Power gave this interview in 2002 which although it is a long time ago is very unlikely to have changed her political position.
This throws a new light on the NATO wars in Yugoslavia, then Libya, and now the debka news yesterday that British and US forces are already in Syria and are directing the Sharia forces against Assad.
Video is on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdt6fjdHQw
In this following piece the key words are at the end:
I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.
Note this carefully! This is the centre of all anti-Semitism in the west today. It is the centre of all of Europe and of what Bat Yeor called Euarabia. It is the drawing of equivalence between Israel and the enemies of Israel.
That is where Samantha Power is standing in this interview. An equivalence between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs or the “Palestinians” which when you examine the tern historically is a Lie.
Power is still at the very centre of the Obama government and in every intervention of Obama and mrs Clinton this central theme of equivalence has been present.
But in practice it is not equal at all. In their interventions it was the Serbian communist Milosevic who was the enemy and the Islamofascist Izetbegovic was the friend. It was the same in the case of Ben Ali, Gaghbo, Mubarak and Gadhafi. All were in the acts of war by Obama declared the enemy and their opponents who turned out to be the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists the enemy. Now the Media war is against Assad. But Assad remains a Baathist and a secularist and his opponents are the Salafists.
Nothing really therefore has changed since Power gave this interview.
In 2002 Samantha Power made the above statement, calling for a U.S. military invasion of Israel.
In January 2009 President Obama appointed Samantha Power to the National Security Council, as director for multilateral affairs.
A transcript of the above interview is below:
INTERVIEWER: “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?”
POWER: “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.” I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.”