SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25035)1/18/2004 7:48:43 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
Sharon Hints Israel May Alter Route of Barrier
By GREG MYRE - NYT

JERUSALEM, Jan. 18 — Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel indicated today that his government could alter the route of its contentious separation barrier in the West Bank, and he acknowledged it has caused difficulties for ordinary Palestinians.

But Mr. Sharon stressed that any such alterations would flow solely from Israeli deliberations, and that his government would not be swayed by demands made by the Palestinians, the United Nations or the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Mr. Sharon and several Cabinet ministers discussed Israel's preparations for a court case set for next month at The Hague. The United Nations General Assembly asked the court in December to rule on the legality of the Israeli barrier.

Israel has not said exactly how it will respond. The Israeli media reported that Israel would send a letter to the court challenging its authority in the matter, and the government would decide in the coming weeks whether to send representatives to the court.

After discussions with Israel's legal authorities, Mr. Sharon noted there could be "legal difficulties in defending the state's position" regarding the route of the fence.

But Mr. Sharon, in a statement released by his office, emphasized that "there will be no change as a result of Palestinian or U.N. demands, including those from the court."

Any further discussions "of the fence's route will take place only as a result of internal Israeli deliberations," Mr. Sharon said.

The prime minister and the Cabinet members had planned to talk today about possible adjustments to the barrier, but the discussions were postponed.

Israel says the barrier is intended as a security measure against suicide bombers and other Palestinian attacks.

But the Palestinians say it amounts to the confiscation of West Bank land they are demanding for a future state.

Even the United States, Israel's strongest ally, has criticized the barrier's route through the West Bank.

Yosef Lapid, Israel's justice minister and a political moderate, is also advocating that Israel re-route the fence to bring it closer to the West Bank boundary.

"The present route will bring upon us isolation in the world," Mr. Lapid said.

Israel has made a few minor adjustments to the barrier, but is continuing to build it despite the international protests. A section in the northern West Bank was completed last year, and parts have been built around Jerusalem.

The current route approved by Mr. Sharon's government will put about 15 percent of the West Bank land on the western, or Israeli, side of the barrier, according to calculations by the United Nations.

Mr. Sharon said the fence had been "excellent at preventing terror, but was not satisfactory in all matters relating to the damage to Palestinians' quality of life."

Some Palestinian towns and villages are surrounded by the barrier, and residents face difficulties with such everyday tasks as commuting to and from jobs, schools and their farm fields.

In other developments today, Israel reopened the crossing point with the Gaza Strip, which had been closed since a Palestinian woman blew herself up at a security inspection center on Wednesday, killing four Israeli security personnel.

Thousands of Palestinians go through the crossing to work in Israel or in factories in an industrial zone in the northern tip of Gaza.

Also, Mr. Sharon's government added three more West Bank settlement outposts to an existing list of six that are slated to be dismantled.

The stalled Middle East peace plan calls for Israel to remove all outposts erected since March 2001. Monitoring groups say more than 50 such outposts exist.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25035)1/18/2004 8:27:55 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
Further proof of the Town/Gown split in this country.

a student-conducted poll reporting that only 22 percent of the Dartmouth community approves of the job being done by President George W. Bush—this while Bush's national approval rating stood solidly near 60 percent.

Minority Opinion
Dean rules Dartmouth, but the school's conservatives are hanging tough

Gorsche: 'Why are liberals so reluctant to speak out against terror?'

By Ryan Gorsche
Newsweek
Updated: 1:06 p.m. ET Jan. 17, 2004Jan. 17 - Dartmouth is Dean country. The former Vermont governor won over the college's hemp-necklace-wearing-bootleg-tape-trading set long ago. But now, even the students salivating for Wall Street internships are stumping for the good doctor. HOWARD DEAN FOR AMERICA signs are affixed to dorm windows. As the Democrats prepare to descend on the small New Hampshire town of Hanover for a Jan. 25 debate, backpacks on campus and off are festooned with buttons that read THE DOCTOR IS IN.

This might surprise some outsiders who think of Dartmouth as a conservative school. But the triumph of liberal sentiment in this election season isn't just anecdotal—there is mathematical evidence, too. The Dartmouth, the college's student newspaper, paired a story headlined ADMISSIONS OFFICE CONFRONTS CONSERVATIVE STEREOTYPE with a student-conducted poll reporting that only 22 percent of the Dartmouth community approves of the job being done by President George W. Bush—this while Bush's national approval rating stood solidly near 60 percent. And Dean's popularity isn't merely youthful idealism: Just 3 percent of Dartmouth professors back Bush.


