The Nation

Another Blank Check for Perpetual War

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives maintained its track record of providing absolutely no checks and balances on the Bush administration's warmaking this week, when it voted 351-67 to authorize another $66 billion in "emergency" spending for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

While the House will hold a symbolic "debate" on the Iraq imbroglio Thursday, that endeavor has been so constrained by the House Republican leadership that it will be of no more consequence than the discourse in a mock legislative exercise for high school students – although, in fairness to the students, a mock Congress would undoubtedly take the Constitutional imperative of shared responsibility for warmaking more seriously than does the actual Congress.

What was truly frustrating about the House vote on the emergency funding was the general failure of the Democrats – who have again delayed announcement of their agenda for this year's election campaign – to mount a coherent opposition to a war that an overwhelming majority of Americans characterize as a mistake.

Of the 351 votes to continue no-strings-attached funding of the Bush administration's wars, 204 came from Republicans while 146 came from Democrats. Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders cast the final vote in favor of the "emergency" funding package, which also included $28.5 billion for Hurricane Katrina assistance, border security and farm subsidies.

Democrats who voted in favor of the spending included Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel, D-Illinois. Fresh from a primary campaign in which she made anti-war sounds in order to fend off a challenge from the left, California Democrat Jane Harman returned to her pro-war voting pattern. And Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is locked in a tight Democratic primary contest for his state's open Senate seat with anti-war candidate Kweisi Mfume, also voted to hand the Bush administration another blank check.

Voting against giving the administration everything it asked for and more were 48 Democrats and 19 Republicans. The Democrats included most of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including co-chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, both of California. The Republican votes came from two camps: war foes such as Texan Ron Paul, Tennessee's John Duncan and North Carolina's Walter Jones Jr., and budget "hawks" such as Arizona's Jeff Flake and Wisconsin's James Sensenbrenner, who opposed what they saw as pork-barrel spending in the disaster-relief expenditure.

A few of the Republican fiscal conservatives were courageous enough to complain about the blank-check character of the war funding. "I support our troops, I support the war on terror, but I do not believe we should finance the war through emergency supplemental appropriations," Texan Jeb Hensarling said when explaining his "no" vote. "That approach evades whatever spending discipline we have."

More pointed were the remarks of anti-war Democrat Dennis Kucinich, of Ohio, who began his remarks on the House floor by declaring, "Mass death on the installment plan. That's what this supplemental vote to keep our troops in Iraq is all about."

Kucinich, who recently one a landslide Democratic primary victory against an aggressive and well-funded challenger, argued that, "The Administration went into Iraq without an exit strategy not because they are incompetent, but because they have no intention of leaving.

"We are spending hundreds of millions building permanent bases in Iraq. The Administration recently announced deployment of no less than 50,000 troops in Iraq far into the future. We are looking at the permanent occupation of Iraq.

"And so the long cadence of lies has led to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Haditha, soon to be replaced by more lies and more tragedies."What can you say when you are watching your nation descend, sleep walking, into something like the lower circles of hell in Dante's Inferno?

"You can say stop it! You can say enough blood is enough blood!

"You can stop it! Bring our troops home!

"You can say no to any more funds for this war! And then we can begin a period of truth and reconciliation about 9/11 and Iraq. Begin the healing of the soul of America."

While the bases will be permanent, the period of truth and reconciliation has been indefinitely delayed.

Pick a Team

I had lunch yesterday afternoon in a casual restaurant in the heart of Washington, DC. It wasn't a sports bar but there were three TVs tuned into the US/Czech World Cup match. The surprising thing was that my fellow patrons were rooting against the United States. It wasn't the whole restaurant but it was the majority of those who seemed to care about the outcome. And it didn't appear to be a Czech thing--this was no middle European crowd hoisting steins of lager. So if this is any example, people are taking a complex approach in deciding who to cheer for during this year's World Cup.

