<p>AMANPOUR: Now you've got Russia invading Georgia. Is the advice to the next president of the United States therefore, you have to go to war against Russia in order to protect your NATO allies?</p>
<pre><code>ALBRIGHT: ...I also think that countries have the right to choose whatever alliance they want to be in. And the main thing, while I fully agree that we can't go back to the Cold War and have a really very bad adversarial relationship with Russia, Russia cannot think that independent countries on its border are a threat to them.
So I think -- I personally believe that we need to go forward with the Membership Action Plan for Georgia and for Ukraine, and keep explaining that it is not a threat.
</code></pre>
<p>Amanpour then tossed the question to Colin Powell, saying, "if Russia is (the aggressor) and you have to, you know, keep your NATO allies' security, aren't you then committed?"</p>
<pre><code>POWELL: Under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which is the NATO Treaty, when one member of the alliance is attacked from abroad -- meaning outside the NATO geographic limits -- then all members of NATO treat that as an attack...
We cannot say to the Russians, "We are not going to allow the Georgians or Ukrainians or anyone else to start down the path toward NATO membership." It's not for the Russians to decide that.
</code></pre>
<p>This was on CNN recently.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3022190/Pakistan-president-Zardari-warns-US-forces-in-attacks-across-border-on-al-Qaeda.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/3022190/Pakistan-president-Zardari-warns-US-forces-in-attacks-across-border-on-al-Qaeda.html</a></p>
<p>And of course, Pakistan is not consenting to our tough stance on terrorism within their country.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>I thought it was pretty interesting that all 5 of those former Secretaries of State agreed with Obama that we should negotiate with Iran. He took a lot of heat for that stance and was again proven to be correct. </p>
<p>Remember Powell and Albright have no power to wage wars right now. It's all hypothetical. We'd have to end a war or two to do that, anyway. That's why Russia attacked when they did. They knew we were powerless. The brilliance of this administration continues to charm us all.</p>
<p>As for Pakistan, always put yourself in others' shoes. If someone committed an act of terrorism in Great Britain and was thought to be hiding out in mountains of West Virginia or the Rockies, would we appreciate bombs being dropped by British forces to root them out?</p>
<p>Nobody is against negotiating with rogue nations. What people are against is the naive notions that we should meet with them any time any place, no preconditions.</p>
<p>Biden</a> also calls Obama 'Naive' - First Read - msnbc.com
AFP:</a> McCain jabs Obama as 'naive' on Pakistan, national security</p>
<p>Yes, there was hooplah about that. Obama basically wanted to go in Pakistan no matter what if we had suspicion and McCain/Biden blasted him for basically pubiclly endorsing invading Pakistan. That's why the Bush people discretely sent people into Pakistan to solve problems, not set an example out of Pakistan.</p>