Why shouldn't they? Dean's campaign resembles a page from the average Dartmouth classroom syllabus. For example, a history profes sor compared the Patriot Act to Draconian practices used in the Roman empire. Dean's recent statement that "dealing with race is about educating white folks" so closely resembled Dartmouth President James Wright's 2002 convocation speech on purported "white privilege" that the words could have been penned by the same author.

Some of us, however, are still standing up for conservatism at this newly left-leaning school. Despite being outnumbered by resident Deaniacs, most campus conservatives remain fervent in their support of the president and find the rhetoric of many Democratic campaigns unconvincing. On no issue is this division more clearly manifested than the global war on terror.

Campus conservatives have been in the hawk's nest since the beginning, with no intention of spreading their wings and flying elsewhere. But, contrary to the claims of the antiwar crowd, conservative support of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq has little to do with the imperial soul-cleansing of blood and steel. Conservative student support is best outlined in the demands of Bush's Sept. 12, 2002, United Nations speech: an end to Saddam Hussein's state-sponsored terrorism—such as funding the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front and Mujahedin-e Khalq; an end to WMD programs—whether stockpiles exist, the programs did; and an end to illegal trade outside the oil-for-food program. Most importantly, as Bush said, "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions." Talk of human shredding machines and mass graves should have softened the hardened hearts of any antiwar protester. But it did not.

Why are liberals so reluctant to speak out against terror? Dartmouth senior and campus conservative Stefan Beck explains it this way. "Liberals have always believed they have a monopoly on compassion," he said, "but when it came time to make a decision on Iraq, they were more concerned about hypothetical business deals or the wounded ego of the 'international community' than they were about real suffering people. Most war supporters at Dartmouth were swayed by horror stories about Iraq. Whether or not Halliburton might turn a big profit was a small matter when we had the will and means to save 24 million people from a mass murderer. The justification really couldn't have been any simpler."

Words like these don't win many hearts here. When Beck aired his views at an open discussion of the war, the microphone was wrested from his hands by the "impartial" moderator, a Dartmouth government professor.

Dean has carried campus antiwar sentiment to the national scene. While Coalition forces have been playing 52-card pickup with the Iraqi-most-wanted deck, Dean has been bluffing the table: unilateralism, WMDs and the occasional conspiracy theory about Saudi 9/11 warnings. But for all the discussion of the lack of WMD stockpiles and the oxymoronic idea of a supposed unilateral multinational war effort, Dean has not provided any coherent solution. Sometimes he says we need more troops; sometimes he says troops should come home; sometimes he says we should finish the job; sometimes he says we should stop spending money on the war effort.

Such wavering is fine for many students here. But those are the students who've never been concerned with the war's success. With Saddam's capture, many Iraqis began slapping Baathist statues with their shoes and firing off celebratory gunshots. Campus reaction was more cynical: one contributor to the Dartmouth Free Press's Weblog posted the headline TERRIBLE NEWS: SADDAM IS CAPTURED. THE CHICKEN HAWKS WILL GAIN IN POWER NOW. A few tender-hearted students discussed the "dignity" of Paul Bremer's "We got him" speech.

We campus conservatives try to ignore such talk. Another Dartmouth senior, Rollo Begley, said, "National security and the war are the most important campaign issues right now, and among the candidates, Bush has it best. I doubt anyone thought that the terrorist attacks would stop after 9/11, but two years later, the best they've mustered is a shootout in LAX. And look what America has accomplished: Afghanistan nearly has a constitution, Iraqis are free from torture, and Kaddafi's quaking with fear."

That's enough to make any college conservative celebrate.



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25035)1/19/2004 5:47:28 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
"USA Today" takes their trip down the garden path. Won't hurt them. But will give the media another subject to chatter about. They got after Blair on his race. Will they get after Kelly about his Religion?

That trust, she said, was rooted to some extent in his openness with his colleagues about being an evangelical Christian. "He was this very earnest, moralistic Christian reporter,''

January 19, 2004
Ascent of USA Today Reporter Stumbled on Colleagues' Doubts
By JACQUES STEINBERG

Within the offices of USA Today, there have long been two schools of thought about Jack Kelley, the longtime foreign correspondent who resigned abruptly early this month.