The most popular sporting event in the world, and one that--in our globalized times--is increasingly impinging on the consciousness of Americans, the World Cup is passionately followed by tens of millions of people around the world, all rooting for their compatriots. But how do you choose who to cheer for when your own team isn't playing (or if it didn't qualify)? You could pick the country with the coolest flag (Brazil)? Maybe the best holiday destination or food (got to be Italy or France)? Perhaps the place where you've spent your best vacation? Or you could go the political route by refusing to support countries involved in the war in Iraq or with bad human rights records. How about rooting for the team that gives the most aid to poor countries? Perhaps cheering on the country that spends the most on healthcare? Or booing the nation with the largest per capita weapons budget? You get the idea.

These suggestions are drawn from the World Development Movement website, which is highlighting a nifty tool to help soccer fans choose who to shout for when their own team isn't on the pitch. Using ten relevant criteria, the tool allows you to compare things like income inequality, carbon emissions and military and health spending. It's a neat way to learn a little something while you go about deciding which country to root for in a given contest.

And speaking of soccer, my colleague Carl Bromley, the intrepid editor of Nation Books, would kill me if I neglected to plug a great new book he's just released by Financial Times correspondent Simon Kuper. After traveling to twenty-two countries to watch and play soccer, Kuper has produced an astonishing study on the frightening intersection between soccer and politics. His book's title gives away his thesis--Soccer Against the Enemy: How the World's Most Popular Sport Starts and Fuels Revolutions And Keeps Dictators in Power--but his powerful prose will keep even non-fans at the edge of their seats.

Now, What About Cheney?

Now that the long speculation about whether White House political czar Karl Rove would be indicted for the role he played in exposing the identity of a CIA operative is done, perhaps the investigation of the Bush administration "hit" on Iraq War critic Joe Wilson can focus in on the fundamental questions that have been raised by the machinations of key players in the administration with the apparent goal of punishing a former diplomat for exposing White House misstatements and misdeeds.

The attention to Rove's involvement in the effort to reveal the identity of Wilson's wife, veteran Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame -- after Wilson, a former ambassador, revealed that key players in the Bush administration had to have know that elements of their "case" for attacking Iraq had been discredited -- was always something of a distraction. Of course, as David Corn and others have ably illustrated, Rove's actions demanded scrutiny. But the fury that so many Democrats feel toward Rove caused them to obsess on the question of whether he would be indicted, rather than to recognize that the critical indictment was that of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff and a key advisor to President Bush on national security matters.

It is Libby who faces trial in January 2007 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. And it is Libby, the neoconservative true believer who was the administration's willing henchman in defense of the Iraq endeavor, who connects this scandal to his old friend Cheney in a way that Rove, the political puppeteer, was unlikely ever to have connected it to Bush. Thus, from the time of Libby's indictment, the question that always mattered most was not: Will special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald indict Rove? It was always: Will Fitzgerald connect the dots that lead to Cheney?

No top office within the administration was better positioned than Cheney's to gather the information that was used to attack Wilson and his wife and to peddle that information to the press. In fact, as Joe Wilson told me in an interview about the leaking of his wife's name that we did early in 2004, "With respect to who actually leaked the information, there are really only a few people -- far fewer than the president let on when he said there are a lot of senior administration officials -- who could have done it. At the end of the day, you have to have the means, the keys to the conversations at which somebody might drop my wife's name -- deliberately or not -- a national security clearance, and a reason to be talking about this. When you look at all that, there are really very few people who exist at that nexis between national security and foreign policy and politics. You can count them, literally, on two hands."

Wilson added that, without a doubt, "the vice president is one of those people."

We now know just how right Wilson was. Libby has been indicted. And that documents related to that indictment are filled with references to meetings with Cheney on the very day that Libby began calling reporters as a part of a push to discredit Wilson. We have a copy of a column Wilson wrote for The New York Times with notes from Cheney attacking the former ambassador and making reference to his wife. We have transcripts of Libby saying that he acted with "approval from the President through the Vice President" when he distributed previously classified information -- specifically, portions of a National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein's purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons -- to the media as part of the move to discredit Wilson.

At this point, it is unclear whether Fitzegerald will see his investigation through to its logical conclusion. But there can be no question that, with Rove off the hook, the administration and its media echo chamber will be doing everything in their power to constrain the special counsel. The White House wants this inquiry shut down.

