush says in his radio address."In the years since it gained independence after the Soviet Union's collapse, Georgia has become a courageous democracy whose people are making the tough choices that are required of free societies.''

See the rest of the address here:

by Mark Silva

President Bush, reminding Russia that "the Cold War is over,'' called on Russian leaders today to withdraw military forces from Georgia, a former Soviet satellite that has turned democratic and aligned with Europe and the United States..

Russia has "damaged its credibility,'' the president said, accusing the Russians of "bullying'' their neighbors.

"Unfortunately Russia has tended to view the spread of freedom and democracy as opposed to its interests,'' Bush said today, in a statement outside the Oval Office before heading to his Texas ranch for vacation. "The opposite is true.''

Warning that Russia stands to isolate itself from the modern world if it cannot respect the autonomy of free neighbors, the Bush administration contends that the Russians will face consequences for the invasion of Georgia.

"A future of cooperation and peace will benefit all parties,'' Bush said. "The Cold War is over. The days of satellites and spheres of influence are behind us... A contentious relationship with America is not in Russia's interest.''

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, attempting to secure the framework of a cease fire, following a meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, current head of the European Union, who is attempting to broker a peace. Rice will join Bush at his ranch outside Crawford, Texas, on Saturday. "She will bring me up to date on what she has seen and heard, in Georgia as well as Paris,'' said Bush. "I mean France, she did not go to Paris.

"Some Americans listening today may wonder why events taking place in a small country half way around the world matter to the United States,'' Bush said. "Georgia has become a democracy... Since the Rose Revolution....the Georgian people have held free elections... Georgia has sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to help others achieve the liberty they have obtained.

"The people of Georgia have cast their lot with the free world,'' Bush said, "and we will not cast them aside.''

by Frank James

The New York Times is reporting that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf will step down within days from his post, apparently after finding few constituencies in the country, not even the military he once headed, demanding that he remain in power.

Musharraf's move comes as his adversaries were preparing to file impeachment charges against him for misusing his power in prior years when he was essentially Pakistan's strongman, ruling the country as both the Army chief of staff and president.

Here's a snippet of the Times story:

His departure from office would be likely to unleash new instability in the country as the two main parties in the civilian government jockeyed for the division of power.

Similarly, Sheikh Mansoor Ahmed, a senior official of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the major party in the coalition, said Thursday that the president would probably leave in the "next 72 hours."

Musharraf's imminent departure, if it turns out to be true, represents a stunning change from just last year when he appeared to be as firmly in control as anyone could be of the unstable nation with its nuclear weapons that has become a safe-harbor for the al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and the Taleban, the former rulers of Afghanistan.

by Frank James

The oft-controversial and colorful Ralph Peters, the retired Army lieutenant colonel who is also a New York Post columnist, has a take on Vladimiir Putin guaranteed to outrage the Russians and probably many Americans to boot. He delivered it at an American Enterprise Institute panel discussion in Washington yesterday on the Republic of Georgia situation.

The Russians, on whom I have wasted far too much of my life, are drink-sodden barbarians who occasionally puke up a genius. And we should make no mistake. Vladimir Putin is one such genius. As this brilliantly planned and executed operation illustrates, he is the most effective leader in the world today, certainly of any major country. No one else comes close.

We're faced with a resurgent major power, not super power, with imperialist megalomaniacal ambitions led by the most effective and, I would argue, the most brilliant leader in the world today, outclassing everyone I can see. Ladies and gentleman, I find this terribly reminiscent of the 1930s.

by Mark Silva

President Bush will have lunch today at the George Bush Center for Intelligence, the headquarters compound of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Va., named for his father, the former president and CIA director. He will get a private briefing on "the global war on terror'' and the conflict in Georgia.

If the soon-retiring president has not handed off the code for the football yet, he appears to be handing off the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to his possible successor, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

While the White House was busy "setting the record straight'' on the Journal's editorial tongue-lashing of the president for his handling of the sudden Russian incursion of Georgia, McCain was locking down the Op-ed page of the Journal with his essay today: "We are all Georgians.''

"For anyone who thought that stark international aggression was a thing of the past, the last week must have come as a startling wake-up call... After all, Georgia is a small, remote and obscure place,'' McCain writes in the Journal this morning. "But history is often made in remote, obscure places...

""The world has learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked,'' McCain writes. "A cease-fire that holds is a vital first step, but only one. With our allies, we now must stand in united purpose to persuade the Russian government to end violence permanently and withdraw its troops from Georgia. International monitors must gain immediate access to war-torn areas in order to avert an even greater humanitarian disaster, and we should ensure that emergency aid lifted by air and sea is delivered.

Bush, visiting the CIA today for briefings and lunch with staffers, has postponed his August vacation plans for his ranch in Texas to remain in Washington as the Georgian crisis unfolds. And McCain, banking his campaign for the White House on his war-tempered world-experience and purported readiness for conflicts such as these - while Democratic rival Barack Obama finishes his own week's vacation in Hawaii -- is eager to demonstrate how he, as opposed to President Bush, might proceed in the face of Russian aggression.

As our colleague Jill Zuckman reported here in the Swamp, McCain has had frequent telephone contact with the president of Georgia since the crisis started.

The often more-friendly Journal, for its part, has rendered a quick and stinging judgment on the Bush administration's early actions, opining yesterday that "U.S. credibility is... on the line as the Bush administration stumbles to respond to the Russian invasion of Georgia. So far, the administration has been missing in action.''

This prompted a swift rebuttal from the White House communications machinery, which sometimes attempts to "set the record straight'' on reports of the press - adjustments more often applied to the reporting of, say, The New York Times, which is said to have a certain point of view and indeed rejected McCain's recent attempt at an Op-Ed piece.

