Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Samantha Power

"Being  a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child molester" ~Caitlin Johnstone

News Pro-War Neoliberal Democrats as Vichy Left Recommended Links New American Militarism American Exceptionalism Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA
"F*ck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton Demonization of Putin Anti Trump Hysteria The Great Democratic Party Betrayal: Pro-War Democrats as Vichy Left Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak
Wolfowitz Doctrine Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Nation under attack meme Neocons Credibility Scam Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Obama: a yet another Neocon
War is Racket Media-Military-Industrial Complex Merkel as Soft Cop in Neocon Offensive on Eastern Europe and Russia Madeleine Albright Samantha Power Susan Rice
Robert Kagan Anatol Leiven on American Messianism National Security State / Surveillance State Predator state National Socialism and Military Keysianism Roots of Reaganolatry 
Neoliberalism as a New form of Corporatism Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Machiavellism vs Mayberry Machiavellians Gangster Capitalism: The United States and the Globalization of Organized Crime Power abroad rests on justice and decency at home
The Deep State Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Two Party System as polyarchy Neoliberal Propaganda: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few  Leo Strauss and the Neocons
Color revolutions Neoliberal Compradors and lumpenelite From EuroMaidan to EuroAnschluss Hong Cong Color Revolution of 2014 Russian White Revolution of 2011-2012 Conservatives Without Conscience
War is racket War is a Racket - Incredible Essay by General Smedley Butler Media domination strategy Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition Bureaucratic avoidance of responsibility Bureaucratic Collectivism
Fighting Russophobia Neo-fascism Anti-Americanism Torture Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Dec 13, 2019] Women have proven over the centuries that they can be just as bloodthirsty when in power

Dec 13, 2019 | discussion.theguardian.com

Marygoal , 10 Dec 2019 14:03

... Women have proven over the centuries that they can be just as bloodthirsty when in power. Indeed one of them is busy in The Hague as we speak.

[Nov 23, 2019] Fiona Hill a rabid neocon promoting UK foreign policy within the USA government, a book writer of Luke Harding mold, was appointed by Trump in 2017 when Russiagate was in full broom

This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department. Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017). "Miner's daughter tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times. She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard Pipes, Akira Iriye, and Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their native countries.
Nov 23, 2019 | en.wikipedia.org

Impeachment testimony

On October 14, 2019, responding to a subpoena , Hill testified in a closed-door deposition for ten hours before special committees of the United States Congress as part of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump . [9] [10] [11]

Testimony to the House Intelligence Committee by Hill and David Holmes, November 21, 2019 , C-SPAN

She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said. "Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged." [13] In response to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff , Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016] was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud." [

Hill's books include:

[Nov 23, 2019] Testimony to the House Intelligence Committee by Hill and David Holmes

The most interesting part of testimony is that CrowdStrike machinations in case of DNC leak which was artificially turns into Russian hack (and probably not without Crowdstyle server located in Ukraine). As this is connected to Steel which is a hot spot for the UK government was swiped under the carpet.
She actually met with Steele. She was shown Steele dossier before it was published.
Nov 21, 2019 | www.c-span.org

CrowdStrike was mentioned only is passing and was instantly dismissed by rabid neocon Hill. While this was the central issue with Zelensky administration.

All questioning was about semi-senile Biden, who is probably the most favorable contender on Democratic side for Trump.

[Oct 08, 2019] To [Samantha Power] applies Scott Fitzgerald's often cited comment. Once Biden is back in power, all these people will come back from the cold rain the bombs on the globally deplorables.

Notable quotes:
"... "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ." ..."
"... I have not always been a pacifist, but my view is "liberal internationalism" can never excuse war. ..."
"... Particularly, as US pushed "liberal internationalism" is maintaining a post WW II world order to add to its Degeneracy. ..."
"... They conflate PNAC strategy with US security and anyone not in to military intervention for the PNAC is a traitor. ..."
Oct 08, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , October 03, 2019 at 01:54 PM

https://twitter.com/lilyslynch/status/1179714507406544896

Lily Lynch‏ @lilyslynch

This is what institutional, "humanitarian" power looks like: Fluff pieces in liberal media with zero input from people on the receiving end of your bombs; unchecked power to decide who lives and who dies; and (most of all) never having to answer for it.

https://www.1843magazine.com/upfront/the-1843-interview/running-with-samantha-power

Running with Samantha Power

On a jog through a battlefield, James Astill discusses war and peace with the conscience of the Obama administration

4:07 AM - 3 Oct 2019

anne -> anne... , October 03, 2019 at 01:58 PM

https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/1179715126724907010

Branko Milanovic‏ @BrankoMilan

To [Samantha Power] applies Scott Fitzgerald's often cited comment. Once Biden is back in power, all these people will come back from the cold & rain the bombs on the globally deplorables.

