Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

What precisely do we know about Samantha Power, the president’s new nominee for the post of ambassador to the United Nations?

I ask the question for one reason: Power, it seems, has won the support of some conservatives, as well as some friends of Israel. Judging from the numerous articles appearing in the past day or so that have fully sketched out some of her most loathsome views, the support she is receiving is more than troubling. Indeed, it is perplexing.

I suspect the favorable response to the president’s appointment comes from her reputation as a liberal interventionist who is at the forefront of supporting U.S. action when a regime abroad is moving towards genocide or a gross abuse of human rights, and when the United States in her eyes is capable of doing something to stop it. As we know, Power, who wrote a major prize-winning book about genocide, was at the forefront of those urging U.S. action against Colonel Moammar Qaddafi in Libya.

I once quipped that liberals favor humanitarian intervention and the use of American military force when human rights are being threatened and when the regime in question cannot be said to be harming basic American national security interests. On the other hand, these same liberals oppose the use of force when our interests are threatened directly, and often call advocates of U.S. military actions “imperialists” who are acting to protect the American empire.

Hence they are for intervention when it isn’t necessary, and against it when it is!

If we look back at Libya, two things are most clear. Qaddafi led a vile and oppressive regime that under his command had directly harmed the United States. But under pressure — unlike Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Un — he gave up his nuclear-power complex and stopped developing a nuclear arsenal. Yet, because he publicly threatened to obliterate his domestic opponents and physically destroy them, President Obama argued that the U.S. was obliged to act to depose him in order to prevent a major human rights catastrophe.

Part of his reasoning came right from Samantha Power’s arguments — particularly the one in which she asserted the argument known as “Responsibility to Protect.” As Monica Crowley writes, her doctrine states that “the U.S. has a moral responsibility to intervene anywhere there is a slaughter or the potential of slaughter (whether our strategic interests are involved or not). She successfully argued ‘R2P’ (as it’s known) and Obama led the NATO operation that helped to overthrow Moammar Qaddafi (who had not initiated an assault against his people).”

One has only to compare Obama’s actions on Libya with those he took against Assad in Syria. Except for endlessly repeating that Assad has to step down, Obama did nothing at all. Even after Assad began to kill thousands of people, the president did not act.

He acted in Libya when there was no slaughter; he did not act in Syria when there was.

Now over 80,000 have been killed, and Assad has used sarin, a poison gas. So much for Power’s policy of “humanitarian intervention.”

As for Power’s views on other critical questions, others have already gone through them and offered a rundown of what she stands for. You can find her worst statements at the Washington Free Beacon. A more extensive summary can be found in Arnold Ahlert’s article at Frontpagemag.com.

Perhaps the most famous of her views come from her 2003 article in The New Republic, in which she outlined what became the Obama policy of apologizing to the world for America’s sins. Here, Power wrote:

Some anti-Americanism derives simply from our being a colossus that bestrides the earth. This resentment may be incurable. But much anti- Americanism derives from the role U.S. political, economic, and military power has played in denying such freedoms to others.

U.S. foreign policy has to be rethought. It needs not tweaking but overhauling. We need: a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States. This would entail restoring FOIA to its pre- Bush stature, opening the files, and acknowledging the force of a mantra we have spent the last decade promoting in Guatemala, South Africa, and Yugoslavia: A country has to look back before it can move forward. Instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors

Then there are Power’s views on Israel. Calling for a major U.S. military force to be placed in Israel to enforce an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, she argued that it might be difficult, since it “might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and social import.” She obviously meant American Jews and groups like AIPAC.

A few years later, when asked about her own statement at the time, she answered: “Even I don’t understand it … it doesn’t make sense to me.” Actually, Power did obviously remember why she said that. Relatively young and very smart, Power could hardly forget.

Martin Kramer, president-elect of Shalem College in Jerusalem and a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, revealed the truth about why she made that statement. Writing in 2008, Kramer showed that Power’s disavowal of her own statement, which she attempted to say occurred because it was stated in the context of “discussing the deployment of international peacekeepers,” was meant to make it seem plausible.

Kramer reveals that at that time Power was influenced by the Canadian intellectual Michael Ignatieff. Ten days before Power called for U.S. troops to be stationed in Israel, Ignatieff had written his own op-ed titled “Why Bush must send in his troops.” That editorial, Kramer comments, “includes every trendy calumny against Israel.”

Ignatieff’s point was that the United States had to use force to get Israel to accept and to move towards a two-state solution. Powers, he concludes, shared this vision “with her closest colleague” at Harvard’s Carr Center.