"President Bush and his administration have taken aggressive action, both public and non-public, to manage this crisis,'' the White House reported last night:

by Liz Sly

BEIRUT -- Lebanon and Syria formally established diplomatic relations Wednesday for the first time since they won their independence in the 1940s, a historic move that was overshadowed by a bombing in the northern Lebanese port city of Tripoli in which 18 people were killed.

The morning rush-hour attack on a commuter bus came as a reminder of the threat of instability still hanging over Lebanon even as a series of peace initiatives in the country and the region appear to be unwinding tensions on multiple fronts.

One of those initiatives is the diplomatic rapprochement between Lebanon and Syria, aimed at defusing long-standing friction between the countries. Syria has played a central role in the turbulence afflicting its smaller neighbor for much of its history, and Syrian troops occupied Lebanon for 29 years starting in 1976.

The decision to exchange ambassadors was announced in Damascus during a landmark summit between Syrian President Bashar Assad and Lebanon's new president, Michel Suleiman, who was making the first visit to Syria by a top Lebanese leader since Syrian troops were driven from Lebanon in 2005 by the Cedar Revolution.

It also signaled the growing regional influence of Syria, which in recent months has shrugged off U.S.-led efforts to isolate it diplomatically by embracing a peace deal in Lebanon and opening peace talks with Israel.

Syria, whose territory included Lebanon until the two countries were given independence by France, had long refused to establish relations with its neighbor, saying that the countries are too close to need formal ties. Lebanon has long called for diplomatic relations, suspecting that Syria's refusal masked ambitions to eventually reincorporate Lebanon into Syria.

Washington also welcomed the move. "We have long stood for the normalization of relations between Syria and Lebanon on the basis of equality and respect for Lebanese sovereignty," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in Washington.

"One of the steps that has long been required has been the establishment of a proper embassy for Syria and Lebanon and vice versa."

(Read the full article on Syria and Lebanon at ChicagoTribune.com.)

by Bay Fang

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, back from her vacation, is finally injecting herself visibly into the conflict over Georgia and South Ossetia. On the president's orders, she will be leaving at midnight tonight for Paris, the South of France, and Tbilisi.

The hastily arranged trip will not include the press corps with whom she normally travels. Apparently, she is stuck with a smaller plane for her diplomatic mission, since Vice President Cheney took the larger plane to go to a fundraiser.

The former Soviet scholar also will not be going to Moscow itself, preferring to let the French take the lead in ongoing mediation efforts between the Russians and the Georgians. In a press briefing just before leaving she did add, a tad defensively, that she spoke with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov this morning, and that the administration has many channels of communication open with the Russian leadership.

by Mark Silva

President Bush was prepared to head to his ranch outside Crawford, Texas, tomorrow, as he does every August, for a summer vacation.

But Bush, who today declared his "solidarity'' with the besieged people of Georgia, also today postponed the start of his planned two-week ranch stay.

The president's travel to Texas is "postponed until further notice,'' the White House announced. Bush will remain in Washington to monitor events in Georgia, where a ceasefire with Russia officially is underway but also is jeopardized by continuing conflict.

by Mark Silva and updated with Russian and Bush statements.

President Bush, declaring "solidarity'' with the people of Georgia, is dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Paris and then Tbilisi and sending a military and Naval armada of humanitarian aid and medical supplies to the besieged nation.

Bush, making a Rose Garden appearance with Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates by his side, maintained that the actions of Russia do not conform with its statement that it is not threatening the democratically elected government of Georgia.

"Russia's ongoing actions raise serious questions about its intentions,'' Bush said. "Russia must keep its word and act to end this crisis.... We expect Russia to meet its commitment.''

The president, announcing "a series of steps to demonstrate our solidarity'' with Georgia, said a C-17 military transport already is on its way with humanitarian aid and Defense Secretary Gates will lead a humanitarian mission involving both U.S. aircraft and Naval forces in the delivery of food and medical supplies.

Endorsing the efforts of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, head of the European Union, to broker a peace agreement between Russia and Georgia, Bush said Rice first will travel to France to meet with Sarkozy and then travel to Tbilisi, the Georgian capital.

Rice will 'rally the free world,'' Bush said.

"Russia has stated that changing the government of Georgia is not its goal,'' Bush said. "The United States... and the world... expect Russia to honor that.'' However, he said, "unfortunately,'' Russia's continuing actions in Georgia - blocking ports and attacking ships - are "inconsistent with that statement.''

Within an hour after the president's statement, the Russian government issued a statement today, with President Dmitry Medvedev declaring today "a day of mourning for the humanitarian disaster in South Ossetia.''

Claiming that the Russian Air Force had "terminated all bombardments'' as of Aug. 12 and that there are no Russian tanks in Gori, the government said that medical units had started working in the "practically destroyed'' city of Tskhinvali.

Calling the Georgians "the aggressor'' in the conflict that started five days ago, the Russian government said its "peacekeepers'' had suffered many casulaties: 74 killed in action, 171 wounded in action and 19 missing in action. It also said that "no withdrawal of Georgian forces can be seen.''

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili was taking his own appeal directly to the American people. The Georgian leader made appearances on morning network and cable news shows. See his comments, President Bush's statement today and the Russian government's statement below:

by Mark Silva

In Tbilisi, celebrating the "Rose Revolution'' of a former Soviet satellite, President Bush addressed thousands filling "Freedom Square" on May 10, 2005, with this promise:

"The path of freedom you have chosen is not easy, but you will not travel it alone. Americans respect your courageous choice for liberty. And as you build a free and democratic Georgia, the American people will stand with you.''

In Washington, Bush stepped out to the Rose Garden this week to declare that Russian assaults inside Georgia - a swift and and crushing deployment of military force that the Russians called operation "Clean Field'' - must cease.

It appeared that Russia might be attempting to "depose'' the "duly elected government'' of Georgia, Bush said, declaring: "Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st Century.''

But in Moscow today, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev declared that Russia had achieved its objectives in Georgia: "I have taken the decision to end the operation to force Georgian authorities into peace... The purpose of the operation has been achieved.... The security of our peacekeeping forces and the civilian population has been restored."