But shutting it down now would prevent an examination of what Representative Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, correctly refers to "the heart of the CIA leak case."

Hinchey leads a group of several dozen House members who have urged Fitzgerald to officially expand his investigation to include an examination of the motives behind the leaks by Libby, focusing in particular on the question of whether the administration's intent was to discredit Ambassador Wilson's revelation that Iraq had never sought uranium from Niger or other African countries. If that is proven to be the case, Hinchey has argued, "President Bush and other top members of his administration knowingly lied about uranium to the Congress, which is a crime."

The New York congressman, who is the most determined Congressional watchdog with regard to the administration's misuse of intelligence information, was never one of those who waited for the Rove shoe to drop.

After the April revelation that Cheney's former chief of staff said he was authorized to go after Wilson by the president and vice president, Hinchey said: "If what Scooter Libby said to the grand jury is true, then this latest development clearly reveals yet again that the CIA leak case goes much deeper than the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity to the press. The heart and motive of this case is about the deliberate attempt at the highest levels of this administration to discredit those who were publicly revealing that the White House lied about its uranium claims leading up to the war. The Bush Administration knew that Iraq had not sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapon, yet they went around telling the Congress, the country, and the world just the opposite. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Valerie Wilson's husband, publicly spoke out with proof that the administration was not telling the truth on uranium, the administration engaged in an orchestrated plot, which now reportedly includes President Bush, to discredit Ambassador Wilson and dismiss any notion that they had lied about pre-war intelligence."

As Hinchey has argued for months, Libby's testimony about the authorization he received from Bush and Cheney must be seen in the context of a mounting body of evidence that rules, regulations and laws were bent far beyond the breaking point by the administration. The fact that Karl Rove has not been indicted does not eliminate that body of evidence. Nor does it resolve questions about Cheney's involvement in the scandal, or about the motivations of the president, the vice president and others who sought to discredit Ambassador Wilson for telling the truth. And it ought not serve as an excuse for shutting down an inquiry that has yet to examine "the heart of the CIA leak case."

Karl Rove Escapes Prosecution

Early this morning, Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, told reporters that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald had sent him a letter stating that Rove would not be indicted in the CIA leak case. In a statement, Luskin declared, "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Bush administration (and Rove) advocates will spin this news as vindication for the mastermind of George W. Bush's presidential campaigns. But there is no need for baseless speculation to conclude that Rove was involved in the leak and that the White House misled the public about his participation and broke a pledge to fire anyone who had leaked information about Valerie Wilson, the CIA officer married to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration.

Here is what is known about Rove and the leak.

On July 9, 2003--three days after Joe Wilson published a New York Times op-ed piece disclosing that he had been sent to Niger by the CIA to check out the allegation that Iraq had been seeking to purchase uranium there and had reported back that such a transaction was highly unlikely--Rove confirmed to columnist Robert Novak that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. By this point in time, the White House--particularly Dick Cheney's office and Scooter Libby--had been gathering information on Wilson, his wife, and his trip for weeks. (In May and June, stories had appeared in the media quoting an unnamed ambassador who had gone to Niger and found nothing to substantiate the uranium-buying charge, which Bush had alleged in his 2003 State of the Union address.) And when Rove spoke to Novak--who had first heard about Valerie Wilson from another administration official--the White House was engaged in an effort to discredit Wilson. Cheney and others believed that if Wilson's mission to Niger could be depicted as a junket or boondoggle arranged by Wilson's wife, Wilson and his findings would be undermined. Spending a week in one of the poorest countries in the world for no pay would hardly qualify as a junket, but the White House was trying to use whatever they could.

Two days after Rove spoke to Novak and gave the columnist the confirmation he needed to proceed with a piece that would out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA officer working on weapons of mass destruction, Rove spoke to Matt Cooper of Time. According to an email Cooper wrote immediately after this conversation, Rove told him that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had sent Wilson to Niger. This conversation occurred three days before the Novak article appeared.

