#21
i think the thinking of obama and his supporters
negotiating without precodonditions w/iran somehow is supposed to get iran to drop their nuclear weapon ambitions by showing them how nice we are, or getting the europeans to like us more or something like that...or maybe because it makes us feel good because we're being softer...

and if you disagree with the above you're labelled a warmonger, neocon etc...

as if no middle ground...

Would be fun to debate lots of points with the admirable Ms. Power, but here's just one: Why would anyone think negotiating without preconditions with one's adversary is smart or desirable? What country - in all history - has ever done that? No good labor union would do it, and shouldn't do it. Experience, and empirical evidence, shows that high-profile negotiations do not take place until both sides know who's stronger/likely victor, that the outcome is essentially determined, at which point the two sides negotiate terms; or, the sides are not true enemies (as in the case of unions, e.g.), both sides have already set perameters for the negotiation, and are working the limits, based on relative and mutually acknowledged positions of strength. And, parties will always avoid or postpone negotiations to advance their own positions - on the ground, in the labs, in the workplace, in the marketplace, in the jungle, on the range, etc. - because it's plain dumb to negotiate from weakness, or signal weakness - if a favorable outcome is desired. These are no less than the conditions of the natural (animal) world, including human beings, and good leaders understand that. Of course, we people aren't always smart, can't always be wise. But it really is foolish, when stakes are high, to think you can fool Mother Nature.

#18
that's my hope, too
it can't hurt, and when you look at how the Bush admin has tarnished, if not smoked, our image, we have to at least make an effort at showing we care
The sick thing is that China is actually looking at the same issue... and their #1 example of what not to do, if you read "What China Thinks" is what the US has been doing. We've been involved in a total abuse of hard power - and soft. And it's impractical.
and Maher, #15, if you don't believe me, ask Thucydides. abuse of power always comes back and hits you in the face.

Sorry, I meant comment #15.

Re: Comment #16

No, not all the violence and anger directed against the U.S. is because we're a bully, but some of it is, even if conservatives don't want to admit it. We, after all, do help to prop up repressive regimes when it suits us (esp. when they have oil, just to name one reason among many) while at the same time lecturing the world on human rights. So showing a bit more humility and less hypocrisy will help. So will helping countries solve the problem of unemployment. Will it completely make a peaceful world? Of course not (for reasons too numerous to explain here), but an effort to address some of the legitimate complaints about U.S. foreign policy will not be futile.

Samantha Powers is an academic with little political experience or expertise. Keep where she is, in the Ivory Tower!

Actually, Wildbird, the problem with Bush is that he's been so inflexible. He can't admit a mistake or move forward in another direction. I'd prefer a president who can make note of changes in the economic environment and act accordingly.
And I don't think the FISA bill is the end of the world. I'm disappointed, but I understand the motivation. It's going to be a tough election. You can't force a wilting lily through it.

so all terror and violence in the world stems from america being a bully

if only america was nicer, the world would love us and nirvana would ensue

it's all about popularity
we need to make sure that we are popular among al-queida supporters

its not that puzzling why national securty is associated with conservatives. Conservatices, almost by definition, are more pessimistic about human nature's ability to improive itself through reason, education etc, and thus more willing inherently to see violence as necessary or even desirable.

Now, that's not to say that these assumptions lead to more efficacious policies in practice, but its fairly to the partys' differnt identities, no?

Born in DC
Power would make a good NSA followed by SecState. She's just as good a fillibuster as her predecessor.

I think the idea that Obama has been consistent on anything is ludicrous.

FISA bill
Government Finance
Energy policy

In every instance when there came a time to actually pick a side, Obama went the opposite direction of what he said he would. The only think Barack is consistent in is being inconsistent.

The truth is he has no idea what he would actually do in any given circumstance.

I am a democrat (at least historically) but I find Barack disingenuous.

He's the democratic version of George Bush.

This is not a dialogue. It is a lengthy monologue. I think the interview was not thought through. Sorry.

Matt

it says more about Obama then Ms. Power.

He doesn't like to stand up for his people (rev wright - "I can no longer turn my back on Rev Wright than I can my grandmother") Then he kicks him to the curb.

Everyone says things they shouldn't but Obama thinks differently.

He'll have to flip flop again and make her a part of his administration.

To Michael Winslow -

People can get past that? Maybe even should have at the time considering international politics could stand to benefit from somebody intelligent, articulate and aware of the issues having some say in how they are handled. Instead of the usual sub-par politics / politicians we are used to seeing.

Ms. Powers won the pulitzer prize for her book which discussed the "problem from hell", which said the west should do more to prevent Genocide.

Please ask Ms. Powers if the West, especially the US, shouldn't be taking responsibility for past genocides and attempted genocides. For example: the Vietnam war. There are many other examples from the Cold war era....

Republicans?

National Security????

Can we talk about Sept. 11????

Ms. Power will not be a part of the Obama administration because if you remember she said some nasty remarks about Hilary.

To paraphrase a gaffe, i.e. a true statement that should not be expressed: "John McCain is a monster. He will do anything to win."

Power was right albeit impolitic about Hillary, but it is even more true of McCain. And more sad because Hillary has always been a calculating if decent pol, but McCain was supposed to be real, etc.

John McCain would rather win an election than retain his decency.

I second the comment before. One reason I really liked Obama (at first) was hearing that Ms. Powers was advising on foreign affairs.

Please ask Samantha Powers if she is going to serve in a Obama administration in any capacity? Some people like myself where a bit saddened when Barack introduced a lot of hawkish former clintonistas as his foreign policy advisors..

Honestly now, how can we possibly protect the homeland from people who are willing to give their lives to achieve a high kill ratio?
I recall back in the early 60's, at the U.N., Nikita Khrushchev stating, "America will never be defeated by a foreign power. It's downfall will come from within.".
How many schools have we not built, or bridges not repaired because we're spending that money on 'homeland security'?
We are proving the old chess maxim- the threat is more powerful than the execution.

When I read the Samantha Power in the NY Review of Books, as stimulating as the article was, it struck me she didn't ask the basic questions of all: What makes Americans feel secure and what are the institutions and situations that are most likely to provide our security? It struck me as I read the piece that having a large standing military doesn't automatically make us feel safer. In some ways it has made us more vulnerable to attacks from more nimble and creative enemies. Discussing these issues begins as a think tank dialogue rather than a campaign debate but withouth understanding how we achieve real security prevents the democrats from comfortably rapping themselves around this issue to take on the republicans.

Thanks, Larry Loewinger