Lily Lynch @lilyslynch

This is what institutional, "humanitarian" power looks like: Fluff pieces in liberal media with zero input from people on the receiving end of your bombs; unchecked power to decide who lives and who dies; and (most of all) never having to answer for it.

https://www.1843magazine.com/upfront/the-1843-interview/running-with-samantha-power

4:09 AM - 3 Oct 2019

anne -> anne... , October 03, 2019 at 02:01 PM

"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ."

-- F. Scott Fitzgerald

kurt -> anne... , October 03, 2019 at 02:24 PM

Love this quote.

ilsm -> kurt... , October 03, 2019 at 02:40 PM

Yeah, it is how I view post modern liberals!

anne -> anne... , October 03, 2019 at 02:03 PM

https://www.1843magazine.com/upfront/the-1843-interview/running-with-samantha-power

Running with Samantha Power

On a jog through a battlefield, James Astill discusses war and peace with the conscience of the Obama administration

[ Degeneracy. ]

ilsm -> anne... , October 03, 2019 at 02:38 PM

"liberal internationalism in Obama's cabinet. That made her [Powers] a target for his critics. Her openness to military intervention – she was against [W Bush?] it in Iraq but for it in Libya – drew flak from the left."

How can a supposed liberal [Obama was not a liberal in a traditional sense, maybe post modern?] favor military intervention?

Does it involve ignoring "state run industrial age mass murder"?

Does it see a rationalized outcome to justify state mass murder?

I think post modern morality goes more towards the means don't matter much less the end--- see Libya!

I have not always been a pacifist, but my view is "liberal internationalism" can never excuse war.

Particularly, as US pushed "liberal internationalism" is maintaining a post WW II world order to add to its Degeneracy.

ilsm -> ilsm... , October 03, 2019 at 04:25 PM

I can answer this:

"How can a supposed liberal [Obama was not a liberal in a traditional sense, maybe post modern?] favor military intervention?"

Democrats who "worry" about "national security" are Clinton/Kerry project for a new American century (PNAC) accolades!

They conflate PNAC strategy with US security and anyone not in to military intervention for the PNAC is a traitor.

The cover for PNAC expanding spheres is "liberal internationalism"!

A great confidence game!

Why democrats call Trump a "traitor" he is not loyal to the neocon agenda.

im1dc -> anne... , October 03, 2019 at 04:43 PM

Updating F. Scott Fitzgerald

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLiOVmzYNGA

"Life in the Fast Lane" Eagles

(2013 Remaster)

[Sep 18, 2019] The Obama Administration Destroyed Libya. Could Trump Make It Worse? by Ted Galen Carpenter

Notable quotes:
"... The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government -- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area. President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in April with Haftar and appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's stance. ..."
"... One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In her new book, The Education of an Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed, flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison correctly excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?" ..."
"... Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling! ..."
"... I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians. ..."
Sep 16, 2019 | nationalinterest.org

The United States cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials can't seem to decide which faction they want to back.

The Western-created disaster in Libya continues to grow worse. Fighting between Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar's so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) and the even more misnamed Government of National Accord (GNA) has intensified in and around Tripoli. The LNA boasted on September 11 that its forces had routed troops of the Sarraj militia, a GNA ally, killing about two hundred of them. That total may be exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the situation has become increasingly violent and chaotic in Tripoli and other portions of Libya, with innocent civilians bearing the brunt of the suffering.

An article in Bloomberg News provides a succinct account of the poisonous fruits of the U.S.-led "humanitarian" military intervention in 2011. "Libya is enduring its worst violence since the 2011 NATO-backed ouster of Muammar el-Qaddafi, which ushered in years of instability that allowed Islamist radicals to thrive and turned the country into a hub for migrants destined to Europe. Haftar had launched the war as the United Nations was laying the ground for a political conference to unite the country. It is now more divided than ever." The country has become the plaything not only of rival domestic factions but major Middle East powers , including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Those regimes are waging a ruthless geopolitical competition, providing arms and in some cases even launching airstrikes on behalf of their preferred clients.

The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government -- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area. President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in April with Haftar and appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's stance.

