In which we scour the transcript of the State Department's daily presser so you don't have to. Here are the highlights of Friday's press briefing by Deputy Department Spokesman Robert Wood.

• Following today's meeting of the P5+1 countries on Iran, not a lot of good news to report. "Iran has not engaged in an intensified dialogue and in particular has refused to have a new meeting, before the end of October, to discuss nuclear issue," Wood said, "Iran has not responded positively to the IAEA-proposed agreement for the provision of nuclear fuel for its Tehran research reactor." The P5+1 countries will meet again "soon" to discuss what to do next, Wood said.
• Wood said no decision had been made on when to move to the "pressure track" and what the sanctions might be, but he said the P5+1 countries have "been of one mind" on the issue and the "window is not going to be open forever." "We're not at that point yet. But we will certainly let you know if and when we reach that point."
• The State Department welcomed the decision by Honduran de factor regime leader Roberto Micheletti to temporarily step down until the Honduran elections are over. "This will allow some breathing space for the process in Honduras to go forward. And so the announcement will also allow for the people of Honduras to focus on the elections."
• Wood wouldn't say that the Obama administration will announce support for India's permanent membership on the UN Security Council when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh comes to Washington next week (which isn't likely). "We'll just have to see how that goes."
• No direct comment on the alleged killing of Afghan civilians in a raid on the village of Hyderabad. "We certainly recognize that it's important to make sure that the civilian population is protected," said Wood, "But at the same time, we've got to make sure... that we counter this violent extremism as best we can, because that's a major cancer in Afghan society."

When Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh comes to Washington next week, the Obama administration will be challenged to reassure India, and the Washington foreign-policy community, that the relationship is keeping up the momentum established during the Bush years.

The visit comes at a time when the Obama administration is making overtures to China and focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Indians are worried their rank on the White House priority list is falling. While U.S.-India relations are generally strong, in what is often seen as the zero-sum struggle for White House attention, New Delhi simply can't compete with Beijing and is increasingly worried about what that means for power politics in Asia.

"From the Indian point of view, they are very unhappy with Obama," said Stephen Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, "Indians are really bent out of shape by what they see as a shift of American policy from India to China in Asia. This is complicated by America's dependence on Pakistan."

Administration critics saw Obama's joint statement with Hu Jintao in Beijing as an implicit downgrading of the U.S.-India relationship. The statement said the "two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region."

"If China and America work together on South Asian issues, such as peace between India and Pakistan, then China is the great power while India is simply another South Asian country that needs help from others to solve its problems," wrote former Pentagon official Dan Blumenthal, "With the joint statement, Obama officially accorded India junior status in Asia."

Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific security program at the Center for a New American Security, said that while "the relationship with India is clearly coming second," progress in the U.S.-China relationship indirectly benefits India.

"If the United States and China can't figure out a way to manage their strategic competition, then India and all of us lose," said Cronin. "They need to give the administration more space to try to put the U.S.-China relationship on the most positive trajectory possible."

Nevertheless, the Obama-Singh summit will stand in stark contrast to Singh's 2005 tête-à-tête with George W. Bush, when the two countries embarked on a "strategic partnership" that has taken the relationship far and paved the way for the U.S.-India nuclear agreement.

"Bush already capitalized on what you could from that relationship," said Cronin. "They picked already the low-hanging fruit."

The trip is likely to result in agreements to move forward on second-tier issues, such as an educational agreement, some new military sales to the Indians, or shared information on homeland security. But on big issues like Iran, moving forward with nonproliferation, and coming to terms on climate change, India hands expect little movement.

Underlying the dynamic is a sense that the Obama administration has yet to really commit to a real plan for advancing the U.S.-India relationship. A State Department review is ongoing.

One issue is that there is no real powerful driver for India policy within the administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is well versed on India, but too busy to address it day-to-day. That work has fallen to Under Secretary of State William Burns, but he too has a broad portfolio. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake is the highest identifiable official with a constant, determined focus on the relationship. Even at the National Security Council, India doesn't have a strong advocate yet.

India lobbied against having Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, as its lead interlocutor, leaving the relationship without a specific manager.

Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is hoping the Obama administration will take the opportunity to announce its support for India to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council.

"Although it would have no short-term practical consequence, it would provide the benefits in ‘atmospherics' sought from Prime Minister Singh's visit," he wrote.

That's not likely, according to most observers, but many argue that Obama must make some show of commitment to actually advancing the relationship, not just maintaining it.

"Obama needs to show that we are trying to institutionalize what is the growing strategic relationship with India," said Cronin. "He can't have the prime minister go back to New Dehli without having a sense that we know where we are going together."

Cohen pointed out that the White House might also be frustrated that India hasn't come through in the one area that could really benefit U.S. interests right now: reducing tensions with Pakistan so that Pakistan can divert its attention and resources toward cracking down on terrorism and militancy.

"Where is their contribution to what's going in Afghanistan and what are they doing with respect to Pakistan that might make our problem there easier?" asked Cohen of the Pakistanis. "What have they done for Americans lately?"

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

President Obama's trip to China gave Chinese citizens a window into the views and vision of the new American leader, but it also gave the world a window into the censorship and information control still practiced every day by the Chinese Communist Party.

Obama's town-hall meeting with handpicked Shanghai students, during which he praised the free flow of information and citizens' right to open government, was not broadcast outside of Shanghai.

And Obama's interview with China's Southern Weekend newspaper, which has a reputation for pushing the boundaries and the buttons of the government censors, disappeared from both hard copies and electronic versions of the paper.

On Thursday, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which was established by Congress in 2000 to independently evaluate China, came out with a new report that lays out exactly how the Chinese government thinks and acts on Internet censorship and media control through its secretive but powerful "Propaganda Department."

The commission is recommending that Congress look into any agreement with American Internet companies that might give personal information to the Chinese government. The commission is also recommending that Congress investigate whether Chinese Internet censorship violates its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization.

"The propaganda system of the People's Republic of China (PRC) exercises control of information as a form of state power. It does not limit itself simply to monitoring and censoring news but instead has developed into ‘a sprawling bureaucratic establishment, extending into virtually every medium concerned with the dissemination of information,'" the report states.

The Communist leadership sends policy directives down through the Propaganda Department, which then lords over all sorts of entities, including newspapers, radio outlets, TV and film companies, and even artist and musicians' associations. Personnel appointments at all sorts of cultural and academic institutions have to be vetted through the Propaganda Department, which works hard to conceal its role.

 "The Propaganda Department is both a highly influential and highly secretive body: it is not listed on any official diagrams of the Chinese party-state structure, its street address and phone numbers are classified as state secrets, and there is no sign outside the Propaganda Department's main office complex in Beijing."

Meanwhile, the Chinese government operates what the report calls the most extensive and sophisticated Internet control system in the world. A filtering system called the "Golden Shield Project" uses technologies sold to the China by U.S. firms such as Cisco to keep out anti-government information. An estimated 30,000 internet monitors scour the Chinese Web to find violations and a loose network of independent Internet users get paid small amounts for posting content favorable to the PRC in what's known as the "Fifty Cent Party."

Media, educational, and cultural professionals in China also self-censor under fear of fines, demotion, termination, and imprisonment, the USCC reported. Foreign journalists are not outside the reach of such threats and intimidation.

Although the technologies have advanced, the Chinese government's drive to drown out outside voices is not new, said the commission's vice chairman, Larry Wortzel.

Wortzel was an official escort to then Secretary of State Madeline Albright and then First Lady Hillary Clinton to a 1995 women's conference in Beijing. "When Albright began her speech, seven provincial Chinese women's bands began playing music that sounded like cats being castrated inside a garbage can and the microphones failed," he remembered. "These are just the sorts of roadblocks that are institutionalized when you deal with the Chinese."

"The reality is, it is still an authoritarian government that still maintains tight access to information, as tight control as they are able to maintain," said commission chairwoman Carolyn Bartholomew.

