By now, most Americans have heard that President Obama nominated Samantha Power to become our next Ambassador to the United Nations. Not content with rewarding Susan Rice for mis-leading the American people and making her National Security Adviser, Obama decided to really go for the jugular and nominated a woman who actually called for an American invasion of Israel to force a peace treaty on those stubborn Jews.
Who better to keep the pesky Israelis in check than Ms. Power, a George Soros sponsored statist with a husband who wants to give full legal rights to animals and considers hunting to be genocide. Of course, when her husband, Cass Sunstein, was nominated for his post as Obama’s Regulatory Czar, he conveniently put aside all his previously stated beliefs and promised to enforce Federal law within the limits of the Constitution. We certainly expect his equally principaled spouse to use the same hypocritical strategy for her confirmation hearing.
By nominating Power, the President may finally give Americans a revealing look at his foreign policy and his true intentions toward Israel. Frankly, her nomination should shock and offend anyone who cares about freedom and democracy. Ms. Power is the primary architect of the insane Responsibility to Protect Doctrine that turned Libya into the new headquarters for Al-Qaeda and resulted in the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other brave Americans. Under her guidance as an Obama adviser, the Middle East has become a terrorist playground and she is determined to continue using this misguided doctrine to impose her will wherever and whenever she can convince the President to unleash our military upon nations that pose absolutely no threat to the United States. Its George Bush all over again, all over again.
Long before her recent nomination to become UN Ambassador, Samantha Power made a habit of condemning Israel and accusing the Jewish state of mass murder. Her crowning achievement was her remarkably offensive speech in 2002 in which she accused Israel of genocide against the Palestinians and suggested that the United States should send a massive military force into Israel and impose a peace treaty on the Israelis.
“I actually think in the Palestine-Israeli situation there’s an abundance of information and what we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism. What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line in helping the situation. And 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, really billions of dollars not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine; investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support I think what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old, you know, Srebrenica kind or the 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 we’re seeing there–but you have to go in as if you’re serious. You have to put something on the line. And 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 they’re meant to anyway. And there, it’s essential that the same set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally, politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat.”
“I mean, I do think in that sense that both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible, and unfortunately it does require external intervention which–very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early–any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism, but we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.”
Perhaps Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey had the best opinion on Ms. Power’s suggestion that we invade our closest ally, when he made the following comments in 2008:
“For those who may not catch the reference, Power means the Joooooos. And why would that alienate the Jewishcabalthatsecretlyrunseverything? For one thing, Power wants to spend billions on bolstering Palestinian military strength, instead of spending it on helping the Israelis to defend themselves. Bear in mind that this interview takes place about seven months after 9/11, when people supposedly still knew how dangerous radical Islamist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda were. Power wanted to send them money and stop funding Israeli efforts to fight them.
“Even more ridiculously, Power’s ultimate aim is to send a massive American or Western force into Israel to stop what Power apparently sees as an Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. She specifically states that the force has to be “massive”, not like a Srebrenica- or Bosnia-sized force. Why would it need to be so large? In order to neutralize the Israeli Defense Force, and protect the forces of Fatah and Hamas.”
So now we have this unbelievable Samantha Power fantasy playing out for real. First the new Secretary of State, John Kerry, tries to pressure Israel into accepting a suicidal peace plan without making any mention of the Palestinian’s four years of refusal to negotiate and then he promises to give four billion Yankee dollars to the Palestinians. Less than a week later, the President nominates a woman as UN Ambassador who despises Israel and has actually advocated using American troops to invade Israel. Of course, when she testifies before the Senate, Power will claim she was taken out of context or that her opinions have “evolved” since 2002 and she is now a staunch supporter of Israel. It remains to be seen if the Senate will fall for this nonsense, but if I were a betting man, I would give 10 to 1 odds that Powers will be our next UN Ambassador.
As a parting thought, there may still be hope. As one wise commentator suggested, anti-American and anti-Israeli feelings already run so high at the United Nations that Ms. Power may simply be redundant. One can only hope.
The woman who went on cable news and repeatedly lied about the Benghazi terrorist attack was… promoted? Only in Obama’s America. #forward
— LilMissAuditThis (@LilMissRightie) June 5, 2013
Obama names Israel Invading Advocate, Samantha Power, Ambassador to the UN: Well, Power will fit right in at t… bit.ly/14vOhIw
— Pamela Geller (@Atlasshrugs) June 5, 2013
Who exactly is Samantha Power — Obama’s new U.N. ambassador pick? Everything you need to know theblaze.com/stories/2013/0…
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) June 5, 2013
This article is strictly the opinion of Wolff Bachner and in no way reflects the policies or opinions of The Inquisitr.