Congratulations = Natalia Lopatniuk & Mark Brzezinski

Support The Washington Note=20

Using PayPal

Congratulations Natalia Lopatniuk & Mark Brzezinski

Share / = Recommend - Comment=20 - Print - Saturday, Sep 06 = 2008,=20 6:04PM

CLOSE

SOCIAL WEBSITES

Digg

Del.icio.us
3D""

Facebook

Newsvine

Stumble Upon=20 EMAIL=20 THIS ARTICLE

Last evening, I attended the moving wedding of my friend Ma= rk=20 Brzezinski and his beautiful new wife Natalia Lopatniuk.

The ceremony and dinner were held at the National Museum for Women in the Arts = -- which=20 has a wonderful collection of painting and sculpture I had never seen = before.=20 Interestingly, Heather and=20 Tony Podesta have = donated a=20 great deal of fabulous art to the Museum, much of which is on display in = an=20 exhibition titled "Modern= =20 Love."

Mark Brzezinski is a national security adviser in the Obama camp -- = and of=20 course his dad is former National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew=20 Brzezinski. His brother and best man I= an=20 was a close adviser to Donald Rumsfeld who is now supporting John = McCain, and=20 his sister Mika = Brzezinski=20 is a news star at MSNBC.

But Mark's mom, Emilie Benes=20 Brzezinski, was the real standout at the party last night. Emilie is = a great=20 sculptor at and 76 years old was the best dancer on the floor last = night. And I=20 was floored by what a great dancer Zbigniew Brzezinski is -- far better = than his=20 sons who are good. (I'm lousy but try.)

I complimented him on the dance floor last night and said, "Zbig, you = are a=20 really great dancer." His predictable response, "Well of course I am -- = I've=20 been working at it a long time."

But it was a terrific evening -- and I wanted to congratulate Mark = and=20 Natalia on their next phase.

In related family news, monday will be the official release date of a = new=20 foreign policy book with which I have been involved, titled: America=20 and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign = Policy.=20

In the book, David Ignatius interviews Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew=20 Brzezinski on what America needs to do to get its national security = portfolio=20 back in shape.

This book is a New America Foundation/Basic Books imprint -- and I = was=20 pleased to have a hand in it.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

=AB Previous=20 Article - Joe=20 Biden: What We Didn't Hear. . .

Reader Comments (1) - post=20 a comment

Posted by rich Sep 07, 2:35AM - Link=20

I'll have to make it a point to check out that art collection.=20 Congrats/sounds like a nice night. --interesting how close the = cross-party ties=20 are in some cases.

American and the World: Conversations on the Future of American = Foreign=20 Policy
Looking forward to checking out the book; beyond the Amazon = preview,=20 however, the involvement of David Ignatius---whose ideas I know you=20 respect---raises some questions about the direction and tenor of the=20 Scrowcroft-Brzezinski discussion.

How do we reconcile Mr. Ignatius' role in shaping a presumably more=20 'moderate' or 'adult' foreign policy stance readying itself to emerge, = post=20 Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney, with several of his poorly considered = agenda-driven=20 opinion columns?

Granted, an opinion's an opinion, but this issue has direct bearing = on the=20 book, redirecting foreign policy onto solid and responsible ground, and = Mr.=20 Ignatius willingness to shore up facile misperceptions and lend an eager = assist=20 to lemmings headed over the cliff.

Here's the thing: Ignatius' recent column egregiously painted Nancy = Pelosi=20 and Harry Reid as venomous, highly partisan extremists hell-bent on = revenge and=20 obsessed with tearing the Republicans limb-from-limb.

Lots of people must find that comforting, yet Ignatius is hardly = entitled to=20 his own facts. Deviating from reality on this point can only be a = conscious act:=20 one's political perspective can't really obscure the public record. On a = daily=20 basis, we've witnessed Reid and Pelosi act with remarkable restraint,=20 particularly in the aftermath of the Tom DeLay's iron rule, in which he = excluded=20 Democrats entirely from the legislative process. Reid and Pelosi have = taken the=20 high road and displayed an eminently reasonable approach, given George = Bush's=20 continued intransigence. Personally, I don't agree that constant = compromise with=20 intransigent parties bears much fruit.

Mr. Ignatius' willingness to deviate from the plain reality, simply = to=20 maintain the antagonism of right-wing dead-enders, doesn't justify = continuing a=20 tradition of mischaracterizing Democrats, especially in the context of=20 hyper-partisan Republican rhetoric stretching from Newt Gingrich up = through=20 McConnell, Tom DeLay, Lindsey Graham and Bush-Cheney-Rove.

The connection, of course, is that this isn't a first for Mr. = Ignatius.

As George Bush was frantically trying to justify invading Iraq, David = Ignatius deployed this same less-than-honest approach in several of his = columns,=20 giving America a good shove in the back as we were hustled off to War = and=20 Occupation.

Ignatius penned opinions, pre-war, that were at best extremist, but = plainly=20 deviated sharply from the available facts. It's one thing to base a = column on=20 trusted sources; it's quite another to ignore widely published facts, on = the=20 public record, that wholly discredit the full-throated assertions thrown = at the=20 wall by George Bush. If I can read a newspaper, so can David Ignatius. = And had=20 he adequate data to substantiate the, shall we say, less responsible = rhetoric=20 Ignatius used to add momentum to Bush's rush to war, he surely had every = obligation to share his evidence with the American people. He goes a = step=20 further than yellow journalism. Ignoring what we all know while tossing = red meat=20 to the faithful and gasoline to the fire really has not served this = country=20 well, nor has it helped Republicans politically or improved our national = security. With Maliki now closely allied with Iran, it's clear Ignatius' = geopolitical acumen has taken a beating.