His text, Kramer writes, “was exactly what Power meant.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
On the bright side, the post of UN ambassador is about as important and essential as commissioner of septic tanks. Come to think of it, the UN is nothing but a pay toilet servicing the world's homicidal dictatorships, kleptomaniacs, and , not least, the representatives of that great peaceful religion know as Islam. Well, there I've done it. I can already hear the lights going on at the NSA.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Power and her husband the self loathing Jew Cass Sunstein are representative of many on the left. They are so morally obtuse because of political correctness and moral relativism; that they prefer the barbaric and failed Palestinians who only produce tyrants and savages to the Jews with their rich humanitarian and democratic traditions. Her being European only exasperates her moral blindness.
I wonder if there is something organically wrong with John McCain's brain that he chooses involvement in pointless wars and seems to automatically gravitate to the wrong side of everything.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why would you have any respect for John McCain? As a senator and Presidential candidate he has been a bumbling disaster for the country. His wartime experiences were very unfortunate, but we have to quit giving him a pass for that. We need strong conservative leadership now, and he is not going to ever be part of it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (20)
All Comments   (20)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
This event is a close parallel to the time the taliban forced schoolgirls back into a burning school because they weren't wearing head coverings while trying to escape the burning building.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Her stance on stationing international forces in Israel is rapidly proving itself to be untenable. Israel is currently watching international forces deteriorate on the Golan Heights. This is not the first time international forces have betrayed Israel. Watch Yuval Steinitz explain Israel's determined opposition to including international forces as a feature of any peace deal with the Palestinians:
http://jcpa.org/video/israel-opposes-international-forces-as-part-of-peace-deal/ [http://jcpa.org/video/israel-opposes-international-forces-as-part-of-peace-deal/]
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here we go again: another idiot in the West calling for more intervention (in Syria) while the US has all alone been supporting the jihadi's raping and murdering Christians in Syria, like in Libya, like in Yugoslavia.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Obama did not act in Syria. So please someone, tell us all what he should have done or should do? Perhaps he could have taken up Daniel Pipes' morally relativistic (and morally bankrupt) approach, fund whichever side is losing so as to increase the deaths. Power is an ok choice for the UN post. But then Obama has nominated her, so she must be terrible.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The time-honored solution is to choose a puppet to support, but get the right puppet.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
>>“I think she made a mistake about Israel,”

Heh, yeah. Like that guy who meant to say to his wife "Please pass the salt" and somehow it came out as "You ugly shrew, you've ruined my life."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
On the bright side, the post of UN ambassador is about as important and essential as commissioner of septic tanks. Come to think of it, the UN is nothing but a pay toilet servicing the world's homicidal dictatorships, kleptomaniacs, and , not least, the representatives of that great peaceful religion know as Islam. Well, there I've done it. I can already hear the lights going on at the NSA.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
On the contrary, Boris, the U.N. Ambassadorship is an important bully pulpit.

With the right administration and the right ambassador (like John Bolton) it's a potent way to expose and oppose the U.N. agenda.

With the wrong administration and ambassador, it's a potent way to advance the U.N. agenda.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You're right, and, come to think of it, she'll fit right in at the UN. She'll be right at home with all the other America-haters.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And, by the way, we, the ones who pick up the bill for the toilet, are repaid with excrement.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Power and her husband the self loathing Jew Cass Sunstein are representative of many on the left. They are so morally obtuse because of political correctness and moral relativism; that they prefer the barbaric and failed Palestinians who only produce tyrants and savages to the Jews with their rich humanitarian and democratic traditions. Her being European only exasperates her moral blindness.
I wonder if there is something organically wrong with John McCain's brain that he chooses involvement in pointless wars and seems to automatically gravitate to the wrong side of everything.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Her being European only exasperates her moral blindness."

I think you meant to say, "exacerbates".


That mistake exasperates me.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why would you have any respect for John McCain? As a senator and Presidential candidate he has been a bumbling disaster for the country. His wartime experiences were very unfortunate, but we have to quit giving him a pass for that. We need strong conservative leadership now, and he is not going to ever be part of it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Under the guise of "human rights" gobblygook, all manner of squishy conservatives rally around the cause. Never mind that there is NO there there, in so far as protecting the innocents are concerned. Not only that, but by executing the mendacious, yet feel good tropes from Power's policy prescriptions (duly championed by Rice too, as well as the entire spectrum from Obama Inc), many more have died in the process. Consider the absolute nexus to Benghazigate, just for starters: http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/11/benghazigate-theory-revealed-at-this-blog-shored-up-by-lt-col-ralph-peters-overall-theory-leading-to-petraeus-resignation-too-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

A + B...1 + 1...

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Power, it seems, has won the support of some conservatives

well there is no shortage of Jewhaters err I mean anti Israel people on the right - and the names you mention are the usual GOP RINOS, who love every liberal idea more than the people they are supposed to represent. Of course the Dersh, a man who does know what's what, lives in denial, cannot bring himself to divorce his beloved D party, b/c he is still thinking they will CHANGE -
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All