In Washington, Steve Hadley, the president's national security adviser, was to step to the podium of the West Wing this morning at 11 am EDT to discuss ongoing events. But then Hadley retreated, his office citing "ongoing developments with the situation in Georgia.''

In Moscow, could it be that Washington's words about the government of Tbilisi were heard? Is "unacceptable'' the new code word for mutually assured self-destruction? Or could it simply be that Medvedev's "Clean Field'' had been, as he put it, "achieved.''

In Washington, the words of the Russian leader are relayed to the American media and public through the offices of a major public relations firm, Ketchum. Could it be that the potential confrontations of the Russian regime and U.S. leaders in the 21st Century will be settled with public relations?

"Before there was a Purple Revolution in Iraq, or an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, or a Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, there was the Rose Revolution in Georgia,'' Bush said to the cheering crowd in Tbilisi three years ago. "Your courage is inspiring democratic reformers and sending a message that echos across the world: freedom will be the future of every nation and every people on Earth.''

It's probably too much to ask that we are entering the Public Relations Revolution, where battles will be settled at podiums before they become too bloody on the field. It's probably more a matter of Russian leaders figuring the field is clean -- sort of like Stalingrad was cleaned, as a military spokesman said through the DC PR team.

Presidents Bush and Saakashvili and first ladies in Freedom Square / Silva.

by Alex Rodriguez

GORI, Georgia -- Levan Kakashvili has been sleeping under a tree. What used to be his house is now a mound of broken bricks behind a five-story flat blackened by Russian bombing raids.

He blames the Russians for his plight, but he blames his own leader, U.S.-backed Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, for giving the Kremlin an excuse to pummel the tiny former Soviet republic in the widening 4-day-old conflict that began over control of the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

"I'm very angry with him," said Kakashvili, slapping water from an outdoor spigot on his face and wiping dust off his shoes. "He knew that if he hit Tskhinvali [South Ossetia's capital], the Russians would hit Georgia. Now they are bombing us into oblivion."

Hours before reports that Russian forces moved on this city as part of a feared all-out invasion, Georgians in Gori were stuffing into their cars whatever belongings they could salvage from the rubble of their apartments--winter coats, kitchen utensils, bath towels--and leaving.

And as they evacuated, they said they have lost confidence in their 40-year-old president, who only five years ago embraced U.S. President George W. Bush and put his country on the path of democratic reform and an alliance with the West.

They said they were equally disheartened by the lack of intervention from the U.S. and Western Europe to bring an end to the hostilities. Avtandil Sisuashvili, 72, said the mere warnings to Russia from the West left him wondering just how meaningful was Georgia's alliance with the U.S. and the European Union.

"We need to know whether we are still under Moscow's rule or whether we are protected by the West," said Sisuashvili, standing inside his apartment, which was littered with broken glass shattered by the bombing's shock waves. "We're not sure anymore whether the West defends us. Russia feels like it can do whatever it wants. We don't feel safe anymore."

Read the full story on the conflict in Georgia at ChicagoTribune.com.

by James Gerstenzang

Richard Perle, a leader of the neocon movement widely presented as a central factor in shaping U.S. foreign policy at the start of the Bush administration, has taken a look at the challenge President Bush is facing at the end of his tenure with the Russian attacks in Georgia.

Perle first made a name for himself as an advisor to the late Democratic Sen. Henry M. Jackson of Washington -- a hard-liner when it came to dealing with the Soviet Union. Perle served as a senior Pentagon official in the Ronald Reagan administration, at the height of the Cold War when the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a central focus, and early on advised the current administration on defense policy.

Countdown to Crawford asked for his thoughts on the current situation in Georgia.

In response, Perle equated Bush's position at the moment with that of Jimmy Carter facing another Kremlin military move -- and suggested that Bush and his secretary of state, like Carter, had put too much faith in the Kremlin.

He wrote:

"Now President Bush will understand the Hapless Jimmy Carter when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan at Christmas, 1979 and the scales (remember the 'inordinate fear of communism?') fell from his eyes. Bush and his expert Condi Rice have misunderstood Putin from the beginning and built an American policy towards Russia on a ludicrous look into Putin's soul.''

Photo of Perle by Miguel Villagran / Action Press

by Bay Fang

On the first day that Russia struck Georgian troops in the breakaway province of South Ossetia, the Bush administration said it was working actively with its European partners to seek an end to hostilities.

Four days later, as Russian forces swarmed virtually unopposed into Georgian territory on Monday, the U.S. response was the same: "We are working very hard with the Europeans to try to resolve the conflict," said Robert Wood, the deputy State Department spokesman.

Even as President George W. Bush vigorously condemned Russia's actions, calling its military expansion into Georgian territory a "dramatic and brutal escalation" that is "unacceptable in the 21st Century," there is not much the U.S. can do to protect its closest ally in the Caucasus.

American military support, while not officially off the table, is neither a realistic nor desirable option against a nuclear power such as Russia. The UN Security Council, of which Russia is a permanent member, is not likely to produce a resolution with teeth on the fighting any time soon. Sanctions against Moscow also are not an option for many European countries because they import most of their energy from Russia.

"We don't have great leverage here," said James Collins, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia. "The Russians have said that the one thing they want is for the U.S. and the Europeans not to do things, such as bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Does that suggest options? I don't know."

Bay Fang writes for the Chicago Tribune. Read more about the conflict between Russia and Georgia at ChicagoTribune.com.

by Frank James

Will Russia's aggressive retaliation against Georgia have much resonance for voters in the presidential campaign between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain?

That question is being asked a lot, especially during a campaign year when voters are focused on domestic matters like the economic slowdown, energy prices, the housing meltdown, the credit crunch et al.

Some of the conventional Washington wisdom is that the warfare Russia-Georgia crisis won't affect voters in a significant way.