In which we scour the transcript of the State Department's daily presser so you don't have to. Here are the highlights of Thursday's press briefing by Department Spokesman Ian Kelly:

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finished up her visit to Kabul Thursday, where she addressed Afghan government corruption. "I thought that the inaugural speech that President Karzai gave today set forth an agenda for change and reform. He was particularly strong on the steps that he intends to take regarding corruption, the idea that government officials will have to register their assets so that any money or other influence can be more easily tracked is a very bold proposal," Clinton said.
• Back in Washington, the State Department is conducting a "ministry by ministry" review of all U.S. aid going to different parts Afghan government, Kelly said, including dramatically increasing the USAID personnel monitoring aid projects. "If these agencies and ministries don't -- if we're not able to certify them as having open and accountable procedures, they simply won't receive the direct aid."
• No real objection to the news that German Minister of Defense Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said Germany won't send any more troops to Afghanistan, for now. "Every country has to decide what's in their own national interests, how they can best help in this effort," said Kelly.
• The IAEA's by Javier Solana will meet Friday with the P-5 plus one countries, to "talk about what the president said that we have to start turning our attention to. And that's developing a package of measures that will show to Iran the seriousness of the consequences of their noncompliance with the requirements of the international community," Kelly said. The deadline is the end of the year, Kelly added, "which is coming very quickly."
• Ambassador Stephen Bosworth will go to Pyongyang December 8 with a small interagency delegation, after which he will also visit Tokyo, Seoul, Bejing, and Moscow (not necessarily in that order). The U.S. is only interested in discussing top security issues, Kelly said, adding "It's pretty fair to say that we're going to go into this with our eyes wide open."
• Kelly responded to the Human Rights Watch report which said Cuba's treatment of political prisoners has not improved under Raul Castro, but said the U.S. is not ready to take further steps regarding Cuba past what has been done so far. "We are waiting to see Cuba take some concrete steps to show that they are also serious in opening up their society and opening up exchanges and interactions with the U.S.," Kelly said, "And I think that we need to see some more concrete steps before we take any actions like that."
• He also acknowledged, but didn't pledge any action, regarding accusations of abuses and media persecution by the Honduran de facto regime led by Roberto Micheletti. "The U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa is closely monitoring the situation. It has reported back to us about a number of allegations of arbitrary arrests, disproportionate use of force and, in particular, restrictions on freedom of expression. So yeah, we are concerned about it," Kelly said.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Thursday he would not support any troop increase to Afghanistan and predicted a troop increase announcement would meet a cold reception on Capitol Hill.

"We ought not to add troops to Afghanistan, I even question staying there, unless it is indispensible to our fight against al-Qaeda," said Specter on a conference call. "Staying in Afghanistan really requires a reliable ally in the government, which we do not have in [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai."

He said he could be persuaded to devote resources to fighting al Qaeda, but remains "unconvinced" that adding U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan was the answer.

The administration should offer an exit strategy with clearly defined goals and milestones, though not necessarily a timeline, Specter said. He denied that his position was meant to counter his 2010 primary challenger Rep. Joe Sestak, D-PA, who has called for a "measured increase."

"If they talk about 40,000 troops, as the generals there want, I think [the reception in Congress] will be pretty cold," he said, pointing the oft-repeated estimate that each added troop would cost American $1 million per year.

Specter predicted senators would line up behind the idea of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-MI, who has repeatedly called for faster increases in the Afghan security forces before more U.S. combat troops are added.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged those concerns today in his press conference.

"Clearly, a very important part of the strategy in Afghanistan has to be the increase in the size of the Afghan national security forces and their training, and partnering with us," Gates said. "And central to the strategy is the ability to transfer responsibility for security, as soon as conditions warrant, to the Afghans themselves."

The Washington "power couple" is a familiar model: officials are often hitched to journalists, staffers to academics, lawmakers with lobbyists, and on and on. It's a natural phenomenon in such a small and social town filled with so many policy professionals.

But in what is much less common, a husband-and-wife team is set to represent the United States as ambassadors in adjoining European countries. Mary Bruce Warlick is set to be confirmed as the U.S. ambassador to Serbia and her husband James Warlick is on his way to represent America as ambassador to Bulgaria.

"This is actually the first time ever in the history of our diplomatic corps where we're having hearings for a husband-and-wife team at the same time," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, said at the couple's confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

"They can meet up at the border," noted a congressional staffer with a smile.

Mary Warlick was most recently the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasian policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Prior to that, she was the acting deputy assistant secretary for European and NATO policy.

James Warlick was principal deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of International Organizations, and, prior to that, director of the Office of European Security and Political Affairs in State's Bureau of Eurasian and European Affairs.

The Warlicks aren't the only husband-and-wife team to find new homes in the administration. In fact, it turns out that these sorts of "Obamarriages" are surprisingly common.

Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Kurt Campbell is married to Treasury under secretary nominee Lael Brainard. His former CNAS partner Michèle Flournoy, the new under secretary of defense for policy, attended the confirmation hearing for her husband, W. Scott Gould, on his way to becoming deputy secretary for veterans affairs.

The National Security Council's Samantha Power has a short walk if she wants to have lunch with her husband, White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein. And White House Communications Director Anita Dunn shares a commute (although not for long) with her husband Robert Bauer, the next White House counsel.

And there are many more: Shere Abbott and James Steinberg, Sarah Feinberg and Dan Pfeiffer, Antony Blinken and Evan Ryan, Tom Donilon and Cathy Russell, just to name a few. 

The State Department and Congress don't see eye to eye on how to move forward with foreign-aid reform, but at least one Senator is firmly siding with Foggy Bottom: Jim Webb.

When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the Kerry-Lugar foreign aid reform on Monday, Webb spoke against the bill. He sent a follow-up letter, obtained by The Cable, to Chairman John Kerry Wednesday to document his objections. Among them, Webb thinks the bill would add unnecessary and burdensome bureaucracy not focused on the problem at hand.

"I believe that the problems in foreign assistance effectiveness are largely those of poor leadership and supervision, to be solved by the streamlining of executive branch responsibilities rather than the creation of yet another layer of infrastructure," Webb wrote.

Webb was talking about the bill's proposal to create a Council on Research and Evaluation of Foreign Assistance, or CORE, that would have oversight powers over all government foreign-assistance programs, a key component according to committee staffers.

He also referenced a letter sent Monday to Kerry by Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, which called said the council "may be contrary to the underpinnings of the [Quadrennial Diplomacy and Defense Review]," which State is currently working on but won't be finishing until sometime next year.

Lew said that he wants Congress to give State the "flexibility" to work out foreign-assistance management issues in the QDDR, which he is running with Policy Planning Chief Anne Marie Slaughter, and in the White House's Presidential Study Directive, which is run by National Security Advisor Jim Jones and the National Economic Council's Larry Summers. The QDDR is managed day to day by Karen Hanrahan and the PSD is managed by Gayle Smith.

Lew also pointed to the recent nomination of Rajiv Shah to be administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and asked Kerry to give Shah time to review the current structures before new ones are created. Shah met with Kerry Thursday morning, according to committee staff, and Dec. 1 is being considered for his nomination hearing although nothing has been formally scheduled.

In the end, committee staffers say that the Kerry-Lugar bill is a marker to let Congress weigh in on foreign assistance and there are no immediate plans to try to advance the bill any further. But if the administration's reviews don't have strong accountability measures, congressional ideas such as the CORE could get increasing traction, despite the objections of Webb and Lew.

The Obama administration won't announce its new comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan until after Thanksgiving, a White House official confirms to The Cable, and observers and experts close to the discussions see it as the White House's attempt to stage a full and controlled rollout over the week beginning November 30.

By waiting until Congress returns from its Thanksgiving vacation, the White House can have the time to directly consult with key lawmakers and then have senior officials testify soon after the announcement is made. In that way, the argument goes, the administration can build more support for the policy, deal quickly with any opposition on Capitol Hill, and then have a more active role in how the story plays out in the media.

"They're going to have to come out with both guns blazing and they're going to have to have their stuff together with consultations and everything," said one senior GOP foreign policy staffer close to the issue.

The administration isn't going to want to make the announcement and then wait a long time before holding the hearings, because that would make it more difficult to keep the message consistent after the news breaks.

Plus, congressional attention will be diverted that week to the health-care debate in the Senate, distracting some attention from the Afghanistan debate, which may be part of the administration's calculations.

"You basically own the space, but you fold it under the debate over health care," the staffer speculated about the administration's thinking, "That way you can't be accused of burying it."

Meanwhile, the staffs of key principals have already begun crafting the rollout and testimony speeches, leaving holes in the text to fill in whatever the President's specific troop and resource decisions might turn out to be.

The reports about the substance of the president's pending decision have been all over the map, with many stating that Obama simply hasn't reached a final conclusion on how to move forward. But there is increasing chatter that one scheme, known as the "Gates option" after Defense Secretary Robert Gates, may be gaining momentum.

That option would deploy three brigades to Afghanistan, short of the four envisioned by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, but with the option to deploy the fourth later should the need be demonstrated.

The president and key national security team members return from their trip to Asia today.