In the view of Allen H. Neuharth, who founded the newspaper in 1982, the same year Mr. Kelley joined as an editorial assistant, his talents earned him a coveted berth: a seat on a company plane as Mr. Neuharth barnstormed the world in 1988, interviewing heads of state in 32 countries for a reporting tour he called the "Jetcapade.'' Mr. Neuharth also tapped Mr. Kelley as a co-author of two books drawn from the experience, lauding him in an appreciation for his "enthusiasm and professionalism.''

Soon afterward, Mr. Kelley became a roving foreign correspondent, dispatched from the newspaper's headquarters in northern Virginia to report on the biggest international news of the day - the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Haiti, Kosovo - from which he would file front-page scoops and amaze his editors with tales of derring-do.

But back in northern Virginia, skepticism about Mr. Kelley's work grew. Tales of how Mr. Kelley had stumbled upon the diary of a Serbian girl he likened to Anne Frank, or narrowly survived a death threat from the Russian mafia, engendered more than the jealousy typical in newsrooms. Some of Mr. Kelley's colleagues were so suspicious of his dispatches that as long ago as the mid-1990's, they began keeping crude dossiers on him - questioning the plausibility of his battlefield descriptions, clipping articles from other newspapers that included phrasing similar to Mr. Kelley's, and even making copies of his correspondence with editors.

While the extent to which these concerns reached upper management is unclear, it is known that Mr. Kelley, now 43, was one of the few reporters at USA Today given the latitude to write articles based on unidentified sources, something that had been effectively forbidden by Mr. Neuharth before he retired as chairman of Gannett, USA Today's parent company, in 1989.

It was only after the resignation of Jayson Blair, who was found last May to have fabricated or plagiarized parts of at least three dozen articles in The New York Times, that Mr. Kelley's editors responded to an anonymous internal complaint about his work by asking a former deputy managing editor to investigate some of his articles.

Pressed, in a new climate of stricter journalistic accountability, to verify the reporting for a 1999 article that had long raised doubts among some colleagues - Mr. Kelley had written of a "Yugoslav army, three-ring notebook'' that contained "a direct order to a lieutenant to 'cleanse' '' a village' - he made what the newspaper says was a fatal mistake: Mr. Kelley permitted a woman who had not been involved in the reporting to pass herself off as its translator. After being confronted with the deception, he resigned under pressure on Jan. 6, the newspaper said.

But what USA Today hoped would be the end of the story turned out to be anything but. Last Tuesday, after the newspaper announced that it had concluded a seven-month investigation into a sampling of Mr. Kelley's work without resolving whether he had fabricated any information, several staff members buttonholed top editors to raise questions about other articles by Mr. Kelley. (At least two included phrases or sentences that closely tracked those in previous reports in The Washington Post.)

On Friday, USA Today changed course, announcing in an article that it would appoint an independent panel to examine every article Mr. Kelley had ever filed.

Mr. Kelley declined to be interviewed for this article, but in a statement released by his lawyer late Friday, he said: "I'm proud of my work and know that my reporting will hold up under scrutiny. I hope that this investigation is both full and fair.''

For its part, the newspaper has suggested that nothing less than its credibility is riding on the outcome of its inquiry, not least because Mr. Kelley, in 2002, became the first reporter at the newspaper to be named a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.

"In the days since Kelley's termination, new questions have arisen,'' USA Today's editor, Karen Jurgensen, and its publisher, Craig Moon, said in a statement on Friday. "They raise enough concerns that we feel we need to vet Kelley's record completely and report the results publicly.''

"In the end,'' the statement added, "USA Today readers, staff and advertisers will benefit because nothing is more important than the trust people place in us on a daily basis.''

For more than two decades, USA Today placed an increasing amount of that trust on the shoulders of Mr. Kelley, who joined the newspaper soon after graduating from the University of Maryland in 1982, and whose visibility rose as the newspaper's did. Created by Mr. Neuharth as a forum for just-the-facts-journalism that would be conveyed through short articles and colorful graphics, USA Today eventually began seeking the recognition of the journalistic establishment.

To that end, the newspaper often showcased the work of Mr. Kelley. USA Today nominated him four times for the Pulitzer Prize before he became a finalist, on the fifth try, two years ago, in the category of beat reporting.

As he traveled the world for more than a decade, Mr. Kelley emerged as a character in his own articles, part James Bond and part Zelig, sometimes writing passages in the first person. He reported watching Kosovo Liberation Army fighters engage in a gunbattle with Serb troops and tagged along with a group of 13 Jewish settlers on the West Bank who, he said, shot at a Palestinian taxi.

David Mazzarella, who was the editor of USA Today from 1995 to 1999, said that as the director of the world reporting tour in 1988, he had seen firsthand what was perhaps Mr. Kelley's greatest gift as a reporter - the empathy and warmth he conveyed to his sources of information. For example, as Mr. Neuharth and Mr. Kelley, along with several others, concluded their interview with a Latin American leader, he turned to Mr. Kelley and hugged him, Mr. Mazzarella recalled last week.

"There is no question he has a manner about him that gets people to say things to him they might not say to other reporters,'' said Mr. Mazzarella, now the editorial director of Stars and Stripes. "He has a little-boy quality. He's not brash. If you're a guy or girl, he becomes your brother. If you're an older person, he becomes a son.''

Mr. Mazzarella said that occasionally one of Mr. Kelley's articles, like those of other reporters, would be sent back for more interviews, or killed outright, if they relied on the sort of unidentified intelligence sources that were frowned on at Gannett. But he added, "I don't recall that anyone came to us, to the editors, saying that a specific story he wrote was plagiarized, fabricated, invented or whatever.''

"If that had happened,'' he said, "I think we'd do the same thing we're doing now.''

One USA Today reporter, who insisted on anonymity, said he knew of at least 10 staff members who over the years had expressed concern to midlevel editors about Mr. Kelley's accounts - concerns that were generally dismissed as rooted in jealousy. A USA Today spokesman, Steven Anderson, said yesterday that he had no comment on the assertion.

Still, Mr. Kelley was among a small group of reporters allowed some leeway that was not usually given to others. In August 1995, for example, Mr. Kelley informed his editors from Croatia that he had stumbled upon a diary that a Serbian girl had apparently left behind in haste as her family fled an onslaught by Croatian troops. Mr. Kelley described the diary as written in the Cyrillic and Roman alphabets, and "full of green and black drawings of Serbian soldiers'' illustrating "dozens of poems, songs and stories about the Serbian effort.''

One passage, as described by Mr. Kelley, read: "I am going to hang little Croats on little poles. I am a Serbian child from my head to my toes.''

Though Mr. Kelley had the diary, his editors had pressed him, before printing his article, to try to locate the girl who was its apparent author, in part so her full name could be used to bolster the article's credibility. When he wrote to his editors from Zagreb, the Croatian capital, that his efforts, enlisting the help of United Nations workers, had been unsuccessful, the newspaper published the article on its front page, using only the girl's first name, Ivana.

In an interview last week, Johanna Neumann, then the foreign editor of USA Today and now at The Los Angeles Times, said she signed off on the arrangement in part because of her trust in Mr. Kelley. That trust, she said, was rooted to some extent in his openness with his colleagues about being an evangelical Christian.

"He was this very earnest, moralistic Christian reporter,'' she said. "It made people trust him in ways they didn't trust other reporters. If he was reporting he had the diary of a Serbian girl, and no one else had it, you tended to say: 'He just has a way with people. People just respond to him.' ''

Four years later, in July 1999, in a 398-word front-page article from Belgrade, the Yugoslav capital, he wrote of a loose-leaf notebook containing the order to "cleanse'' a village, which he described as "the strongest and most direct evidence linking the government of President Slobodan Milosevic to 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo.'' The article cited no sources by name.

It was in response to his editors' insistence last fall that he substantiate that article, and his inability to do so, that Mr. Kelley directed his editors to the woman who had portrayed herself to them falsely as its translator.

In a column published on USA Today's op-ed page on Friday, Mr. Neuharth, who did not respond to phone messages seeking comment, said, "I told you so.''

"For more than 20 years,'' he wrote, "I've preached that anonymous sources are the root of evil in journalism.'' Though he described Mr. Kelley as a "USA Today star reporter,'' Mr. Neuharth did not mention that he knew him or had written two books with him.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25035)1/19/2004 7:29:02 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
"American Thinker" sees it the same way we do.

Insane Means Something for Nothing

Tom Friedman argues Sunday, for not the first time, that Israel needs to withdraw from the settlements. He recommends that Israel negotiate a withdrawal similar to the Clinton plan, and if that does not work, to withdraw unilaterally. Friedman must be a lousy card player.

Why would the Palestinians negotiate if Israel is willing to give them all of the West Bank and Gaza if they don't negotiate?

Ariel Sharon has made it clear that either negotiations will move towards a settlement in the next six months or he will take unilateral steps, which will include abandoning some settlements, and creating a new Israeli Palestinian separation line. Now Friedman would likely disagree with Sharon about where a line should be drawn, but Sharon, unlike Barak before him, or Friedman today, has not given away the store before the Palestinians have a chance to reject it. A good card player keeps his cards covered.

Friedman seems to believe that the rest of the world will hate Israel less if it withdraws, and abandons the West Bank and Gaza. Since the rest of the world, other than the United States, seems to take its lead on Israel from the reactions of the Palestinians and the Arab world, what is the likelihood that they will accept what Israel leaves for the Palestinians, even it if were all of the territories, if there is no right of return for millions of refugees, and a wall separates the two peoples?

The right of return, which in essence means the end of a Jewish state, has always been the Palestinian and Arab goal. That is why the Camp David and Taba offers were not nearly enough. With each offer, Israel gave the Palestinians pretty much all the land for a Palestinian state, and asked the Palestinians to agree that the conflict between the two sides was then over. That of course was not possible, since this conflict will not end with a two state solution. The demand for a right of return is there for one purpose only - to insure that there is never a negotiated settlement, or end to the conflict.

Sharon, I believe, understands the futility of negotiations. Israel's great mistake was bringing Arafat and his terrorist cronies back from Tunisia in 1993. An indigenous Palestinian leadership had emerged during the first intifada. They might have been willing to compromise to achieve better lives for the Palestinians.

Arafat has never been a builder of anything for the Palestinians. His goal is, and always has been, to destroy Israel. This has never changed. Israelis hoped for a new Arafat after Oslo. But there is no new Arafat, and there won't be in the future. There will also be no new Hamas, and no Islamic Jihad and no new Hizbollah.

Sharon understands the demographic argument that Friedman, and many others have made (one thing Friedman is not is original). He also understands that the IDF has a challenging task protecting lots of small interior settlements. So he will likely pull back from some of them. In the area that Israel retains, there will be no demographic nightmare.

But Sharon will not unilaterally withdraw from the borders of the West Bank or Gaza with other Arab states - Rafah, or the Jordan Valley for instance. That would be an invitation for unimpeded smuggling of ever more dangerous weapons into the Palestinian terror entity to use to shoot down Israeli commercial jets, or fire rockets with WMDs. Massive killing of Jews, after all, is part of the Palestinian plan. The new security fence, and a new line of separation threaten the use of the terror weapon against Israel. This is why the Palestinians are fighting it so fiercely.

The fence would also cut off economic opportunity in Israel for Palestinian laborers. But its impact on Palestinian incomes would be less than the damage that has been caused for the Palestinians by the intifada their leaders chose as a strategy to forestall any successful negotiations. In time, some Palestinians may desire to eat more than they desire to kill Jews. So far, this point has not been reached.

These are Sharon's considerations - Israeli security, and the destructive goals of the other side. Friedman's concerns are different t- winning another Pulitzer, adding to his cachet on the upper West Side of Manhattan, insuring that the welcome mat is thrown out to him next time he dines with the Saudi princes or Assad.

Friedman says Israeli policy is insane, and American disengagement is insane. I trust that Sharon knows what he is doing. And Bush understands Sharon's challenges, and why the Clinton effort went off the track. He will not repeat Clinton’s mistakes. Friedman on the other hand wants more American engagement, which of course means leaning on Israel to follow the Friedman plan. That plan is to offer something for nothing. Now that is insane.

Posted by Richard 01 19 04
americanthinker.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (25035)1/19/2004 8:35:12 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793717
 
Ralph Peters is as sharp and as tough as they come. I really respect him. Clinton must have really made one hell of a speech!



CLINTON'S TRIUMPH

By RALPH PETERS

January 19, 2004 -- I NEVER thought I'd give Bill Clinton a standing ovation. But last week in Qatar I did just that.
Our former president gave the most perfectly pitched, precisely targeted speech I've ever heard to a hall filled with Muslim intellectuals and officials. And they listened.

Clinton's lecture closed a worthwhile, if often exasperating, conference on the future of the Middle East's relations with America. Sponsored by the Emir of Qatar and organized by the Brookings Institution, the event brought together a combination of the usual suspects and outside ringers for vigorous, open discussions.

A few of the sessions did manage to move a fragile half-step beyond the "everything that isn't Israel's fault is America's fault" mantras that sedate Middle Eastern societies. Still, by the closing luncheon, I'd had about enough of Muslim "authorities" whose versions of their own history had collapsed into easy myths and for whom the Koran had become a document to be used as selectively as the phone book.

Enter Bill Clinton.

Now, after serving in Washington during the Clinton administration and hearing our former president chatter for checks more recently, my expectations were that he would do no harm, but little good.

I was wrong.



As soon as he took the podium, Clinton began taking stands as brave as they were necessary. With virtuoso skill, he led the audience where they needed to go - while convincing them it was where they had wanted to end up all along. His sense not only of what required saying, but of how best to express it to that complex, contrary audience was almost supernatural.

We all know that Bill Clinton can speak persuasively, of course. But in this case the message mattered. Clinton just may have been the only American who could have reached that unforgiving crowd.

He didn't pander. He made America's case and made it well. Beginning with a sometimes-rueful look at the progress his administration had failed to make and noting that the wars that plague the world are begun by men his own age or older, but paid for in blood by the young, he refused to direct one syllable of blame at the Bush administration. Accepted as a citizen of the world, he spoke as a convinced American.

Asked by an eager-to-Bush-bash delegate if he, Bill Clinton, would have behaved differently after 9/11, our former president said he would have followed an identical course, pursuing our enemies into Afghanistan and beyond. Queried about his position on Iraq, he stated that any disagreements he might have would be most appropriately expressed at home in the U.S., not before a foreign audience.

He could have made an easy score. Instead, he did the right thing. Clinton has become the perfect statesman.

Pulling no punches, he made it clear that Yasser Arafat was responsible for the failure to secure a Palestinian state. He refused to trash Israel. While admitting - calculatedly - that the United States remains imperfect, he used rational self-criticism as a starting point to tell his Middle Eastern listeners they needed to look more critically at themselves.

With art and ardor, he scolded the crowd that blaming others for their own failings was useless and destructive - warning that even when others truly are at fault for our misfortunes, wallowing in blame only paralyzes us. Actions, not accusations, change the world.

That may sound simple enough, but it's an essential message for the entire Middle East. I know of no one else who could have delivered it so convincingly.

Clinton is emerging as a super-charged Jimmy Carter - a far better ex-president than president.

He just may have been too intelligent to be an effective executive. A Hamlet, not a Henry V, Clinton saw myriad sides to every issue and postponed critical actions while he debated with himself. By nature a salesman, not a leader, he lacked the guts to act then accept the consequences.

But he makes a terrific ambassador.

As America pioneers the human future, much of what we must do will excite resentment, fear and envy overseas. A president who's popular abroad is probably failing America. Yet the calls we hear for more effective American "public diplomacy" can't be disregarded: We need to make our nation's case to the skeptical and even the hostile.

Bill Clinton is the perfect man for the job.

Perhaps we need a division of labor, a good-cop, bad-cop approach, in American foreign policy. While making the hard strategic decisions in Washington, the Bush administration should lose no opportunity to send Clinton to represent us abroad, where the former president excites the sort of irrational, positive feelings people once directed toward JFK.

It won't happen in an election year, of course. But employing Bill Clinton on future "missions of persuasion" also might help reduce the enmity between our political parties in the foreign-policy sphere. The administration shouldn't be too proud to ask for the help it needs from Clinton - who clearly misses the buzz and wants to serve.

After a weekend of complaining about all things American, that Middle Eastern audience rose to its feet with evangelical enthusiasm - after being told precisely what they did not want to hear by a Scripture-quoting former president.

It was the famous Clinton magic. It failed us in the White House, but may have found its proper stage in the world beyond our shores.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and a regular Post contributor.