Here's a snippet from the Wall Street Journal:

"The truth is it probably won't have much impact at all -- the sad truth, perhaps," said Democratic consultant Mark Mellman. But he said that if the issue does affect voters, "it gives McCain a slight advantage."

You could sense that McCain was trying to change that in the statement he made today as he campaigned in Erie, Pa.

"Americans wishing to spend August vacationing with their families or watching the Olympics may wonder why their newspapers and television screens are filled with images of war in the small country of Georgia. Concerns about what occurs there might seem distant and unrelated to the many other interests America has around the world. And yet Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.

"What the people of Georgia have accomplished in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia's recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia and the survival of its democratically-elected government are at stake.

by Frank James

The limits of the U.S.'s ability to influence the course of international events are particularly on display right now as Russian leaders ignore U.S. demands to end their use of military force against the Georgians.

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have demanded that Russia stop its military actions in Georgia, a strong U.S. ally, including its bombings, outside the disputed area of South Ossetia.

Bush, in Beijing, had an interview with NBC Sports' Bob Costas in which the president restated his call for the Russians to halt their military activities, a message he said he delivered directly to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin when the two men met with the Olympic Games as a backdrop.

According to Bloomberg News:

President George W. Bush said the U.S. condemns the Russian bombings that have led to an escalation of the conflict over the South Ossetian region of Georgia.

Bush, who is in Beijing attending sporting events at the Olympic Games, told NBC's Bob Costas that it was "interesting to me that here we are, trying to promote peace and harmony, and we're witnessing a conflict take place."

by Mark Silva

President Bush, who promised not to politicize the Olympic Summer Games with his appearance in China, has taken every public opportunity he has found to remind the Chinese about concerns that the United States has about human rights there.

"China is sprinting into the modern era,'' Bush said with his weekly radio braodcast today, from Beijing. "Beijing is covered in skyscrapers and filled with cars. And the people of China have more connections to the world than ever before.

"At the same time, America has spoken candidly and consistently about our concerns over the Chinese government's behavior,'' he said. "We have made it clear that trusting their people with greater freedom is necessary for China to reach its full potential.''

Bush places his faith in progress there on a broader hope that he often voices.

"Only China can decide what course it will follow, but I'm optimistic about the prospects. Young people who grow up with freedom in one area of their lives will ultimately demand freedom in other areas. The China of the future will reflect its own culture and traditions, but it will also reflect the universal aspirations of mankind -- and there's no deeper human desire than liberty.''

by Mark Silva

President Bush, making his last planned tour of Asia as president, took a stage in Banghkok today to deliver tough words for China which he is unlikely to make in any public appearances there this weekend.

Bush, who is bound for the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Summer Games on Friday and will also take in the men's basketball contest between Teams USA and China, plans private meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao. And Bush, who maintains that the Olympics should not be politicized, has promised to raise, in private talks with Hu, the same concerns about human rights that he has shared with him before.

But publicly, in Thailand today, Bush spelled out his administration's concerns.

"I have spoken clearly, candidly, and consistently with China's leaders about our deep concerns over religious freedom and human rights,'' Bush said today. "And I have met repeatedly with Chinese dissidents and religious believers. The United States believes the people of China deserve the fundamental liberty that is the natural right of all human beings. So America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates, and religious activists.

"We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights not to antagonize China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential,'' he said. "We press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs, but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs. As Chinese scientist Xu Liangying has said: "Human nature is universal and needs to pursue freedom and equality.''

by Mark Silva

President Bush, ready to attend the opening cermonies of the summer Olympics in Beijing, suggests that the pressure which he has heard to refrain from making that appearance - as several other world leaders are avoding it in protest of human rights abuses in China - is not unlike the pressure that he faces on any number of fronts.

But the Olympics are different, Bush says - they shouldn't be "politicized.'' He will even meet his father, who served in China as the U.S. representative there in the 1970s, at the games. And they'll take in some men's basketball. (It'll be a family reunion of sorts, with Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, accompanying his brother and sister Doro traveling with their father, the family meeting in Beijing.)

The president will take part in the dedication of the new U.S. embassy in Beijing and greet the U.S. Olympic team on Friday before attending the opening ceremony of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games.

On Sunday, Bush will meet privately with President Hu Jintao, and have lunch with him at the Zhongnanhai Compound, before attending a men's Olympic basketball contest: Team USA vs. Team China.

"I'm coming as the president of a friend, and I'm coming as a sportsman,'' Bush said in an interview this week with Fuqing Yang of CCTV. "I'm going to go to the U.S.-Chinese basketball game. I understand Yao Ming is back on the court, and it will be an interesting challenge for the U.S. team.''

The Chinese reporter, interviewing Bush at the White House, noted that Bush has heard "pressure from politicians here in Washington'' calling on him not to go to Beijing.

"Well, first of all, I'm under pressure from politicians on a lot of fronts,'' Bush said. "I mean, this isn't the only issue that I get pressured on. And presidents need to make their decision based upon what's best, not what's political.

Damaged building near the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, July 7, 2008. (AP Photos/Rahmat Gul)

by Frank James

Have U.S. intelligence agencies caught their Pakistani counterparts red-handed, aiding in last month's bombing by Afghan militants of the India's embassy in Kabul?

That's what the New York Times is reporting in a story by Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt.

WASHINGTON -- American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan's powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India's embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

As shocking as the revelation is, it won't surprise anyone who's been following news from Pakistan for years. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency has long been known to be playing both sides of the divide between terrorism and the nation's fighting it.

The ISI has long supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and has used Islamic extremists in its fight against archrival India over the disputed Kashmir region.

If the report is accurate, what the report does is once again underscore how difficult has been and will continue to be for the U.S. to fight terror in the region with Pakistan as an ally.

by Mark Silva

First Lady Laura Bush, who has waged a considerable amount of personal diplomacy in Afghanistan, says that she hopes to pursue work there after her husband leaves office - perhaps in conjunction with the research institute that President Bush plans at his presidential library at the first lady's alma mater.

"I'll stay involved, and I hope I'll have a chance to stay involved through the presidential library,'' Laura Bush says in an interview that FOX News Channel will air this evening on Special Report with Brit Hume. FOX's Wendel Goler interviewed Laura Bush, who says, "I hope I'll have the chance to go back.

""I think Afghanistan needs a very strong commitment from the international community to help in the ways that we can help them build infrastructure,'' the first lady says in the interview. "They need roads. They need schools. They need hospitals. They need medical centers. They need all the things that can help them build the infrastructure that will allow them to have an economy that can help grow their people out of -- out of poverty."

The urgency of the battle in Afghanistan also has come to the forefront of the presidential election contest, with both Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama supporting additional troops there - and Obama contending that the Bush administration took its eye off the real front in the war on terror, Afghanistan, with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. McCain maintains that it is "two-front war.''

""I know the United States will stay involved.,'' Laura Bush says. "I know that, no matter who's elected president in November and is inaugurated next January, that the United States will keep its commitment."

by Frank James

When Sen. Barack Obama recently tried to sell the importance of his European trip to American voters, he used a formulation that essentially went like this: more European NATO troops in Afghanistan could ultimately mean the need for fewer U.S. troops which would then result in lower taxes for American taxpayers.

It seemed obvious that such an idea wouldn't be popular with many Europeans and there has been some blowback, as pointed out on The Wall Street Journal's editorial page today.

.... On Sunday the Secretary General of the opposition German Free Democrats, Dieter Niebel, responded to Mr. Obama by telling the Bild am Sonntag that "Under no circumstances will the German taxpayer pay with more money and more troops for Afghanistan for tax cuts in the U.S."

Welcome to President Bush's world, Senator Obama. The myth is that Mr. Bush's "unilateralism" has so antagonized America's allies that they will rush to share more of the war burden once the Texan is back in Crawford. But Europeans have long enjoyed the free ride of U.S. military protection while enjoying even more their freedom to criticize how that protection is provided.

It should be noted that the Free Democrats are liberals while the CSU are conservative. So Obama's idea to save U.S. taxpayers at European expense isn't going over that well across the German political spectrum.

by Mike Dorning

LONDON -- Barack Obama's audacious nine-day foreign tour offered a cascade of vivid images and a powerful speech that went a long way toward encouraging an international audience and a domestic one to envision this relative political newcomer in the role of president.

The sea of 200,000 people in a Berlin park cheering Obama's call for a strengthened Atlantic alliance, prominently featured on television at home, showcased his capacity to act as a messenger for America and evoked two of the most forceful presidential spokesman for the United States in the Cold War: John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Obama's meetings with foreign leaders in the Middle East and Europe showed him at ease and confident with potential future negotiating partners and put him in such familiar seats of international power as France's Elysee Palace, where President Nicolas Sarkozy greeted him on the steps, and on Saturday at Britain's No. 10 Downing Street, where he held the traditional news conference outside the prime minister's front door.

The American public saw Obama performing the type of public functions a president does on an overseas trip, helicoptering around Iraq with the commanding general, laying a wreath at Israel's Holocaust Memorial and meeting with the press in Jordan in a majestic setting among ancient ruins that fit the visual style of the Bush White House's grand media events.

The idea of spending nine days outside the country in the midst of a presidential campaign was criticized by some as presumptuous and considered a risk by many. Certainly, it was a break from political tradition.

On his final stop today, Obama cast the tour as a chance for substantive discussion on issues relevant to the American public.

"The reason that I thought this trip was important is that I am convinced that many issues that we face at home are not going to be solved as effectively unless we have strong partners abroad," he said. "And unless we get a handle on Iraq and Afghanistan, not only are we going to be less safe, but it's also going to be a huge drain on resources."

by Frank James

The Chinese government won't be happy about it but Sen. John McCain met with the Dalai Lama in Aspen, Colo. today.

The all-but-official Republican presidential nominee urged Chinese officials to release Tibetan prisoners it's holding as a result of its crackdown on protests within Tibet for greater autonomy.

As the Associated Press reported:

After a 45-minute meeting with the Dalai Lama, McCain said the Beijing Olympic Games in August provide an opportunity for China to demonstrate it recognizes human rights. He also said the Dalai Lama is merely seeking basic rights to preserve Tibetan culture, language and religion.

The Dalai Lama praised McCain for his concern, but he emphasized he wasn't endorsing McCain's presidential bid.

McCain calling on the Chinese to free Tibetan political prisoners is the kind of
campaign moment that can help remind voters of McCain's own prisoner history, one of the part's of his biography that resonates strongly with many voters.

Meanwhile, it plays well with conservatives who want the U.S. government to take a harder line on the Chinese for their repression.

The Dalai Lama is also one of the world's most respected figures, not just a symbol of the Tibetan people but a charming and wise man who wins over audiences everywhere. So what politician outside of China wouldn't you want those visuals of himself hanging out with the Dalai Lama?

Sen. Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, right, are seen following their joint press conference after their meeting at the Elysee Palace, in Paris, Friday, July 25, 2008. (AP Photo/Remy de la Mauviniere)

by Frank James

In a performance likely to make American conservatives even more suspicious of the French than they already are, President Nicholas Sarkozy, a French-style conservative, toed the line, almost seeming to endorse Sen. Barack Obama.

At a joint press conference after the two men met, Sarkozy said:

"Of course, it's not up to the French to choose the next president of the United States of America. Whomsoever that may be, we will work with him happily and gladly. But I am especially happy to be meeting with the senator I met back in 2006 when we talked in such impassioned terms about Darfur, what was happening there. And there were two of us in that office, and there were two of us in my office. (Laughter.) And one of us became president. Well, let the other do likewise. Well, I mean, that's not meddling."