So Rove spoke to two reporters about Valerie Wilson. Her employment status at the CIA was classified. Rove was not merely gossiping, he was disseminating secret information, whether he realized it or not.

After the leak appeared in Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Scott McClellan, who had just taken over as White House press secretary, said of the leak, "That is not the way this President or this White House operates."

He was wrong. It was precisely how the White House had operated. Scooter Libby--according to Fitzgerald's legal filings, Cooper's account, and the account of New York Times reporter Judy Miller--had also discussed Valerie Wilson's CIA connection with Cooper and Miller before the Novak column was published.

After the news broke in late September 2003 that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of the leak, McClellan declared that he had spoken to Rove and that "he was not involved" in the leak. McClellan also asserted that the vice president's office had not leaked the information about Valerie Wilson. He noted, "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." Bush affirmed that Rove was uninvolved and said, "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

Rove--with or without the knowledge of the president and other White House aides--kept his leading role in the leak a secret for almost two years. In the summer of 2005, Newsweek revealed the Cooper email. And Fitzgerald's indictment of Libby months later disclosed that Rove had told Libby that he had spoken to Novak about Joe Wilson's wife.

The White House responded to these revelations by stonewalling, claiming that it could not answer any questions about Rove and the leak while a criminal investigation was underway. And it maintained that it could not even explain its previous--and false--statements about Rove and Libby.

McClellan's promise--made on behalf of the president--that anyone involved in the leak would be booted from the administration--was not honored. Nor was Bush's statement that action would be taken against anyone who leaked classified information. The evidence was clear. Rove had conveyed classified information about Valerie Wilson to two reporters as part of a White House effort to undercut Joe Wilson.

Fitzgerald had a high burden of proof in the Rove case. To win a prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--which makes it a felony to disclose identifying information about a covert officer--Fitzgerald would have had to prove that Rove definitely knew that Valerie Wilson was not just a CIA employee but an undercover CIA employee. If Rove could raise doubt about his state of knowledge on that point, he would be able to mount an effective defense. Fitzgerald had kept Rove in the crosshairs for so long because he suspected that Rove had lied to FBI agents and his grand jury when Rove said at first that he had not spoken with Cooper about Valerie Wilson. It was only after a Rove email emerged--under somewhat puzzling circumstances--that noted that he had talked to Cooper that Rove acknowledged that he had a conversation with Cooper (though he still said he did not recall it).

Fitzgerald spent over a year-and-a-half trying to determine if he could prosecute Rove for perjury or obstruction of justice, as Rove's lawyer tried mightily to explain the delay in producing that one email. In the end, Fitzgerald concluded his case was not strong enough. Given his pursuit of Libby and the time he kept Rove hanging, it's reasonable to assume that Fitzgerald rendered a good-faith judgment based on the law and the facts he had in hand.

Which brings us back to the Democrats' early mistake. From the start, they called for a special counsel--as if that would get to the bottom of the controversy. But Fitzgerald's mission was to investigate possible crimes and then mount prosecutions if he had the evidence to do so. His job was not to be a fact-finder for the public. He is not compelled to release any report detailing what he discovered about the leak and the White House role. Independent counsels in the past were required to write public reports. But the law establishing independent counsels expired years ago, with the consent of Democrats angry at Kenneth Starr. A special counsel has no obligation to report on what he or she discovered. Congress was the body that should have investigated the leak--not as a criminal matter but as an issue of White House conduct--and it did not. Senior congressional Democrats did not push that point when they had the chance.

That means now that the whole story of the leak has yet to be disclosed. And it may never be--in an official sense. (Stay tuned for a book I am writing that will be out in the fall.) But several essentials are well-established: Rove leaked classified information that may have harmed national security; the White House said he hadn't and that leakers would be fired; Rove remains at the president's side today.

Not all wrongdoing--not all lying--in Washington is illegal. Rove escaped prosecution. But the episode has revealed the way the Bush White House really operates.

Bush in Baghdad: "Mission Accomplished"

President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad provides the perfectopportunity for him to claim victory and announce the withdrawal of allUS forces from Iraq.

He could find the rationale for such anannouncement in the string of American victories that culminated lastweek in the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by US forces.

So many victories: The list includes the dramatic capture of Saddam Hussein,the historic restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, the celebration of thefirst democratic elections in January 2005, the crucial agreement on anew constitution in October 2005, and then, last week, the death of theman Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described as "Hitler in hisbunker."

Now Iraq's Hitler is dead--and Bush is in Baghdad. Now"The Decider" can decide the US will withdraw its forces from Iraq; nowhe can declare "Mission Accomplished."

Hillary Deflated

Keep an eye on John Edwards.

As our own Bob Moser reported last year, the former Veep nominee has been aggressively courting the Democratic base, through his anti-poverty initiative, outreach to key groups such as labor and visits to high-profile electoral states.

He's kept himself a contender in '08, even as the press obsesses over Hillary. In a new poll of likely Iowa caucus voters released yesterday, Edwards beats Clinton 30 to 26 percent. It's the first time Hillary has trailed in a potential '08 match-up. And it's proof that Edwards's five trips to Iowa this year--and nine in the past two years--are paying off.

Yesterday, Edwards stumped for Chet Culver, the Democratic challenger for Governor. Clinton hasn't visited the Hawkeye state since 2003. And another poll released last week showed her beating Al Gore by just two points when New Yorkers were asked who'd make a better president.

At the annual Take Back America gathering of progressive activists, Hillary was reportedly booed when she talked about Iraq. (UPDATE: Though I'm told she also received a standing ovation at the beginning and end of her speech.) Edwards repudiated his support for the war last November. Clinton still stubbornly defends her vote and subsequent support for a stay-the-course policy.

Everywhere I go, Democrats and progressives don't want Hillary to run. She may have name recognition and rock star status, plus a first man named Bill, but I'm betting that those poll numbers only continue to fall.

UPDATE II: I forgot to mention the results of a new online survey: the more regularly someone reads blogs, the less likely they are to support Hillary. Another ominous sign for Clinton with a key emerging constituency.

Stolen Secrets

Allow me to be hysterical for a second. The Bush Administration has set a new bar for secrecy. So you think they'd be a little better at protecting sensitive information.

A few weeks ago a laptop containing vital details on 26.5 million military veterans was stolen from a Department of Veterans employee. How so much information could remain unguarded on one laptop remains a mystery. Massive, massive identify theft--on current and former US military personnel--could follow. Talk about a major national security breach.

But the narrative only gets worse. Last week, the Department of Energy admitted that a hacker stole confidential information on fifteen hundred people working for its nuclear weapons unit.

I repeat: nuclear weapons.

The data included Social Security numbers and security clearances. But it took nine months for the Secretary of Energy to become aware of the theft. At a hearing on Friday exposing the theft, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, a Texas oil crony who's hardly a profile in oversight, called on the head of the DOE unit to resign that afternoon.

As of now, he's still got a job. So much for homeland security. Al Qaeda must be smiling. With a government like this, who needs enemies?

'Red, White and Screwed'

If you haven't been living on Mars these last years, you know Lewis Black as the caustic, bile-spewing, savagely funny stand-up comic, actor and Daily Show commentator. He's the one with the manic moves of a Joe Cocker who's spent too much time obsessing about our politics.

I love Black's obsessions and his style which, according to a Wikipedia entry, "is that of a man who, dealing with the absurdities of life and politics, is approaching his personal limits of sanity."

His Saturday night HBO special, "Red, White and Screwed" was full of rage and cursing--I counted 46 "fucks"-- and some of his best routines.

"This last year has been the toughest time I've spent as a comedian. Can't keep up with all this shit. Who can keep track. I don't even have a ports of Dubai joke and we're on to immigration. You tell mehow we're going to catch eleven million people... How we're going to build a wall thousands of miles long and we couldn't build levees in New Orleans."

"Bring it on," Black said, was the "dumbest thing ever uttered by anyone anywhere."

"I know what a neocon is. Someone who watches 'The Matrix' and believes it's real."

Black's hilarious routine about performing at the Congressional Correspondents' Dinner ensures that he will never, ever, be invited to do a routine at the White House Correspondents' gig. Guaranteed.

Hear some funny, novel ideas about how we should pick our next president. (It has to do with American Idol.) Learn why we should consider nominating a dead person--("no one will fuck with us for quite some time..." ). Listen to Black explain how much his parents hate Paul Wolfowitz, why Bush is nuts, and how he never believed a president, in his lifetime, would be elected who didn't believe in evolution.

Black's solo show is on HBO throughout the summer. Watch it.

Peter Beinart and the Beltway Crusaders

As Robert Borosage, co-Director of the Campaign for America'sFuture, argues in The Nation's current issue, "the current rage in center-right Democratic circles is to resuscitate Harry Truman, substitute bin Laden for Stalin andjihadism for Communism, and summon America to a new global struggle."

Peter Beinart, for example, who was a supporter of the Iraqdisaster (and has joined New Dems like Al From in urging Democratsto prove their resolve by purging the left from the Democraticparty) is a leading proponent of the misleading and wrong analogybetween Soviet totalitarianism and Islamic fundamentalism. For thisstance, Beinart has been celebrated by leading members of thecommentariat axis --Tom Friedman, Joe Klein and David Brooks amongothers. More are sure to follow.

But Beinart and his inside-the-beltway crusaders are out of touchwith an America that seeks a principled foreign policy that willmake them secure--not a messianic crusade that will deplete thenation's blood and treasure. His fighting faith pledge to "rallythe American people" to sustain an "extended and robust" occupationin Iraq, his calls for America to intervene aggressively in theMiddle East with a "sweeping program of economic, political andsocial reform" are more likely to create chaos and, perhaps, breedmore terrorism than advance the cause of democracy. It is importantto remember that this kind of "fighting faith" has more in commonwith the least successful periods of US foreign policy--the crusadethat led us into Vietnam, our support for the Afghan Muhajedin andBush's disastrous war in Iraq. It would be difficult to find asecurity consensus that is more wrongheaded for the challenges theUnited States now faces, or more at odds with the best traditionsof the Democratic Party.

As Robert Borosage, co-Director of the Campaign for America'sFuture, argues in The Nation's current issue, "the current rage in center-right Democratic circles is to resuscitate Harry Truman, substitute bin Laden for Stalin andjihadism for Communism, and summon America to a new global struggle."

Peter Beinart, for example, who was a supporter of the Iraqdisaster (and has joined New Dems like Al From in urging Democratsto prove their resolve by purging the left from the Democraticparty) is a leading proponent of the misleading and wrong analogybetween Soviet totalitarianism and Islamic fundamentalism. For thisstance, Beinart has been celebrated by leading members of thecommentariat axis --Tom Friedman, Joe Klein and David Brooks amongothers. More are sure to follow.

But Beinart and his inside-the-beltway crusaders are out of touchwith an America that seeks a principled foreign policy that willmake them secure--not a messianic crusade that will deplete thenation's blood and treasure. His fighting faith pledge to "rallythe American people" to sustain an "extended and robust" occupationin Iraq, his calls for America to intervene aggressively in theMiddle East with a "sweeping program of economic, political andsocial reform" are more likely to create chaos and, perhaps, breedmore terrorism than advance the cause of democracy. It is importantto remember that this kind of "fighting faith" has more in commonwith the least successful periods of US foreign policy--the crusadethat led us into Vietnam, our support for the Afghan Muhajedin andBush's disastrous war in Iraq. It would be difficult to find asecurity consensus that is more wrongheaded for the challenges theUnited States now faces, or more at odds with the best traditionsof the Democratic Party.

Of course, liberals need an effective national security strategy.But can we please stop with all the hurrahs about Harry Truman and his liberal national securityachievements? What we need to do is reclaim another liberal,internationalist and eminently (as well as ethically) "realist"foreign policy tradition. It is the "Good Neighbor" policy craftedand championed by Franklin Roosevelt.

A "Good Neighbor" policy stresses the need for a community of nations to keep the peace and to promote economic dignity andprosperity for people in the developing as well as developedworlds. This liberal internationalist tradition rejects unilateraldominance and favors developing a "community of power" to keep thepeace; It gives priority to a system of international law andgovernance over "preemptive" wars and unilateralism; It understandsthat to be effective, our foreign policy must work in tandem withreforms at home--to improve security, quality of life and basicrights; It considers military power to be a complement to, not asubstitute for, economic power and diplomacy; and it gives a morecentral role to spreading economic prosperity to ensure peace andstability and environmental sustainability.

It is time to reclaim this proud tradition, update it, and usethe Good Neighbor frame to advance a new set of policy goals andprinciples for a rational security policy.That also meansredefining strength to mean smart and strong--not strong and wrong.

What's encouraging is that recent polls show there is a mandate forsuch an approach. Polls taken by the Program in InternationalPolicy Attitudes (PIPA) find large majorities support "deep cuts indefense spending" and support for using the money to increasespending on education, job training, energy independence andveterans' benefits. Powerful support also exists for a strongUnited Nations, reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles, strengtheninginternational treaties and negotiating trade agreements thatprotect labor and environmental rights.

(In a short piece in Sunday's Washington Post, Beinart nods to the value of interdependence and international institutions. But it seems slightly opportunistic at this stage-- as if part of an effort to distinguish himself from the neocons and to rehabilitate himself with genuine liberal internationalists.)

At the core of this alternative to Beinart and other beltwayinsiders' messianic crusade is a belief that we spread our valuesand model chiefly by force of successful example. That does notmean retreat or isolationism. It means challenging thisadministration --and too many Democratic leaders-- who have boughtinto an over-militarized approach to terrorism, including theestablishment of military bases in the Middle East and CentralAsia. This policy has been disastrously counter-productive--transforming a limited terrorist threat into a breeding ground fora new wave of more radical Islamic jihadism.

A better approach --and one consistent with a "Good Neighbor"foreign policy--would address the legitimate political grievancesof the Arab and Islamic world, lower America's military profile inthe region and put an international face on US policy. Our goalsshould be to change the conversation from religious and culturalconflict to jobs and human development, and to stress theimportance of strengthening the legitimacy and internal capacity oflocal governments to deal with Islamic militants.

Sadly, it will be difficult to undertake any of these new andhopeful directions as long as we remain mired in Iraq. Withvirtually no political leadership, Americans have turned againstthe war. Yet its human and economic costs are spiraling out ofcontrol, with no end in sight. We near the day when 2500 men andwomen will have died in this war and more than 16,000 wounded ormaimed. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz hasestimated that the costs of war, occupation and relatedexpenditures may reach two trillion dollars.

The best way to support the men and women who are serving in Iraqis to bring them home by the end of this year, as Rep. Jack Murtha,Senators Kerry, Kennedy and Feingold, among the few, have argued.(And as a recent Zogby poll showed, 72 percent of US troops servingin Iraq believe US forces should leave in the next year.)

It will not be easy, but our continued presence, as occupiers,inside the sectarian carnage of an unraveling civil war, and amidstrevelations about Haditha, Ishaqi, Abu Ghraib, works against effortsto build stability or any modicum of sovereignty. As liberals weare clear that we do not intend to abandon Iraq or its beleagueredpeople. But our assistance should come not through military effortsbut through international peacekeeping and humanitarian ones--torebuild the war-torn economic and physical infrastructure.

These are perilous times--ones that raise large and fatefulquestions: what kind of country does the US want to be? Empire orrepublic? Global leader or global cop? Where is the America that,as Sherle Schwenninger observed in an important Nation article inJuly 2005, "is less one of warrior and preacher/proselytizer andmore one of architect and builder., less one of imperial cop andmore one of community leader. " American foreign policy should be bedemocratically accountable and guided by the nation's republicanprinciples--and a belief that the US should not only oppose empiresbut eschew imperial policies.

I believe there are always alternatives in history and politics.But we must retrieve and fight for those traditionsthat counter the dangerous fantasies and follies of Beltwaycrusaders like Peter Beinart.