Given the appalling aftermath of the original U.S.-led intervention, one might hope that advocates of an activist policy would be chastened and back away from further meddling in that unfortunate country. Yet, that is not the case. Neither the Trump administration nor the humanitarian crusaders in Barack Obama's administration who caused the calamity in the first place seem inclined to advocate a more cautious, restrained U.S. policy.

One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In her new book, The Education of an Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed, flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison correctly excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?"

The answer to Larison's rhetorical question is "extraordinarily arrogant." It is not as though prudent foreign-policy experts didn't warn Power and her colleagues about the probable consequences of intervening in a volatile, fragile country like Libya. Indeed, as Robert Gates, Obama's secretary of defense, confirms in his memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , the Obama administration itself was deeply divided about the advisability of intervention. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Vice President Joe Biden, and Gates were opposed. Among the most outspoken proponents of action were Power and her mentor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gates notes further that Obama was deeply torn, later telling his secretary of defense that the decision was a "51 to 49" call.

The existence of a sharp internal division is sufficient evidence by itself that Power's attempt to absolve herself and other humanitarian crusaders of responsibility for the subsequent tragedy is without merit. Indeed, it has even less credibility than Pontius Pilate's infamous effort to evade guilt. They were warned of the probable outcome, yet they chose to disregard those warnings.

Power, Clinton, Obama and other proponents of ousting Qaddafi turned Libya into a chaotic Somalia on the Mediterranean, and the blood of innocents shed since 2011 is on their hands. Given the stark split within the president's national security team, the Libya intervention was especially reckless and unjustified. The default option in such a case should have been against intervention, not plunging ahead.

The Trump administration should learn from the blunders of its predecessor and resist any temptation to meddle further. America does not have a dog in the ongoing fight between Haftar and the GNA, and we should simply accept whatever outcome emerges. Washington's arrogant interference has caused enough suffering in Libya already.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest , is the author of thirteen books and more than eight hundred articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur .


Druid 7 hours ago ,

The outcome in Libya is what the intent was - chaos, per the Yinon plan. The side effect of mass immigration to Europe was warned by Gaddafi! All was known, yet the destabilization war continued.

npbinni 8 hours ago ,

Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling!

dieter heymann 13 hours ago ,

Libya was and still is the case of a civil war into which foreign powers have intervened. The major parties of that war have always been the Tripolitanian West and the Cyrenaican East. Whoever is on top considers the others to be the rebels. That is how the demise of Qaddafi began. For him Benghazi was the rebel's nest which needed some cleaning. Nothing has changed. Haftar is the new Qaddafi.

I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians.

Mark Thomason a day ago ,

You can always make things worse. It is one thing that Trump and friends are good at.

They don't consider that a criticism either, since they want what the rest of us consider worse -- more war, more enemies, more inequality in outcomes at home, more desperation at home giving more power to the haves over the have-nots.

redeemed626 2 days ago • edited ,

Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book" is a timeless classic that still applies to articles produced for electronic consumption. One of Adler's primary admonitions was to consider the author's expertise, credibility, and potential biases. With regard to this article, scrolling down to the end reveals the author's association with the Koch Brother financed Cato Institute. The Koch Brothers and their money have done more to destroy American democracy than any foreign tyrant or Presidential folly.

And oh, by the way, what did the Neocons and the Vulcans of the W Administration do to the entire Middle East other than create a contiguous geographic belt of Iranian Shiite influence from Tehran to Beirut?

[Sep 06, 2019] The Fog of Intervention

Sep 06, 2019 | newrepublic.com

Samantha Power did not set out to justify war. By Daniel Bessner

September 4, 2019
Add to Pocket Subscribe

https://audm.herokuapp.com/player-embed/?pub=newrepublic&articleID=fog-intervention

Let's say it's January 2021 , and President Bernie Sanders has just assumed office. On his second day as commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in world history, Bernie and his foreign policy team are ushered into the White House Situation Room. After being seated at a long wooden table, a group of diplomats and military officers informs Bernie that armed militants in the Central African Republic have placed artillery around a town and are threatening to bombard its 10,000 inhabitants. The townspeople have requested that the United States destroy the weapons and save their lives. What should Bernie do?

For Samantha Power , who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during Barack Obama's second term, this really is no question at all: You eliminate the weapons. Power has dedicated her life to promoting humanitarian intervention -- the idea that the United States, as the world's "indispensable nation," has the moral duty to use its awesome military capabilities to prevent or halt atrocities. First as a war reporter covering the Balkans in the 1990s, then as the Pulitzer Prize–winning author of " A Problem From Hell": America and the Age of Genocide , and finally as a government official herself, Power has insisted that the "responsibility to protect" innocents from slaughter is sacrosanct, even if it means U.S. military adventurism or violating foreign nations' sovereignty. When civilians are threatened, Power believes we must save them.