Actually, that's going to sound to a lot of people like meddling, as if Sarkozy was essentially saying Obama should be president.

Sarkozy did try to back away from his non-endorsement endorsement. For instance, he said:

"So good luck to Barack Obama. If he is chosen, then France will be delighted. And if it is somebody else, then France will be the friend of the United States of America. And likewise when -- for him, when there are elections in France, he won't say, well, it's up to the Americans to choose the French leader. Of course not."

That "somebody else" would presumably be Sen. John McCain.

This is the second time in a week in which a world leader who seemed to be friendly to President Bush appeared to do a little self-serving double-dealing. Over the weekend, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said he favored Obama's 16-month Iraq withdrawal timeline.

Today it was Sarkozy, who reportedly enjoys a warm relationship with Bush, seemingly giving Bush and his preferred successor, McCain, the back of his hand.

by Frank James

Both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have recently talked of surging U.S. troops to Afghanistan in order to beat back the Taliban and al Qaeda.

But adding more troops is the least of what the U.S. needs to do in Afghanistan, according to Anthony Cordesman, a national-security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

After reading Cordesman's latest analysis, it's easy to come away wondering if it won't actually be a much longer and more difficult problem for the U.S. to solve than Iraq.

Working with the ANA and ANP (the Afghan national army and police) is different enough from working with the Iraqi forces so that special training is needed, and more fully qualified US advisors are even more important than more US combat troops. Recent GAO and DoD reports show that the combined NATO/ISAF/US force only has 30-40% of the qualified trainers and embeds needed for the Afghan Army, and the police effort is experiencing so many problems it has recently been zero-based and is now focused on a district by direct (sic. should be district by district) effort to reform the over 350 police districts at a rate of one critical district per month.

Finally, virtually every military officer, civilian official, and intelligence officer who deals with Afghanistan realizes that the war not only is unwinnable on a purely military basis, it is probably unwinnable without basic changes in the role that the Pakistani government its forces play in the FATA and Baluchi areas of Pakistan. This is not an Afghan war, it is an Afghanistan-Pakistan conflict. At present, the Pakistani Army is largely ineffective in counterinsurgency, and the Pakistani Frontier Corps is an unsalvageable mess. Worse, government forces now largely stand aside while Pakistan's internal power struggles play themselves out and competing Pakistani efforts are made to negotiate with local Taliban and other extremist forces.

by Frank James

Members of the peace movement who saw Sen. Barack Obama as their candidate, presumably after the ardently anti-war Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul exited the primaries, don't like what they're hearing from the senator from Illinois and are issuing a warning: Don't assume you've got our votes.

This from a press release issued by Kevin Zeese, executive director of Voters for Peace, whose board includes the nation's most famous anti-war activist, Cindy Sheehan.

As Senator Obama continues his tour of Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe many peace voters are warning him: Do not take out vote for granted. In a petition, signed by thousands in one day, peace voters are expressing concern about his plans for Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Kuwait.

Obama's recent promise to escalate the number of troops in Afghanistan with 7,000 additional troops. Currently, 60,000 NATO troops are in Afghanistan, 36,000 of them U.S. soldiers. The Soviets and British learned this is a country not easily tamed by foreign troops. Afghanistan could become a more difficult quagmire than Iraq.

On Iraq, Americans who want to see that war ended may be disappointed by the details of his Iraq strategy. While his rhetoric is "end the war" and withdraw combat troops within 16 months, the details of his plan are: redeploying of combat troops to Kuwait to serve a strike force in Iraq, as well is to Afghanistan; and leave a "residual force," whose size Obama has not identified, but aids have said could be 30,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq. Obama has defined the mission of this force broadly telling Larry King they will: fight terrorists and al Qaeda, protect U.S. bases and interests and train Iraqis. When Obama is asked about private security contractors, like the infamous Blackwater, he told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now that he would not remove these 140,000 private troops from Iraq. Adding it together Obama would leave as many as 225,000 troops and mercenaries in Iraq after his withdrawal is complete.

(Cartoon published in at least two Arabic newspapers.)

by Frank James

Cartoons in the Arab world often depict Israel and Jews in anti-Semitic ways.

Now, with the world's attention on the U.S. presidential race, the same Arab cartoonists are interpolating Senators John McCain and Barack Obama into their anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and ant-Jewish cartoons.

The Anti-Defamation League has collected some of the cartoons in an alert it produced this week. Many of them make the New Yorker's infamous cartoon look pretty tame.

Many of the cartoons have essentially the same theme, that both candidates are in Israel's thrall.

Here's the meat of ADL's press release:

The American elections have provided an excuse for the Arab media to promulgate perverse, bigoted and age-old conspiracy theories that portray Israelis and Jews as controlling the candidates. Appearing in Arab and Muslim newspapers published in the Middle East and the Gulf countries, the cartoons and caricatures focus on four main themes which reflect a deeply rooted sentiment in the Arab world:

The Arab media use these ideas to feed into another common theme: that Jewish/Israeli control of American politics and America's desire to cater to Jewish/Israeli demands is the cause of the Arab suffering and oppression.

by Mike Dorning

AMMAN, Jordan--Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama completed a visit to Iraq on Tuesday acknowledging progress in the country over the past year but unwilling to declare that the Bush Administration troop surge he opposed has been a success.

"I believe that the situation in Iraq is more secure than it was a year and a half ago. I think that the definition of success depends on how you look at it," Obama said at a news conference in Jordan shortly after he landed here for the next stop on an international tour that also will take him to capitals in the Middle East and Europe.

After the news conference Obama met with Jordan's King Abdullah and then had dinner with the king and other Jordanian and American officials. Later in the evening, he was scheduled to go on to Israel, where he meets with government leaders Wednesday.

The international trip, which began with visits to combat zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, is an opportunity for the candidate to assure American voters of his capabilities as a potential commander in chief. Though polls show Obama ahead in the presidential race at the moment, many voters say they have reservations about his readiness to lead the country on national security issues, a key potential vulnerability.

