A follow-up to my post yesterday about the troubling views of one of Barack Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power. In 2002 she sat for an interview with Harry Kreisler, the director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley. Kreisler asked her the following question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine – Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Get a load of Power’s response:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called “Sharafat.” [Sharon-Arafat; this is actually an Amos Oz construction -- NP] I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.
Just so we’re clear here: Power said that her advice to the President would be to 1) “Alienate” the American Jewish community, and indeed all Americans, such as evangelical Christians, who support the state of Israel, because 2) Israeli leaders are “destroying the lives of their own people.” 3) Pour billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money into “the new state of Palestine”; 4) Stage an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories — what else can she mean by a “mammoth protection force” and a “military presence” that will be “imposed” by “external intervention”? — in order to do the exact same thing that she considers the height of arrogance and foolishness in Iraq: an American campaign to remake an Arab society.
Note that this wasn’t her response to a question about her personal views of the conflict, or about what she envisions might be a utopian solution to the conflict; it was a response to a question about what she would tell the President of the United States if she was his adviser. Yesterday Barack Obama took a large stride toward the presidency–helped in some small measure by the speeches on behalf of the Obama campaign that Power has delivered–and it is time that someone asked him, while he is still a candidate, what he thinks of the perverse things his many foreign policy advisers have said about Israel and the Middle East.
As Samantha Power herself acknowledged, there is “a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import” that would like to know where Obama stands on these matters.
Just another example of the Dems commitment to “bipartisanship”.
Not exactly high drama. Specter and Leahy have been playing this game for years if not decades. My understanding is that Specter is now supporting Holder’s nomination. News at 11:00.
Give it up.
Republican former Judiciary Committe Chair Orrin Hatch is supporting Holder’s nomination. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-hatch-to-back-holder-2009-01-12.html
“I start with the premise that the president deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think politics should be played with the attorney general,” he said.
“I like Barack Obama and want to help him if I can.”
Former federal prosecutors and justice dept. officials, including uberRepublicans like Joe diGenova, have signed a letter backing Holder:
“Due to his character and experience, Eric today enjoys the endorsement of literally
thousands of law enforcement officials from across the country, including NAPO (National
Association of Police Organizations), NDAA (National District Attorneys Association), PERF
(Police Executive Research Forum), NSA (National Sheriffs’ Association), NAAUSA (National
Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys) and NOBLE (National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives). From his experience Eric fully understands and appreciates the constantthreat posed by Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists. As former federal prosecutors and senior officials of the Department of Justice we are profoundly aware of the challenges that the Department and the country are facing. Eric Holder is the right man at the right time to protect our citizens in the critical years ahead.
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/gop-lawyers-letter-on-holder.pdf
Republicans for holder: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmI2MWE2M2RiZDM5MDE4Y2RmMDJhZmY4YWQ2OGQwZWM=
Even the NRA has capitulated.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/13/the-nra-throws-in-the-towel-on-holder/
So get over it. You lose. Again.
Where was this filthy liar drudged up from?
Remember that when a GOP president makes his cabinet selections. Holder is as much of a political hack as Gonzalez was, he is just smoother.
For everything that frustrated me about Bush, at least we didn’t have all these ethical police all over the place. I can see with the AG nominee we will get back to business as normal in Washington.
Hey Drudge — how many times can we celebrate Fitzmas in one year? Its just going to get worse as the Obamots trip over themselves under multiple questioning and various memories are used to contradict other various memories. If it was fair for Scooter — its fair for everyone else. Hopey Changey indeed.
The igallop is the best machine evar.
She has also said worse. Now that she has been appointed to head the anti- atrocity board by Pres Obama on Holocaust Day, the leaders of the Jewish community should send a united message to Obama that she is unacceptable and should be as gone as Van Jones and other disreputable people that he has chosen int he past. They should also call him on his lying two faced stab in the back hypocrisy in using his speech on Holocaust Day and pretend to be concerned about Syria, an arm of Iran, while doing nothing while appointing a person on that same day who believes in using the American military to overwhelm Israel. The American Jewish community should be ringing the alarm bell so that Jews can wake up and smell the coffee before they vote in November. Unfortunately even if not re-elected as a lame duck President Obama can still do harm. What he can do when no longer fettered by an election in the future in 4 years is horrible to imagine. Obama has been very consistent. Jews, before the election, should read Dennis Prager's new book "Still the Best Hope" which outlines the differences between American values and goals, and Leftist values and goals. Individuals can write the White House as I did. She advised the White House to liberate themselves from Jewish Americans involved in the political process. Apparently Pres Obama is taking her advice, and basically sending the message to the Jewish community "Go to hell, we don't need you." n