As Yogi Berra would say, it's deja vu all over again. Watching the unfolding debate over Gen. Peter Pace's comments on gays in the military, I started thinking of how President Bill Clinton was first pressured to formulate the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy - a policy Hillary Clinton has now said should be repealed. (While campaigning in Iowa on Jan. 27.)

The issue had been simmering throughout the first Clinton campaign, but it came to a head on Nov. 11, 1992 -- Veterans' Day. I was on duty in Little Rock. Clinton had just been elected and was formulating his cabinet, but he was still governor of Arkansas. In the hopes of asking the president-elect about his campaign commitment to gays in the military, I went over to the State House to watch him salute the armed forces.

On the rope line that day, I asked: "How are you going to handle the opposition of the military to your position on gays and lesbians in the military?"

Clinton didn't hesitate.

"If people who have served our country with distinction, many of them with battlefield ribbons and who have never had any kind of question about their conduct, can be booted out of the military, that is the issue, and I think there are ways that we can deal with this that will increase the comfort level of a lot of the military folks here."

Except it proved a lot harder than he'd thought to "increase the comfort level" of Colin Powell, the popular chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the rest of the Joint Chiefs. Or satisfy another leader with important ties to the military, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn, D-Ga.

For a new president who had been elected despite a huge controversy over his draft status and opposition to the Vietnam War, this was a lose-lose proposition. Why would he want to take on the military establishment as one of his first acts after taking office? Nine days after after being sworn in, Clinton announced he was postponing a decision on the issue. Months later, Powell helped him come up with a compromise - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But the military remained resentful toward the commander-in-chief. And on the other side of the debate, he lost the support of lifelong friends from the gay activist community like David Mixner.

Few in the White House at the time thought it would be more than a short-term solution to a deeper societal problem. Fifteen years later, it is still official policy - and just as controversial.

Politics were subordinate to the personal and the historic in this city today. Under the vaulted ceiling of the National Cathedral, Jimmy Carter was seated next to Lynne Cheney, Rosalyn Carter beside Nancy Reagan. Honorary pallbearers included Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker, both critics of the Iraq invasion, and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the war's chief architects. On this day, at Gerald Ford's funeral service, there was no partisan divide. Sitting in the nave, I looked out at the former presidents and their wives and thought about the inescapable sweep of American history.  Here were former combatants and their successors, victors and vanquished, now considerably older, and presumably wiser.  Over the decades, adversaries had become friends. How else can you explain Ford asking Jimmy Carter to speak at his burial in Grand Rapids?

The eulogies reflected other facets of Gerald Ford's life. George Herbert Walker Bush served with him in Congress and was then sent by Ford to China, and finally to the CIA. Being sent to Langley briefly took Bush out of politics, causing resentment in the Bush camp at the time. Today, the elder Bush instead recalled Jerry Ford's decency and sense of humor.  Bush (perhaps identifying as a fellow victim of comic barbs) recalled Chevy Chase's satires of Ford and was even inspired to imitate Dana Carvey imitating him: "But it wouldn't be prudent."

Our own Tom Brokaw perfectly captured Citizen Ford: the man who, like so many of his generation, returned from the war to serve his country again by running for office. Ford, Brokaw said, had "no demons, no hidden agenda, no hit list or acts of vengeance." It was so typical of Ford to include a journalist among his eulogists: Ford was the only president I ever knew who actually liked reporters. In retirement, he even returned to Washington each year to personally award a journalism prize to a selected correspondent. Sure, he occasionally resented the criticism, but he never held grudges, not even against the press corps. A photo in the Washington Post this week was illustrative: Jerry Ford, laughing as he ran toward Air Force One, clearly amused at a question being posed by CBS White House correspondent Phil Jones, while a youthful Helen Thomas and the rest of the White House press corps ran alongside.

There were also solid achievements. At the funeral today, Ford's former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recounted how in only 29 months - 896 days - the Ford administration negotiated the landmark Helsinki Accords on human rights, and the first political agreement between Israel and Egypt. Without, Kissinger said, ever losing the virtues of small-town America -- "sincerity, serenity and integrity."