At the news conference, held at the site of an ancient ruin that provided a striking panoramic view of the Jordanian capital, many of questions focused on his policy judgments on the Iraq War.

Obama stressed that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and even the Bush administration have in recent days moved closer to his signature policy on Iraq calling for a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops within 16 months after Obama would take office. Maliki said on Monday he favored a goal of removing U.S. combat troops by 2010, within a few months of the date Obama has proposed.

by Bay Fang

There was much talk surrounding the State Department's third-ranking diplomat, Bill Burns, attending nuclear talks with Iran Saturday in Geneva. But what, in the end, did all the speculation lead to? Not much, it seems.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the interaction thusly: "When his turn to speak arose, Ambassador Burns delivered a clear simple message: the United States is serious in its support for the package Mr. Solana conveyed in Tehran last month, the United States is serious in its support of P5+1 unity, and the United States with its P5+1 partners are serious that Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States... Ambassador Burns did not meet or speak with separately any member of the Iranian delegation."

In other words, despite the presence of the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, nothing new was really said on either side. The six hour talks yesterday ended in stalemate, when Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said Iran would still not discuss freezing its uranium enrichment activities, which western countries fear are aimed at producing a nuclear bomb but Iran insists are for energy needs.

by Kim Barker and John McCormick

KABUL, Afghanistan - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama arrived Saturday in this war-torn country seen as crucial to his foreign policy, in an attempt to shore up his presidential credentials on the world stage and show how important Afghanistan is to the future of the war on terror.

But Obama was almost invisible to most Afghans, despite accusing Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government recently of spending too much time in a bunker and not enough on development.

Security for the two-day visit of the congressional delegation in Afghanistan was so tight, all of Obama's plans were kept secret. He was described as having met with only one Afghan official - the governor of an eastern province - and U.S. officials and troops.

Most Afghans did not even know he was in the country. U.S. officials would not acknowledge it publicly or that Obama planned to move onto Iraq as soon as Sunday afternoon. Obama's campaign verified that he arrived in Kabul just before noon.

"I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of ... their biggest concerns," the Illinois senator said before leaving the U.S. "I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they've been doing."

Enroute to Afghanistan, the delegation briefly visited troops in Kuwait. But the Afghanistan leg is the first lengthy stop of a much-hyped international journey designed to make Obama seem more presidential. The trip also aims to counter critics who say Obama has little foreign-policy experience compared to his Republican opponent, John McCain, a Vietnam War hero with an extensive foreign background.

The congressional delegation, paid for by taxpayers, is also expected to visit Iraq and meet with Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki. Separately, in a campaign-funded trip, Obama plans to visit Europe and the Middle East.

by Frank James, with correction

There was a lot of surprise in Washington and beyond when the news broke that U.S. State Department official William Burns will be meeting in Geneva, Switzerland with Iranian officials over the weekend as part of an international group attempting to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear-weapons development efforts.

What raised so many eyebrows was what appeared to be seeming reversal in the Bush Administration's position that it wouldn't engage in direct talks unless the Iranians ceased and desisted in their nuclear enrichment efforts.

It's no reversal, said the White House which insisted that just because a senior State Department official will be in a room with Iranian officials where a lot of talking will be taking place, that's not the same as negotiations.

Here's a lengthy exchange White House Press Secretary Dana Perino had with reporters this afternoon:

Q But you're saying this isn't negotiated? Is this negotiating with the Iranians?

Q Well, how can you say nothing has changed if you're sending over Bill Burns to even sit there? I mean, that certainly gives the Iranians --

by Andrew Zajac

The U.S. government's long and troubled history of trying to broadcast TV and radio programming into Cuba added another unhappy chapter with release of a Government Accountability Office report critical of efforts to use commercial broadcasters to beam Radio and TV Marti signals into the island.

No-bid contracts awarded in December 2006 to transmit programming via Radio Mambi and TV Azteca "did not reflect sound business practices", GAO investigators found.

The GAO also criticized a lack of transparency in the way Miami-based Office of Cuba Broadcasting recruits and pays for production and on-air talent.

OCB defended the contracts to Mambi and Azteca, arguing that the U.S. urgently needed a way to reach the Cuban people because of the deteriorating health of president Fidel Castro (pictured above).

by Mark Silva

If Barack Obama were president, he is asked in an interview airing Sunday on CNN, and U.S. forces in Afghanistan captured Osama bin Laden, what would he do with him?

"Well I think that if he was captured alive then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice, but world justice, down on him,'' Obama says in the interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria for the program, GPS.

"I think that, and I've said this before, that I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty, I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes,'' Obama says. "But I certainly think that plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.

"Now I think this is a big hypothetical though,'' he adds. "Let's catch him first."

Obama's Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, has pledged to find bin Laden, sponsor of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- "track him down'' -- "I'll follow him to the gates of Hell,'' he said during a Republican debate at the Reagan library.

Obama also is criticial of the goverment of Afghan President Hamid Karzai in his GPS interview, in excerpts provided by CNN: "I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan, and the government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence. So there are a lot of problems there."

The Republican National Committee asserted that Obama had "no interest in Afghanistan" prior to his campaign for president.

"Obama has never visited Afghanistan to meet our allies on the ground, yet he is audacious enough to assert that President Karzai has 'not gotten out of the bunker,'" RNC spokesman Alex Conant said. "Obama's words are naively out-of-touch with reality and offensive to America's allies. Considering Obama's negligent leadership of the Senate subcommittee charged with overseeing the NATO mission in Afghanistan, Obama has no credibility discussing Afghanistan."

Among other matters covered in the program airing at 1 pm Sunday, Obama is asked about McCain suggesting that Russia be thrown out of the Group of Eight major industrial nations.

