Obama’s Dangerous Nomination of Samantha Power

Power’s nomination shows Obama’s antagonism toward Israel. Power, who at one point called for a “mammoth” U.S. invasion of Israel to protect Palestinians from potential genocide, has also called for the end of U.S. aid to Israel in return for creating and investing in a hypothetical Palestinian State.

By Aaron Marcus l July 3, 2013

With the nomination of Samantha Power as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations replacing the infamous Susan Rice, Barack Obama has filled out his second term foreign policy team, and it isn’t pretty. With the appointment of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, to that of John Kerry as Secretary of State, the Obama administration has unsurprisingly failed to appoint a responsible foreign policy team that is willing to promote strong American interests in the Middle East. Samantha Power is a perfect example of the interventionist approach this administration can be expected to take in the international arena, when it suits their ideology.

Samantha Power and Barack Obama have known each other since he sought her out after reading her book entitled “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.” A Problem from Hell was a product of her correspondent years during the Balkans war, for which she received a Pulitzer Prize. Power became a member of Obama’s office staff following his 2004 U.S. Senate election victory and she played a key foreign policy advisory role in his 2008 campaign for the White House against Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. Power’s abrupt resignation then was due to her “off-the-record” remarks against Clinton describing her as a ‘Monster’. She reemerged following Obama’s November 2008 victory subsequently serving on the National Security Council. Moreover, Power was the senior security advisor during the September 11, 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, for which she has yet to answer.

The self-described “genocide chick” can aptly be characterized as pro-Palestinian and pathologically anti-Israel, where she would be willing to: “alienate a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing….billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.” Edward Klein, author of The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, wrote: “Samantha Power’s history of America’s Middle East policy was a complete distortion, but her radical leftwing attitudes were reflected in Obama’s antagonism toward Israel.”

In 2007, Power authored an article for Time magazine entitled “Rethinking Iran” in which she claimed that the threat of a nuclear Iran was nothing more than a fictional creation by the Bush administration. How, as the U.S. representative to the United Nations, is Power supposed to assemble international support for action against Iran, if she believes the threat posed by the Ayatollahs in Tehran is merely a fiction?

Throughout the Obama administration, the President has said one thing and done another. In Obama’s 2009 tour, when soon after his election to the White House beginning with his June speech in Cairo, the president travelled around the world apologizing for the actions of the United States over the previous decade. Instead of strengthening the standing of the United States abroad, Obama bowed his head to international criticism and made the United States an apathetic spectator in the international arena.

Who thought up this idea of apologizing for American actions? That would be Samantha Power, who in 2003 advocated for a “doctrine of mea culpa” to “enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors.” It is absolutely inconceivable that a U.S. “leader” would want the President to return to the hundreds of millions freed from communism, fascism and socialism and tell them “we’re sorry for freeing you from tyranny.” Yet, this is the type of backward thinking preached by the leftist intellectual ideologue that is Samantha Power more than five years before the election of Barack Obama. Knowing that she could never be president herself having been born in Ireland, Power waited for a candidate to embrace her radical world view and found that politician in our current president.

As a result of this leading from behind approach, Power has embraced the radical George Soros funded Responsibility to Protect Initiative known at R2P. As Morgan Norval wrote for this publication in June 2011, “R2P promotes global government and pushes the ‘international community’ to override national borders and use military force to intervene in the invaded nation’s internal affairs.” Instead of emphasizing the need for strong pro-U.S. governments in these countries R2P does nothing but support both militarily and financially nations and people who hate America. This is the case in Libya, Egypt and Syria. In Libya and Egypt an “oppressed” people sought “humanitarian rights” only to take control of the country and oppress others, while ignoring U.S. interests. Now, the Obama administration is attempting to not – so – secretly fund Syrian rebels, effectively aligning the U.S. with Al Qeada in their Jihad against the secular Bashar al-Assad and all non-Muslims, especially the Christian minority, which is being slaughtered without even a whimper from Congress.

Power’s nomination shows Obama’s antagonism toward Israel. Power, who at one point called for a “mammoth” U.S. invasion of Israel to protect Palestinians from potential genocide, has also called for the end of U.S. aid to Israel in return for creating and investing in a hypothetical Palestinian State. This again signals her profound desire to invoke the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, only not against an actual dictatorship but rather the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East.

As the permanent U.S. representative to the United Nations, Power has an obligation to defend against attacks on American values, ideals and way of life. Power would be required to stand up to a body that often chastises American actions and ignores our national interests. Like the interventionist doctrine, R2P, Power is willing to accept international law no matter how intrusive it is of the U.S. Constitution.

Power’s history, however, of challenging U.S. policy in favor of international law proves it will be difficult for her to separate personal opinion from U.S. policy. But perhaps Power will be more at home at the UN in light of her desire to bypass Congress in the Libyan intervention, where all that was required was approval from the UN Security Council and the Arab League. In addition, her readiness to criticize Israel from positions closer to that of a radical Islamist nation than a close ally would be catastrophic in a body like the United Nations that blames Israel for Arab problems on a regular basis. Samantha Power’s radical left-wing views, although compatible with the president’s own views, strain her credibility as a diplomatic proponent of traditional U.S. foreign policy. The Senate should reject her nomination outright as anti-American.

Aaron Marcus is a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.