Jerry Ford was a religious man, but he kept that mostly to himself. He even rejected the advice of some aides to use faith as another reason to justify pardoning Richard Nixon. Ford did not want to wear his religion on his sleeve. But his longtime pastor, the Reverend Robert Certain, knew Jerry Ford's faith ran deep. Ford also cared deeply about the well-being of the church. In his homily today, Dr. Certain -- a former Air Force pilot and prisoner of war in Vietnam -- recounted how Ford called him last summer. At the time, Dr. Certain was preparing to leave for the General Convention of the Episcopal Church.  The church was facing a schism over the role of human sexuality and women's leadership. Ford told him there shouldn't be divisions among those who lived by the Great Commandments to love God and neighbor -- and asked him to work for reconciliation. Nothing could be more revealing of Jerry Ford's character. To the end, he was the great healer.

Under the Gothic ceiling of the National Cathedral, the mourners' spirits were lifted by the choirs and the soaring soprano of Denyce Graves. But for all its majesty, the service was as simple as could be designed for a former President -- no caisson, no flyovers in Washington. On one level, it was a simple celebration of a life lived well -- a time for a family heartbroken by grief to say goodbye to the man they all -- including Betty -- lovingly called "Dad." The family have been consoled in recent days by the thousands of people who lined the streets of Alexandria, Va., Washington, D.C., and Grand Rapids, Mich., to wave farewell. Betty and the children went to the Rotunda to say "thank you" to those who were streaming by to see the casket. It was an unprecedented, personal touch by the family of a former President from Main Street, U.S.A.  It was a gesture Gerald Ford would have understood.

Watergate, and the pardon of Richard Nixon, is still shadowing the principals, as I learned today digging into NBC presidential historian Michael Beschloss' fascinating interview with Jerry Ford -- to be published in Newsweek on Sunday.  (Editor's note: Mr. Beschloss' Ford interview is available today on the Web. Just click here.)

Beschloss sat down with Ford in the summer of 1995 at his Beaver Creek, Colo., summer home. Ford was 82, and clearly relaxed and open. He criticized the rightward turn of his party, George Herbert Walker Bush's reluctance to stand up to the right wing on abortion rights, and Ronald Reagan's refusal to campaign for him in 1976. Two decades later, Ford, ever the nuts-and-bolts politician, could still recite the specific states in which Reagan could have helped him win the presidency - Ohio, Mississippi, Louisiana. In fact, he said he would have defeated Jimmy Carter if Reagan hadn't, in his view, sat out the general election campaign (except for one brief joint appearance in his home town of Los Angeles).

Even more contentious -- Ford's thoughts on his former Chief of Staff Alexander Haig's role in the Nixon pardon.  Bluntly put, he thought Haig - a holdover from the Nixon White House - had been disloyal, had in fact gone behind his back to tip off Nixon that Ford was going to grant the pardon in any case - so that Nixon didn't have to admit anything to get it. Subsequently, that's exactly what happened: Nixon's representatives refused to budge during talks with White House lawyers, and Ford granted the pardon. It remains a significant issue for historians, who say Ford should at least have waited for some admission of guilt, or an actual indictment, before granting the pardon.

The charge of Haig's double-dealing was actually first made by former Ford aide James Cannon in his 1994 biography "Time and Chance." But until these comments to Newsweek, Ford's views were not known.

Asked by Beschloss why he did not demand an admission of guilt before granting Nixon the pardon, Ford said: "Nixon was adamant. I felt so strongly that I had to get this damn thing off my desk, nitpicking about what he was going to say became less and less important."

Ford went on to say: "In reading Jim's book, I was shocked and saddened by what the role of Al Haig turned out to be. At the time, I had no idea. I assumed he was totally loyal to me. He worked for me! I understood he had worked for Nixon, but I had to assume he was loyal to me...The Cannon book as to the role of Haig surprises me. I'm sure what Haig apparently transmitted to Nixon convinced Nixon that he didn't have to stand - that he didn't have to make an outright admission of guilt."

Called by NBC today, Haig said: "I never said such a thing, that's absolute hogwash. It's mind boggling to me where this nonsense comes from. There was no discussion whatsoever. I was not involved with any of the decision making involved in the pardon. I never had anything to do with the pardon.  The president announced the decision, much to my surprise."

But the power of Jerry Ford's comments to Newsweek may indeed be history's last word on the most controversial pardon in American history.

When people talk about Gerald Ford being unassuming and modest, it is an understatement. Decisive, strong-willed, occasionally partisan, always principled, but definitely unassuming. 