Just as important, relating Ignatius' pre-war red-meat columns to the = D.C.=20 decision-making process does not cast his integrity in a positive light. = As Bush=20 was short-circuiting the intel---you could see this happening in real = time---we=20 got those columns omitting contrary evidence and going much further in = exhorting=20 for war than any data in-hand actually warranted.

I don't believe these columns were accidents, nor can we afford to=20 underestimate their function in providing a chorus sufficiently shrill = to enable=20 George Bush & Congress to comfortably go about short-circuiting the=20 legitimate process by which this country makes decisions about whether = to go to=20 war. And that specifically was the great error here. Not how the war was = waged;=20 not whether the intel was flawed; not whether we have a plan for = Occupation or a=20 plan for exit or a plan for victory. The cause for war and the evidence = for war=20 and the actual threat was never credibly put before the American people, = debated=20 in Congress, and followed by a formal Declaration of War. The process = was and is=20 broken; current institutional arrangements deliver questionable = decisions that=20 involve long-term quagmires, wars unpopular at home and interventions = commonly=20 on the wrong side of valid political causes; most often fought for = special=20 interests sharply diverging from the American national interest; always=20 inflicting blowback.

Instead, the obsequious and craven ir-Resolution, an insufficient and = by-definition Constitution-eviscerating path that inevitably finds = Congress=20 stumbling after the Prznt with rubber stamp in hand, crying Wait for Me! = ---and=20 simply cannot deliver relatively adequate, politically-sound, or=20 moderate-quality decisions capable of preserving American's national=20 security.

[Just lost my second half in the captcha system]

Given the visceral rhetoric of his off-the-rails columns, how can we = trust=20 David Ignatius to moderate a discussion between Scowcroft and Brzezinski = in an=20 agenda-free manner?

From the book, Ignatius asks:
=93But to cut to the heart of the=20 issue---Brent, can we live with an Iranian bomb? Or should we go to war = to=20 prevent it?=94

=93Suppose all these good ideas go for naught, and the Iranians do = what we most=20 fear. They move to higher levels of enrichment and resume what the CIA = says was=20 a weaponization effort that was put on the shelf in 2003. [worth fact=20 checking].

=93The question at the end of the day that we all have to struggle = with is: Can=20 the United States live with a nuclear armed Iran? Is that a tolerable = situation?=20 Other countries that we hoped wouldn=92t get the bomb, notably Pakistan = and North=20 Korea, got it, and we=92re living with it. Why is Iran different?=94

My sense is, as much as Ignatius=92 questions seem to agree with = my own=20 perspective, that he will eventually lead the discussion in the wrong = direction,=20 if not in this venue then in the next. It=92s not clear he won=92t = argue, against=20 all evidence, that Iran is a =91special case=92 contrary to our = experience with all=20 the other nuclear powers who=92ve proven not to be aggressive.

His central role here undermines Scowcroft=92s eminence as an = =91adult=92 or=20 moderate, indicating that the centrists poised to run things will not = provide=20 badly needed policy changes, but merely presume to steer the same course = more=20 competently. Unless Brzezinski is in charge, I don=92t think we=92ll see = a=20 correction that improves our security or even begins to look after the = national=20 interest.

**
Another directly related case in point is Jim Baker & = Warren=20 Christopher=92s attempt to codify everything that=92s wrong with our = current=20 institutional approach to Congress=92s mandated obligation to Declare = War. Their=20 proposal to =91fix=92 the War Powers Act compounds the problem, taking = us further in=20 the wrong direction. Having seen first Vietnam, and now Iraq, their = willingness=20 to further enable such mistakes on less than forthright grounds really = calls=20 into question their motivation, given the context. Lacing their NYTs = Op-Ed with=20 inversions of fact, Baker & Christopher presumed to repair = Congressional=20 overreach and a put-upon Executive---neither of which, obviously, are = the=20 problem. Neither of these men can apparently summon the gravitas to = grapple=20 responsibly and honestly with just how systemically unmoored our = institutional=20 processes and presumptions are from the lawful straightforward method = mandated=20 for declaring war. This issue just isn=92t vulnerable to the sophistry = Baker and=20 Christopher deploy. And it is clear they intend to complete the = evisceration of=20 the clear, Constitutionally mandated mechanisms that made this country = what it=20 is.

I noted Steve said the Baker-Christopher proposal was = =91important=92; if so, it=20 is not for routinely held reasons. Rules that pretend to make = after-the-fact=20 Congressional approval an official rubber stamp for war, simply turn the = American system entirely on its head, right out in the open. Those rules = will be=20 routinely shattered, as the War Powers were an invitation for abuse, = because=20 that is the point.

Steve Clemons on North Korea

New America American Strategy Program Director Steve Clemons shares = his=20 thoughts on the Bush administration's removing North Korea from the = "Axis of=20 Evil" list.

Steve Clemons - Open Up Exchange and Travel With Cuba

Steve Clemons, Steve Coll & Peter Bergen on Pakistan

Steve Clemons, Steve Coll and Peter Bergen discuss Pakistani = stability, US=20 foreign policy, Musharraf's waning power and Bhutto's = assassination.

CLOSE

Using PayPal