"It would be a mistake,'' Obama says. "Look, if we're going to do something about nuclear proliferation, just to take one issue that I think is as important as any on the list, we've got to have Russia involved. The amount of loose nuclear material that is floating around in the former Soviet Union, the amount of technical know-how that is in countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain, without Russia's cooperation, our efforts in that on that front will be greatly weakened."

by Bay Fang

Iran's reported test-firing of missiles two days in a row, just as it is showing more interest in dialogue about its nuclear enrichment program, highlighted the mixed messages that pose a dilemma for the U.S. as it weighs how to approach a country moving ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.

In a show of strength and readiness, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards reportedly launched nine mid- to long-range ballistic missiles in the Strait of Hormuz Wednesday, and two more Thursday, including one that could reach Israel and U.S. forces stationed in the region.

But it comes as Tehran has seemed to react favorably to a new package of incentives presented by the U.S. and its European allies to halt its nuclear program, and as its top nuclear negotiator is planning to meet with European Union representative Javier Solana in the coming weeks.

Regional analysts surmise that the two approaches could indicate a real division in Tehran over how to deal with the West, but could also be an effective negotiating tactic.

From Newsday...

by Janie Lorber

WASHINGTON - A flotilla of peace protesters in canoes and rafts attempted to blockade the houseboat of Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Jamaica Estates) early Wednesday morning in reaction to legislation he submitted that would impose sanctions on Iran.

The Queens Democrat emerged from his home on the Potomac River smiling and clapping after the demonstrators, known as Code Pink, had been chanting for nearly 30 minutes. They want Ackerman to withdraw the legislation because they believe it symbolizes the first step on a path to war. Instead of force, Code Pink is calling for direct talks with the Iranian government.

(Members of the anti-war Code Pink protested Rep. Gary Ackerman's house boat with a canoe blockade Wednesday morning. Photo by Michael Temchine.)

"This is not an embargo," Ackerman told the protesters. "We're not calling for a blockade. It is basically what the UN is doing. The UN has imposed sanctions on Iran."

Ackerman said he would be willing to meet with any Iranian government official without preconditions, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but would not retreat from his legislation.

Ackerman said he expected the bill, which already has 220 co-sponsors, to pass the House easily, though no date has been set for a vote.

By Clarence Page

Even Robert Mugabe can't escape the age of YouTube.
The British Guardian has posted video of state-sponsored vote rigging by Zimbabwe's aspiring president-for-life that would put an old-school Chicago precinct captain to shame.

The video, shot by a Zimbabwean prison officer for the British Guardian, can be viewed here .
There have been numerous reports of killings, torture and stolen votes in Mugabe's recent anointment, but this is the first known evidence to be captured in video.
Opposition Morgan Tsvangirai, who has experienced beatings and detention from Mugabe's 28-year-old regime himself, pulled out of the election to stop the waves of violence and intimidation against his own supporters.

Though Mugabe was the only candidate, he directed voters to turn out for him anyway because he didn't just want to win. He wanted a landslide.

What he got was a "ZANUslide," according to at least one Zimbabwean journalist on-the-run . ZANU-PF is the acronym for Mugabe's political party, Zimbabwean African National Union-Popular Front.

by Bay Fang

While her boss, President Bush, spoke out in Japan on the eve of the G8 summit about North Korean abductions and human rights in China, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was fielding the press back home on a different subject - her golf game.

In interviews with both CBS News and XM radio during the AT&T National Golf Tournament, at the Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, MD Saturday, Rice confessed that her summer goal was to "get just a little bit better at chipping so that I can have a little shorter putt."

Bush got in trouble in May when he told reporters he had sacrificed his golf game for the sake of the troops. "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said in an interview with Politico. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."

(Enterprising reporters later revealed that although Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq, his last round of golf was actually played in October 2003.)

Rice's last game was on the morning of the Fourth with her cousin and her cousin's husband, and a couple of friends in town for the holiday.

(Photo by Adrian Bradshaw / EPA)

by Frank James and David Nitkin

In the time-honored Washington tradition of waiting until the last minute before a weekend or holiday to drop controversial news, the White House waited until the eve of the Independence Day holiday to announce that President Bush will attend the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics.

Here's the press release where they buried the lead, not mentioning until the last sentence that the president will be in Beijing for the pageant-filled start of the games. (Though, true to form, White House announcements of impending trips typically spell them out in chronological order.)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

In South Korea, President Bush and President Lee will discuss regional and global security issues as well as their commitment to getting their respective legislatures to ratify the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, which will bring important benefits to workers, farmers, ranchers, and entrepreneurs in both the United States and Korea. The President will then travel to Thailand to celebrate 175 years of the U.S.-Thailand relationship and to discuss issues bilateral and regional issues with Prime Minister Samak. In China, the President looks forward to seeing President Hu and other senior Chinese leaders for discussions on a wide range of issues including the way ahead on North Korean denuclearization. The President and Mrs. Bush will attend the Opening Ceremonies of the Summer Olympic Games on August 8.

by Frank James

Sen. John McCain certainly had great timing to be in Latin America at the same time that the Colombian military launched its daring rescue mission which liberated former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and three U.S. military contractors who had been held for years in the jungles by the FARC rebel group.

The rescue's timing may have merely been coincidental with McCain's visit to Colombia.

But if Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe were going to help one of the presidential candidates, it would likely be McCain more than Sen, Barack Obama since the all-but-official Republican presidential nominee supports the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement while Sen. Barack Obama doesn't.

Indeed, Uribe aided McCain by letting the senator look presidential, briefing him before and after the military action in which members of the Colombian military impersonated FARC guerillas in order to fool the hostages' guards into letting them get on an unmarked white helicopter.

In a statement, the McCain campaign avoided making any overtly political points. It didn't even mention McCain's own history as a prisoner of war.

It merely expressed the senator's happiness and the fact of the presidential level briefings. The presidential politics of the situation was left for others to highlight.

The McCain statement is below: