A Valuable Hour on Obama Foreign Policy w/Coll, Friedman, Ignatius and Schieffer


csis schieffer coll friedman ignatius.jpg
CSIS is about to hold a very valuable meeting on President Obama’s foreign policy, which I am going to stream live here at The Washington Note.
The meeting is part of the “Schieffer Series at CSIS” sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and TCU’s Schieffer School of Journalism.
The line up includes BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News; Anchor, CBS News’ “Face the Nation”, who will moderate.
Panelists are my colleague and friend STEVE COLL, President, New America Foundation; Staff Writer, The New Yorker; THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Foreign Affairs Columnist, New York Times; and DAVID IGNATIUS, Columnist and Associate Editor, Washington Post.
The meeting will run from 5:30 pm til 6:30 pm (9 minutes from now as I write) eastern time.
— Steve Clemons


10 comments on “A Valuable Hour on Obama Foreign Policy w/Coll, Friedman, Ignatius and Schieffer

  1. Elizabeth Miller says:

    A valuable hour, indeed. That was a great discussion but, far too short.
    Thanks for posting that!


  2. The Pessimist says:

    Now there’s a grand idea Steve,
    “You know, Don, I was thinking the same thing; or maybe a special meeting of TWN commenter-alum. Without weapons.” Don S.
    Have you ever considered a simple get together including your personally invited regular commentators from this blog? (Sorry, I can’t make it. I’ll be busy)
    In a sense you would be reading the pulse of intelligent, knowledgeable and most importantly, ‘outside-the-bubble’ American citizens. You know, the people who are directly, and usually detrimentally, affected by the very policies that you address on this blog.
    Call it: “A Fresh Perspective,” or “A Breath of Fresh Air, or my personal favorite “Steve Steps Out of The Bubble.”
    No offense, I admire and respect both your work and your engaging nature, but I can’t help but sense that your perspective on Sarah Palin’s “Real America” is tempered by your figurative DC isolation, both in geographic as well as intellectual terms.
    You need face time with those affected by DC policies in equal proportion to the face time you have with the policy makers if you are to expect any real credibility from your readers.
    A beam scale only achieves perfect balance when both sides are equally weighted.


  3. Bart says:

    Patraeus sure does wear a lot of ribbons for someone who saw no combat until the second Iraq war. And I never knew there were GWoT ribbons.
    His history on Wikipedia is interesting: shot by one of his troops and once operated on by Bill Frist.


  4. Don Bacon says:

    Petraeus is a political general, probably with political ambitions.
    General Petraeus gained fame in September 2004, while he was in charge of training Iraqi army units, he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post extolling the results of his efforts. He wrote the op-ed as “David H. Petraeus” and it was instrumental in promoting Bush over Kerry (who was questioning progress in Iraq) during a hot presidential race.
    Petraeus in his WaPo op-ed: ““Six battalions of the Iraqi regular army and the Iraqi Intervention Force are now conducting operations. . .Within the next 60 days, six more regular army and six additional Intervention Force battalions will become operational. . . Nine more regular army battalions will complete training in January”
    It was all BS. A year later, at the end of Petraeus’ training assignment, September 2005, General Casey — the commander in Iraq — said there are fewer Iraqi battalions at “Level 1” readiness than there were a few months ago. . . The number of Iraqi army battalions that can fight insurgents without U.S. and coalition help has dropped from three to one, top U.S. generals told Congress yesterday.
    Wonder of wonders — Petraeus later replaced Casey in Iraq, and later got elevated to CENTCOM commander.
    Recently a news leak, probably from a non-admirer, revealed Petraeus’ concern about Israel. It isn’t US military actions that promote terrorism, according to Petraeus, it’s Israel’s fault.
    Petraeus needs to counter his anti-Israel talk if he hopes to retain political viability. So he jumps on Israel’s favorite bugaboo, the non-existent Iran nuclear weapons program.
    Petraeus testified to a Senate panel yesterday. Sen. Lindsey Graham pumped the general for more speculation about Iran, asking how long until Iran’s mythical nuclear weapon would be finished. Gen. Petraeus was non-committal, saying only that it was “not this calender year, I don’t think.”


  5. downtown says:

    Seems like our military leaders are way ahead of the civilian miscreants in the House and Senate when it comes to assessing America’s interests in the Middle East. Gen. Petraeus will soon have his patriotism / professionalism questioned by the Krauthammers occupying so many editorial pages.


  6. DonS says:

    You know, Don, I was thinking the same thing; or maybe a special meeting of TWN commenter-alum. Without weapons.


  7. Don Bacon says:

    Cato, there’s no way that ordinary people are going to get on these panels, much less crazy, drunk and homeless ones. These are important issues that require the attention of important people. You know, people who are in the news because they’re important because they’re in the news. It’s so confusing. Let them do it.
    I mean — a valuable hour with Kervick, WigWag, Norheim and Carroll? They don’t even have titles. No way.


  8. Cato the Censor says:

    Like I said before, you sure can take it. Have you ever considered having a crazy, drunk homeless person sit on one of these panels? DC’s full of them too. He might make more sense than either Friedman or Ignatius and would undoubtedly work cheaper too.


  9. jonst says:

    You do the most artful ironic posts on the net. This one was priceless. Coll, ok. Friedman and Ignatius? They’re at least funny, in an unintentional way. Hopefully, they went over all he wrong predictions and suggestions they have made in the past decade or so as an instructive note of caution when reading conventional wisdom purveyors in the Times and the Post.


Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *