It's been a busy couple of days for Muammar el-Qaddafi. In addition to embracing capitalism and accepting an apology from Italy, the Libyan leader will host Condoleezza Rice later this week. It's the first visit by an American secretary of state to Libya since 1953:

"It is a historic stop," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "It certainly does mark a new chapter in U.S.-Libya relations."

[...]

McCormack said the decision to visit Libya was also "tangible evidence" the United States did not harbor permanent enemies and served as an example to nations such as Iran, which has refused to give up its sensitive nuclear work that the West believes is aimed at building a nuclear bomb.

Libya's transformation from a corrupt, authoritarian sponsor-of-terror into a corrupt, authoritarian non-sponsor-of-terror is just one of accomplishments that David Frum attributes to the Bush administration in his FP cover story on Bush's legacy.

Qaddafi is known for having what some might call a unique style when it comes to diplomacy so this meeting should be interesting to watch.

David Silverman/Getty Images

Michelle Obama got some of her biggest applause last night when she thanked "People like Hillary Clinton, who put those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling, so that our daughters and sons can dream a little bigger and aim a little higher." Against the backdrop of a press- and chattering-class fueled story about an enduring split between die-hard Hillary backers and Barack Obama, it was a deft political move.

Watching Michelle, I couldn't help but think that she might also have given a shout-out to Condoleezza Rice. Isn't it likely that Americans, accustomed to seeing an assertive African-American woman on TV every night for the past seven years, are more comfortable with Michelle Obama as a result? After Michelle's speech, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC were marveling at the fact that six years ago, it would have been hard to imagine an African-American family up on the stage as a possible first family. For that, the Obamas may have Rice to thank.

As a side note, I noticed that, as of now, the Secretary isn't speaking at the Republican National Convention, though she did in 2000. Given an opportunity on CNN in July to publicly endorse John McCain, she declined to do so even as her name was being batted around as a vice presidential pick. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said yesterday that Rice "has made clear who she intends to vote for and that would be Senator McCain," but I'm not sure she has said so explicitly. She has said nice things about Obama, and this strikes me as less than a ringing endorsement of his rival:

Look, I'm a Republican, all right? Sen. McCain is a fine patriot, and ... he would be a great president. But there's something to be said for fresh blood. And I know that there are a lot of very good people who could be his vice president."

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Responding to unsolicited French advice about his treatment of Catholics, Josef Stalin once infamously remarked, "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

The same question could be asked of Condoleezza Rice, who today demanded "the immediate and orderly withdrawal of Russian armed forces and the return of those forces to Russia." Appearing with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi, the U.S. Secretary of State said firmly: "This must take place and take place now."

We'll see how Russia responds, since frankly the United States has no ability to force the issue. Nor does Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin want to be seen as taking orders from America. The punishments being muttered about in Washington right now -- kicking Russia out of the G-8, deep-sixing its WTO bid, boycotting or trying to kill the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, canceling bilateral meetings -- are pretty underwhelming, I'd imagine, from Russia's point of view.

Still, the Russians ought to be very careful here. If the overarching goal is to intimidate former Soviet satellites from seeking closer ties with the West, they risk doing the opposite: sending such states running pell-mell into America's arms (see: Poland). By overplaying his hand, Putin could turn a victory in Georgia into a major strategic defeat. He ought to find a face-saving way to take Rice's advice.

Whoops:

President Bush Wednesday promised that U.S. naval forces would deliver humanitarian aid to war-torn Georgia before his administration had received approval from Turkey, which controls naval access to the Black Sea, or the Pentagon had planned a seaborne operation, U.S. officials said Thursday.

"The president was writing checks to the Georgians without knowing what he had in the bank," a senior administration official told McClatchy's Jonathan Landay. That would seem to be the larger theme here.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

President Bush just wrapped up a four-day stay in Beijing, where he caught plenty of action from the sidelines (and on the volleyball courts). Avid sports fan that he is, Bush clearly enjoyed himself, spending his final day in China cheering on the U.S. men's swimming team as they clenched victory in the 4x100-meter freestyle relay.

I guess Bush's decision to opt for an extended Olympic vacation in the midst of Georgia's crisis shouldn't come as a shock. After all, he does have a history of notoriously slow reactions to catastrophic events (Hurricane Katrina, anyone?). Still, you'd think the prez would have wanted to at least appear to be in crisis mode by returning to his home office ASAP. Georgians certainly must feel that way.

Bush hasn't completely ignored the conflict: He reportedly got round-the-clock coverage from aides in Beijing. And he did make a few increasingly tough statements briefly before returning to Washington and speaking on it this evening, saying, "The Russian government must reverse the course it appears to be on."

But the fact that he devoted much of his past few days to Kobe Bryant's jump shot, Misty May-Treanor's fanny, and Michael Phelps's medal hopes rather than Georgia's plight makes his words ring a little hollow this evening.

THOMAS COEX/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. President George W. Bush (L) plays beach volleyball with U.S. beach volleyball player Misty May Treanor in Beijing on August 9, 2008.

RAVEENDRAN/AFP/Getty Images

With all eyes on China this week, it's refreshing to see George and Laura Bush noting that today is the 20th anniversary of pro-democracy protests in Burma that were brutally suppressed.

Last fall's Saffron Revolution was the probably the closest the country has come to mass protests since that fateful day when hundreds of thousands of Burmese took to the streets to call for democracy: 8.8.88.

The Irrawaddy, the best source of news on Burma, has a special issue today commemorating the '88 uprising. They are reporting that many people in the capital donned black clothing to mark the anniversary today, and that plainclothes police were out in force. All the while, conditions in the delta where Cyclone Nargis hit hardest remain dire, with little to no government or foreign aid coming through.

FILE; Warrick Page/Getty Images

Looks like the United States isn't planning on sticking its neck out for Pervez Musharraf:

The United States said Thursday that a move by Pakistan's ruling coalition to impeach President Pervez Musharraf, a close US ally, was an "internal" matter for the Pakistanis to decide.

"We have consistently said the internal politics of Pakistan is an issue for the Pakistani people to decide," said State Department spokesman Gonzago Gallegos.

Considering what State Department spokesmen used to say about Musharraf, that's tantamount to saying, "Sayonara, Pervez!"

Jane Perlez has more on the latest developments.

But first, a brief comment. I called for the United States to ditch Musharraf in March 2007, and I still think it was the right move over the long haul. That said, I've been disappointed -- if not altogether surprised -- by the performance of this new government. One variable that I didn't account for was Afghanistan's growing relationship with India, which seems to be pushing Pakistan's security establishment (or elements thereof) to want to back the bad guys. It's a policy that has the added bonus of undermining civilian rule, portraying the military and intelligence services as the only folks who can restore order -- thereby playing the dual role of arsonist and fire brigade.

I'm glad to see the Bush administration isn't buying into this game, but we may be in for a rough ride for a while. Musharraf may choose to fight it out, and it will be child's play to turn the two major parties against one another. He could also dismiss Parliament if he dares. And even if Musharraf resigns or is impeached, the military has vast resources at its disposal, and it won't brook civilian oversight lightly. Expect fireworks for months to come.

FBI

I'll admit that the FBI has put together some very suggestive information about Bruce Ivins, the anthrax researcher who committed suicide last week. The key document is this one (pdf), an affadavit for a search warrant, in which Postal Inspector Thomas F. Dellafera informs us that Ivins was under suspicion for the following reasons:

(1) At the time of the attacks, he was the custodian of a large flask of highly purified anthrax spores that possess certain genetic mutations identical to the anthrax used in the attacks; (2) Ivins has been unable to give investigators an adequate explanation for his late night laboratory work hours around the time of both anthrax mailings; (3) Ivins has claimed that he was suffering serious mental health issues in the months preceding the attacks, and told a coworker that he had "incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times" and feared that he might not be able to control his behavior; (4) Ivins is believed to have submitted false samples of anthrax from his lab to the FBI for forensic analysis in order to mislead investigators; (5) at the time of the attacks, Ivins was under pressure at work to assist a private company that had lost its FDA approval to produce an anthrax vaccine the Army needed for U.S. troops, and which Ivins believed was essential for the anthrax program at USAMFUID; and (6) Ivins sent an email to [redacted] a few days before the anthrax attacks warning [redacted] that "Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas" and have "just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans," language similar to the anthrax letters warning "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX . . . DEATH TO AMERICA . . . DEATH TO ISRAEL."

I'd like to hear some scientific experts weigh in on #1, which is the only non-circumstantial piece of evidence here. The Feds have more damning stuff, too, such as this bit about the anthrax letters noted by the New York Times:

[S]earches of Dr. Ivins's home in Frederick, Md., turned up "hundreds" of similar letters that had not yet been sent to media outlets and members of Congress.

But here's something Bloomberg caught about Ivins's late-night work habits:

The spike in his evening hours began in mid-August, almost a month before the Sept. 11 attacks, investigators said.

So, he was working on all this before 9/11? What's that all about?

Republican House Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter rips "Beijing George" Bush in a memo being passed around Capitol Hill:

Today, in his final term, the wildly unpopular President George W. Bush boarded Air Force One bound for the Beijing Olympics and a meeting with his chum Hu Jintao, the dapper ruler of a nuclear armed, communist dictatorship. ... Perhaps our Compassionate Conservative-in-Chief will bring our absent Democrat Congress some 'Made in (communist) China' souvenir t-shirts: 'Bush went to Beijing and all I got was this lousy five week, paid vacation.' "

McCotter wants President Bush to call Congress back from its August recess to vote to expand offshore drilling. Na ga ha pen. As the White House explained, there's no way the House Democrats would allow a vote anyway. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is hoping to run out the clock and get an energy bill more to her liking next year. The GOP obviously senses a political winner, never mind the dubious case for more drilling. But Pelosi's got the gavel.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Am I the only one who finds the FBI's steady drumbeat of leaks in the anthrax case a bit unseemly and, well, downright suspicious?

Since Fort Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins committed suicide last week, "law enforcement officials" and other anonymous sources have been feeding information to the press about his alleged responsibility for the anthrax mailings of 2001, which killed five postal workers and sent the country into a panic.

Here's what we've learned about Ivins, through anonymous leaks:

• He had an alcohol problem
• He was obsessed with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority
• He used a PO box, listed under a false name, to receive pictures of naked, blindfolded women
• He spilled anthrax and didn't report it
• He had a financial stake in anthrax vaccines
• He threatened to kill a social worker and his coworkers
• He wrote strange letters to newspapers
• He had access to an anthrax dryer

Sounds like a creepy dude, yes. But it's the kind of suggestive information you leak if you don't want people to notice that your hard evidence -- scientific proof that Ivins was the guy -- is lacking and won't stand up in court. The FBI insists that they've got the goods, and they'll make their findings public tomorrow. We shall see.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has much, much more.

New York's John Heilemann glosses Walter Russell Mead:

What the Middle East portion of Obama's trip highlighted is that on Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Israel, his positions all fit quite comfortably into what the Council on Foreign Relation's Walter Russell Mead calls "a loose bipartisan consensus" now emerging on policy toward the region — a consensus, Mead argues, that's "closer to Bush's views than to those of the antiwar activists who propelled [Obama] to [his party's] nomination." A painful thought for some on the left, to be sure. But a fact that robs McCain of a potentially powerful point of contrast.

Comments? 

Forget Bruce Wayne. I think Dubya is actually the Caped Crusader. In her excellent review of "The Dark Knight" the latest in the Batman franchise, Slate scribe Dana Stevens writes, "[T]he movie seems to arrive at much the same conclusion about Batman as Americans have about Bush: Thanks to this guy, we're well and thoroughly screwed."

Stevens does a great job of deconstructing the copious references to the war on terror in the film, but I feel a need to explore her point about Bush at little bit more carefully.

Warning! There may be a few mild spoilers here:

In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

—Statement by the Press Secretary on Iraq, WhiteHouse.gov

More here from the New York Times.

In a private e-mail list, Iran policy sage Gary Sick responds to John Bolton's latest editorial salvo (posted with permission):

As usual, John Bolton is absolutely right. His policy prescriptions may be reckless to the point of foolishness ("When in doubt, bomb!"), but his understanding of what is happening in Washington policy... is unerringly accurate.

While much of the world was hyperventilating over the possibility that the United States (and maybe Israel) were getting ready to launch a new war against Iran, Bolton was looking at the realities and concluding that far from bombing, the U.S. was preparing to do a deal with Iran. He had noticed that over the past two years the U.S. had completely reversed its position opposing European talks with Iran.

First, the U.S. indicated that it would participate if the negotiations showed progress. Then, when they didn't, we went further and actively participated in negotiating a new and more attractive offer of incentives to Iran. Bolton noticed that when that package was delivered to Tehran by Xavier Solana, the signature of one Condoleezza Rice was there, along with representatives of the other five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.

He had probably also noticed Secretary Rice's suggestion of possibly opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran -- the first step toward reestablishing diplomatic relations. And he didn't overlook the softening of rhetoric in Under Secretary William Burns's recent testimony to the Congress about Iran [pdf].

Now, just one day after Bolton's cry of alarm that the U.S. is going soft on Iran, we learn that the same Bill Burns will participate directly in the talks that are going to be held on Saturday in Geneva with the chief Iranian negotiator on the nuclear file. Bolton's worst suspicions seem to be confirmed.

Unlike many observers and commentators, Bolton has been looking, not at what the U.S. administration says, but what it does. Ever since the congressional elections of 2006, the U.S. has been in the process of a fundamental change in its policy on a number of key issues: the Arab-Israel dispute, the North Korean nuclear issue, and Iran. Since the administration proclaims loudly that its policies have not changed, and since the tough rhetoric of the past dominates the discussion, it is easy to overlook what is actually going on.

Bolton no doubt noticed that Rumsfeld is gone and replaced with Robert Gates, a very different sort of secretary of defense. He will have observed that the worst of the neocons (including himself) are now writing books and spending more time with families and friends, cheerleading for more war by writing op-eds from the outside rather than pursuing their strategies in policy meetings in the White House.

He will have seen the gradual shift of the policy center of gravity from Dick Cheney to Rice and Gates. He will have been listening when the Chairman of the JCS and others have said as clearly as they realistically can that the military option, though never renounced as a theoretical possibility, is the least attractive option available to us and in fact is close to impossible given our overstretch in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In other words, Bolton, as someone whose policies (in my view) are certifiably insane, recognizes real pragmatism and moderation in Washington when he sees it. And he does not like what he sees in this lame duck administration.

Over the past two or three years, we have been treated to one sensational threat after another about the likelihood of imminent war with Iran. All of these alarms and predictions have one thing in common: they never happened. Perhaps it is time for us to join Bolton in looking at the real indicators. When Bolton quits writing his jeremiads or when he begins to express satisfaction with the direction of U.S. policy, that is when we should start to get worried.

This is an interesting new development:

In a break with past Bush administration policy, a top U.S. diplomat will for the first time join colleagues from other world powers at a weekend meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator... William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Switzerland on Saturday aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official told the AP on Tuesday.

I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet for this move. As the official told the AP, "This is a one-time event and [Burns] will be there to listen, not negotiate... [O]ur terms for negotiations remain the same: Iran must suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities."

The diplomats will be looking to hear Iran's answer to the latest package of incentives offered by the P5+1 (the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany). Judging by the Islamic Republic's initial response (pdf), we're likely to hear a lot of bluster and claims that Iran is being treated unfairly. But who knows? Maybe Burns's presence could change the dynamic.

Over the weekend, Drudge and a good chunk of the blogosphere linked credulously to this story in The Times of London, written by one Uzi Mahnaimi. The story alleges that U.S. President George W. Bush has given Israel an "amber light" to attack Iran, according to a "senior Pentagon official."

Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said.

If you read the entire piece, you'll see that it doesn't quite live up to its dramatic headline: "President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran." (The official is later quoted as saying, "If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green," he said.)

The alarmism isn't entirely Mahnaimi's fault, since editors usually choose headlines. But our friend Uzi has a track record of breathless stories about alleged Israeli preparations to attack Iran. Here's one from January 2007 (using tactical nukes!), and another from December 2005. Or we could go back to July 2004. And remember that attack on Gaza? Mahnaimi is also notorious for reporting in 1998 that Israel was developing a biological weapon -- an "ethnic bomb" -- that would only kill Arabs.

The real story here is that the Israelis have developed plans to hit Iran's nuclear facilities -- did anyone think they hadn't? -- but the United States (correctly) thinks it's a bad idea. Read Jim Hoagland. He gets this story right.

In the latest scuttlebutt over Barack Obama's possible speech at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, Bush administration officials want the German government to remember they've still got six months left in office. Said Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt to the German tabloid Bild:

[I]t would be nice if the German government would focus on strengthening its contacts to us rather than already beginning to look for our successors."

Original German here.

Feeling like a million bucks? Maybe not so much after reading this. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lowered the value of a "statistical life" by nearly a million dollars this past May. Five years ago, your typical American was worth $7.8 million, according to the agency. Now, the EPA puts human value at just $6.9 million per person, based on what it says are "improved" calculations from payroll statistics and opinion surveys.

That lower number is a low blow, and not just to Americans' self-esteem. Government agencies weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a rule when they make policies, meaning that a lower-valued human life could make certain regulations seem less urgent (like those on pollution, for instance). Here's a scenario that might result:

A hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

The EPA says it doesn't use data based on a person's earning capacity or potential societal contributions -- rather, it bases the figure on what people will pay to avoid "certain risks," and on the added amounts employers pay workers to take on those risks. The new number came from the EPA's decision to "split the difference" of two studies that looked at those factors.

Some think the whole revaluation is a joke. Said Grainger Morgan, chairman of the EPA's Science Advisory Board:

This sort of number-crunching is basically numerology... This is not a scientific issue."

Others accuse the Bush administration of "cooking the books" to avoid the passage of tougher environmental regulations.

Still, the EPA remains the government agency that places the highest value on life, despite pressure to bring its figure in line with that of other agencies, such as the Department of Labor or Department of Transportation (which recently raised its value to $6 million per human life).

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Last week, the White House released a report card on Iraq, declaring that the Iraqi government had made "satisfactory" progress on 15 of 18 benchmarks. Democrats scoffed at the supposed "false standard" used by the Bush team, but both sides may be looking at the wrong indicators.

On Thursday, The Times of London reported on the progress made in the southern port city of Basra, which the Iraqi government liberated in March after British troops had failed to stem the growing tide of fundamentalist Islamic militia rule:

Three months ago, standing on the main street of Jumhuriya, a former militia stronghold in Basra, would have been a death sentence for a Westerner. Nowadays, with a bit of asking around, you can actually buy a beer here, even if you cannot drink it in public.

So, what does everyone think? Should we expect congressional testimony from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the fledgling microbrewing industry in Sadr City? Will Barack Obama crack open a cold one during his upcoming visit to the Middle East?