I had followed the former President's career, of course, as a journalist, but in recent years had the privilege of getting to know him in a more personal way through my husband, who served as an economic advisor in the Ford White House. So, each summer, we attended Gerald Ford's World Economic Forum, a seminar on domestic and foreign policy he led near his summer home in Beaver Creek, Colo.  Typically, Democrats and Republicans would gather, along with foreign leaders and members of Congress, to exchange ideas, often vigorously. 

In the summer of 2001, we were invited to also stay at the Fords' home for the weekend of the conference.  We arrived on a Friday night, late.  We visited briefly, unpacked and went to bed. First thing Saturday morning, the President helped prepare breakfast (yes, that photo opportunity 30 years earlier was not something he put on for the cameras -- he did it every day).   We then left for the conference. 

In the middle of the very first presentation, my pager went off. Loudly.  I rushed to a phone to call NBC in New York.  It was an emergency: Fidel Castro had passed out in Havana. I had to get to Denver and catch a plane, immediately. 

By then, Castro had recovered from what was clearly heat exhaustion and dehydration (after giving one of his lengthy speeches under a hot Havana sun, while dressed in full combat fatigues) but it was the first sign of frailty in the aging leader, and clearly newsworthy. What to do? My first thought was of my embarrassment: how could I explain to the former President and First Lady that I was leaving almost immediately upon arrival - to go to the (figurative) bedside of the hemisphere's last surviving communist leader? It is not something you find guidance on in Emily Post. 

I mumbled my excuses, went back to the house -- and Betty Ford offered to pack my bag so I could spend some time alone with my husband, saying goodbye. Clearly, I was violating every rule of etiquette, and the Fords must have thought it more than passing strange.  But the former President responded with the grace and kindness that he exhibited throughout his life. I went off to Havana, and yet another adventure of a very different kind.

Jeane Kirkpatrick was remarkable, an Iron Lady of U.S. diplomacy who took no prisoners. I should know: I was dumb enough to challenge her - clumsily - during a live interview 22 years ago and I barely survived the encounter. At the time, Kirkpatrick was the Reagan administration's uncompromising United Nations ambassador and, among other things, a fierce defender of the Contra war in Central America. I was co-anchoring an NBC prime time news magazine show with Linda Ellerbee, a program that was memorable only for occasional moments of unintentional hilarity. During a live interview in the summer of 1984, I asked Kirkpatrick to react to a report from Fred Francis, our correspondent in the field, who had evidence that the CIA was secretly mining the Nicaraguan harbor. In what was clearly intended as a "gotcha" moment, I played Fred's report and asked Kirkpatrick to respond. Instead, she sat across from me, studying her nails and swiveling in her chair, saying nothing. Clearly flustered, I repeated the question. All I got was stony silence from the ambassador. Finally, I pressed her again to answer. That's when she put me away by saying, "I don't respond to lies."

I'm sure there was a comeback, if I could have thought of it at the time. Later, my bosses told me it was one of the worst live interviews they'd ever seen. Unfortunately, my most important critic - my mother - agreed. When you've lost your mother, you know you've lost the audience. I learned a lesson about being courteous when asking tough questions. Within the cabinet,  Jeane Kirkpatrick frequently crossed swords with Alexander Haig, Ronald Reagan's first secretary of state and, nominally, her superior in the cabinet. He didn't last long. She was less successful in combating the president's chief of staff, James Baker, whom she likely thought was too "pragmatic." (Yes, the same James Baker who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group.) Over a remarkable career, Kirkpatrick was a widely respected professor, a tough diplomat, and an uncompromising neoconservative. Ronald Reagan admired her ability to stand up for his, and her, principles. Peacefully, in her sleep last night, Jeane Kirkpatrick died, one of the great  champions of the Cold War and a pioneer for women in foreign policy.

Convening a bipartisan "study" group is the oldest trick in the Washington playbook, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Most recently, the 9/11 Commission helped us find our way out of the paralysis resulting from the attack on our homeland. Two decades earlier, the Tower Report rescued Ronald Reagan from the Iran-Contra mess. In 1968, the Kerner Commission helped Lyndon Johnson find solutions to the race riots inflaming America's cities. Less successfully, the Warren Commission tried - and failed - in 1964 to bring the nation together behind a single theory of the assassination of John F. Kennedy a year earlier. And FDR used the Roberts Commission to investigate America's failure to prevent the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Watching today's news conference, and reading this report, I wondered whether this would in fact be one of those special moments of conciliation, whether today's blunt prescription could bridge the partisan divide between both parties in Congress and the White House. Certainly that's the obvious yearning of most voters in the midterm elections.

Contrary to selective leaks, the report is very detailed. The staff work was done primarily by the U.S. Institute of Peace, one of the lesser known but more effective Washington think tanks.

Most remarkable was reading and listening to the unanimity of the conclusions. Does anyone but me recall that former Attorney General Ed Meese was one of Jim Baker's fiercest critics when they both served in the Reagan White House? And that Leon Panetta was Bill Clinton's chief of staff when Sandra Day O'Connor was a decisive vote on the Supreme Court to end the Florida recount, giving the White House to George W. Bush? Most of the panel members are charter members of Washington's political establishment, but that doesn't mean they are logical partners in crafting a tough, detailed report like this one. And you have to go pretty far to beat Lee Hamilton's terse answer to whether the group was giving up on the president's original lofty goal to create a democratic Iraq: "We want to stay current."

There will be a lot of time for analysis. Was Jim Baker a stand-in for the president's father? Is George W. Bush capable of reversing course? Will the Democrats stop saying "I told you so" long enough to help rescue the administration, and the country, from one of its worst foreign policy crises? Will Iran and Syria stop fueling Iraq's insurgents and become part of an eventual solution? And will the secretary of state launch a high-risk "diplomatic offensive" without a guarantee of a successful outcome?

None of us knows how to answer those questions, but as a start, today was a pretty good day. Alan Simpson said maybe it's corny, maybe it won't work, "but it's sure as hell better than sitting there where we are right now."   

HAVANA, Cuba -- This city is festooned with signs and banners welcoming foreign leaders to a gathering that looks like a reunion of President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil." Cuban officials tell me the point is not to attack America, but many of the billboards here tell a different story: they portray President Bush with fangs, call him an "assassin" and even compare him to Adolf Hitler. (The Castro government is accusing the U.S. of harboring a man known here as the Osama bin Laden of Cuba  -- a Cuban exile now jailed in Texas on immigration charges, but accused in Havana of terror plots. It's part of the backdrop for the angry rhetoric against the U.S.)

Brian will be anchoring from here tomorrow night, which is a very big deal. Cuba TV -- part of the government here -- has already talked about his anticipated arrival.

WHY ARE WE ALL HERE?
For one thing, Havana is always interesting, and Cuba has not permitted any foreign journalists in since Fidel Castro turned over power -- he said temporarily -- to his brother Raul and a triumvirate of officials on July 31st. This is our first chance to talk to Cubans about how they view this change after a half century of Fidel's rule.

We've found some unease, but less than you might think. It's clear that Fidel prepared well for a succession. Even five years ago, after he fainted during a mid-day rally, he had told me his brother would succeed him and that the revolution would live on. This is not what the current White House hopes, or expects. It has set aside $80 million to encourage anti-Castro dissent. Interestingly, I interviewed a prominent dissident yesterday who said that she and her friends don't want money from the U.S. government. Taking American support would undermine their credibility here and help the regime portray them as tools of the U.S. By the way, representatives of the Communist Party visited here last weekend and told her not to organize any protests this week while the summit is in session. Their warning did not stop her and the other "women in white" -- wives and other supporters of 60 men jailed three years ago for criticism of the government -- from donning their white dresses and conducting their silent protest by attending Sunday mass.

Of course, we are also here to cover the summit, a meeting of so-called "non-aligned nations." It is an artifact of the Cold War, of countries seeking power for themselves outside either the East or the West. When they first gathered in Belgrade in 1961, Fidel Castro was 35, a revolutionary leader admitting that he was a communist. In 1979, at the peak of the Cold War, he hosted the annual gathering. Now 80 and ailing, Castro was supposed to be greeting the 50 heads of state arriving here today to talk about world poverty and criticize U.S. policy. Instead, he's in his hospital room, but his aides say he is recovering and giving orders by phone. That said, there is a real sense here of the passing of an era. No one in government says Castro will be back in charge. Friends, like an Argentinian author who visited him yesterday, are trying to perpetuate the legend. This visitor described Castro as looking like Don Quixote, especially after losing so much weight since his surgery. Another visitor today -- Venezuela's Hugo Chavez -- described Fidel as looking like the Man of La Mancha, but "victorious and invincible" (unlike Cervantes' dreamer).

Buoyed by billions in oil revenues which have helped Cuba offset the crippling affects of the U.S. economic embargo, Chavez was greeted as a hero when he arrived today. With Castro offstage, Chavez is asserting himself as the next leader of the movement. But he isn't the only focus of attention: Iran's President Ahmadinejad is also in Havana and will likely get an endorsement for his nuclear standoff with the West.

In many ways, this summit will rehearse next week's arguments over Iran, Iraq and North Korea at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The U.S. is not without some support here -- from Iraq, Pakistan, and India, among others countries -- but behind the scenes or not, Fidel Castro is still orchestrating this performance. And even if he only shows up for a curtain call, if he's physically able, he will not pass on one last opportunity to hammer away at his nemesis to the north.

Editor's note: Andrea discussed the scene in Cuba today on MSNBC-TV. You can watch her report here. She'll also talk with Brian on tonight's broadcast.

As Fidel Castro celebrates his 80th birthday today -- in both uncertain physical and political condition -- he remains the central figure in Cuban life, to both supporters and opponents. Meeting and interviewing Castro, whatever you think of him, makes you realize you are walking in the shadow of a lot of history... the revolution, his early visits to the U.S, including the tumultuous welcome in Harlem and his appearance on Meet the Press (speaking English, and denying he was a Communist).

I first met Castro when I went to Cuba in 1999 to cover the conflict over Elian Gonzalez. After days of trying to get to see him, we were finally summoned for a get-acquainted dinner. Each of us were taking the measure of the other, as you can probably gather from this photo. We talked about a lot of issues, of course, including the custody dispute over the 6-year-old boy. Many hours later we had an agreement that eventually led to his sitting down with us and talking on camera.

This second picture was taken a year-and-a-half later, in June 2001. Castro had fainted during a speech. I rushed from vacation in Colorado to Cuba to report on his condition. Two days later, hearing that he was at Cuba television, I asked for a chance to see him. Somehow, I talked him into going on camera later that week to prove to the world that he was really all right. We waited for the call, and when it finally came, began the interview at 11 p.m. During the interview, he said for the first time that his brother Raul would be his successor. It may be temporary, but that has now come about.

Editor's note: Andrea wrote a longer analysis of the situation in Cuba and Fidel Castro's health for MSNBC.com that you can read here.

How do you start a media frenzy over Fidel Castro? Today, all it took was this brief statement from a Cuban official, Roberto Fernandez Retamar:

"Fidel is not leading Cuba at this moment and this has not allowed disorder to take possession of Cuba. And this has set in motion a peaceful succession in Cuba."

The key words: "peaceful succession." As our woman in Havana, Mary Murray, has pointed out, in the language of official Cuba, "succession" is definitely not a word to be used casually. It denotes what happens when -- after holding power for almost half a century -- Fidel steps down for real. "Succession" is NOT the temporary handoff of power to brother Raul that was announced last week, and reconfirmed over the weekend by a top Cuban official during a visit to Bolivia.

Was today's statement intended as a low-key announcement of the actual succession? Or was it just a signal to the anti-Castro Bush administration that life was continuing peacefully in Cuba, despite Fidel's illness?

As President Bush himself said today in Crawford, Texas: "Cuba is not a very transparent society."  Today's announcement only made it more confusing. U.S intelligence has NOT had a good line on what is going on.

American officials at first interpreted today's statement to mean that Cuba is trying to show the U.S. that this transition is happening without incident -- contrary to administration expectations. At the same time, they weren't sure whether this was the first announcement of a real succession, or whether it was just in-artfully expressed.   

So when Fernandez Retamar spoke, everyone listened. What did it mean?   

In fact, few people outside the troika now ruling Cuba -- and Fidel, if he's well enough to care -- know what's really going on inside Havana's regime. And that includes U.S. intelligence analysts. But they, like most Cuba watchers, quickly figured out that Fernandez Retamar didn't have the clout to announce such an important development about Cuba's future. Especially not after more important figures in the government have been saying that Cuba's legendary leader was recovering nicely and would eventually return to office.

All of this reminds me of how we used to watch the Kremlin lineup at the annual May Day parade to figure out who was up and who was down. Which isn't a bad analogy, considering Castro's longtime reliance on the former Soviet Union.

In any case, it took less than an hour for two top Cuban officials to tell NBC News there was no truth to any suggestion that Castro was leaving government for good. It was bad reporting. A misinterpretation by the wire service. Or, if you prefer, the official simply "misspoke."

In fact, it's a perfect example of what can happen when reporters cannot independently cover the news. Everything gets reported as fact -- including rumor. Meanwhile, Castro will celebrate his 80th birthday next Sunday, and his brother Raul, temporarily in charge of the country, has still not surfaced publicly.   

Jet lag is one thing, but the rapid transition from focusing intently on Middle East diplomacy to today's unexpected developments about Fidel Castro is more than a shock to the system. Two hours after getting home from accompanying Condoleezza Rice on her trip to the Mideast and Malaysia, I got the call about Castro and repacked to head toward Havana.

Until the Cuban government opens the doors to American television journalists, I'll be reporting from Miami about this most enduring, and mysterious, leader. How ill is he? U.S. officials aren't sure, but think he is still alive. Privately, they are urging activists in Miami to remain calm. In extraordinary footage of Castro at his last public rallies, shot by NBC's talented Roberto Leon last week, Castro looks drawn and frail, but was still able to appear at two rallies and speak for more than six hours.  He also traveled to Argentina for an arduous summit on July 21.

I first met Castro in 1999, when I was covering the Elian Gonzalez story. A few years later, he told me his brother Raul would succeed him, saying, "I am about five years his senior, and Raul is very healthy, by the way, he is just 70. And he celebrated it by climbing the Torquina mountains, which is the highest peak in Cuba. He did so surrounded by his family. And he did it in a record time, and he's doing so well with his health. Undoubtedly, he is the comrade who has more authority after me and who is most experienced. Therefore, I think he has the capacity to succeed me." 

Now the question is whether this is a short-term transition or a dress rehearsal for the real thing.

Sometimes even secretaries of state get bigfooted. For two days, it has been obvious to all of us traveling with Condoleezza Rice this week that she would end up in Jerusalem this weekend and also deal with the leaders of Lebanon -- but Rice found artful (diplomatic?) ways to dance around committing herself. Today, it became clear why: she didn't want to preempt the boss, and that meant giving President Bush something to announce at his just-concluded White House news conference with Tony Blair. 

Rice's two top Middle East advisors, David Welch and Elliot Abrams, have been in Israel since yesterday in non-stop meetings to lay the groundwork for further talks. They called her tonight (it's now after Midnight here in Malaysia) to give her a progress report. (What is she doing in Malaysia? She'd previously committed to an annual Asian summit -- requiring 30 hours of flying and a detour from Middle East diplomacy.)

While she waits here in Kuala Lampur to go back to Israel -- a return further delayed because Israeli officials cannot hold meetings during the day on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath -- she did a little other business today.

Remember that North Korean missile? (a crisis that is so "yesterday...") Rice organized a regional meeting this afternoon here in Kuala Lampur to discuss the threat from Pyongyang's missiles and nuclear program. The Chinese, key players, were 15 minutes late arriving -- after trying, unsuccessfully, to persuade North Korean officials to literally walk down the hall and attend. Despite Chinese pressure, the North Koreans refused. U.S. officials say it is surprising that the North Koreans would so deliberately insult China again, as they did when they first launched their missile, against Chinese objections. North Korea's behavior prompted America's usually patient negotiator with Pyongyang, Chris Hill, to say: "They are completely isolated and if it's isolation they want it's going to be isolation they get."

Asked here about the Asian leaders' unanimous condemnation of Israel -- (the host, who initiated the statement, is the prime minister of this Islamic country) -- the U.S. diplomat in charge of the stalemated Korean nuclear talks said, "Don't ask me about the Middle East, I have enough trouble." 

That could also be said about the Secretary of State as she reboards her 757 for another 14-hour flight.

We've just landed in Rome, the next stop on the Condoleezza Rice World Tour. What does the secretary of state have to show so far for her diplomacy? Today, an agreement that Israel will permit aid deliveries at Beirut's airport, plus try to open a ground corridor for relief supplies. More importantly, from talking to the Rice team, a clear sense is emerging that they see the current conflict as a proxy war with Iran. It is Iran's hand that they see  encouraging Hezbollah to take steps it knew would provoke Israel into using force. Rice clearly thinks the future of Lebanon is at stake and with it the future of moderate governments in the Middle East. Key to a solution? Tomorrow's summit on how to create an international force. Who will contribute troops? Will they take charge of the ports? Which comes first, the troops or a cease-fire? A top official just told me on the plane, "Well, they can't fight their way in."

By the way, I'm writing this as our motorcade races from the airport in Rome... my head buried in my BlackBerry. How crazy is that?