THE EDUCATION OF AN IDEALIST: A MEMOIR by Samantha Power Dey Street Books, 592 pp., $29.99

For this position, she has been both praised and lambasted. Power's supporters see her as a moral beacon in a world focused on power politics at the expense of human rights. In the last two decades, she has shaped the way a generation of liberal analysts and policymakers understand international relations and their role within it: Barack Obama has called her "one of our foremost thinkers on foreign policy," while Ben Rhodes has said she was "who I wanted to become when I moved down to Washington." Meanwhile, critics like the law professor Aziz Rana understand her as an unreconstructed "war hawk," who employs the discourse of human rights to mask American imperialism. For them, Power embodies the contradictions of liberal geopolitics, in which lofty rhetoric is used to justify military action in regions where the United States has at best tangential interests.

Power's memoir arrives at a time when she and her approach have fallen from favor -- both with the current administration, which has adopted a nakedly transactional approach to foreign affairs, and with left-wing foreign policy thinkers, who want to dismantle U.S. military dominance. Against these tides, Power's new book seems intended to rehabilitate both her agenda and her own reputation, as she narrates in vivid and engaging prose her rapid rise to some of the most influential positions in U.S. foreign policy-making. It's the story of a sympathetic protagonist just trying to save innocent lives -- yet one that inadvertently demonstrates the lethality of good intentions. The most startling thing about a book titled The Education of an Idealist is that Power appears not to have learned very much.


Power's early years exemplified the peripatetic privilege of the global bourgeoisie. She was born in Ireland in 1970, the daughter of a doctor mother and a dentist father. In 1979, after her father's alcoholism destroyed her parents' marriage, Power's mother moved with Samantha and her brother to the United States. Power quickly acclimated to American life; she lost her Irish accent, began a lifelong love affair with baseball, and started on her high school's basketball team. She also studied hard for the SAT, and in 1988 was accepted to Yale University.

During Power's sophomore year, the Berlin Wall came down, the Cold War ended, and she became a political junkie who quizzed herself on the news of the day. In the summer of 1990, she took a trip to Europe that would transform her life. Power began her journey with a visit to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. Walking through the bleak Secret Annex drove home to Power "the horror of Hitler's crimes," and after her visit she started to keep a list of books she wanted to read on "what U.S. officials knew about the Holocaust and what they could have done to save more Jews." Soon after, she traveled to Dachau, where she "wondered aloud what the modern world would look like if President Roosevelt had not finally entered the war." (Ignoring, naturally, the Soviet Union's role in ending World War II, and that it was the Red Army that liberated Auschwitz.)

Power's trip persuaded her that U.S. military force could legitimately be used to save innocent lives. The Holocaust became for her the moral justification for American empire in an era in which the United States no longer faced any perceived existential threats. Power concluded that if the United States didn't rule the world, genocide was inevitable, and for the remainder of her career she would view atrocities in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East through the prism of the Holocaust: After all, if the U.S. military had liberated victims of genocide in the 1940s, why couldn't it do the same in the 1990s , 2000s , and 2010s ?

If the U.S. military had liberated victims of genocide in the 1940s, why couldn't it do the same in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s?

The timing of Power's trip was also crucial for her intellectual development. Before the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, it was difficult to argue that the U.S. military could serve as a neutral arbiter of human rights. Not only was the nation engaged in an avowedly political struggle with an existential communist enemy, but the Vietnam War and several other failed interventions underlined the dangers of using military force for ideological ends. Communism's collapse made it possible for Power to imagine the U.S. military as a nonideological guarantor of broadly accepted human rights. The empire could act for humanity, not politics. For Power -- and for many in her generation -- the U.S. military was the base upon which the liberal international order of free markets, democracy, and human rights would be constructed.


By her senior year at Yale, Power had determined that she "wanted to end up in a position to 'do something'" about humanitarian crises. After graduating, she interned at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where Mort Abramowitz, the endowment's president and a former ambassador to Turkey, was turning his attention to the incipient Bosnian War. The more Power learned about the conflict and its atrocities, "the more unnerved" she became. The war, she writes, provided her with "a focus -- a specific group of people in a specific place who were being pulverized." To publicize their suffering, she decided to become a war reporter , and in late 1993 she moved to the Balkans, armed with little more than a laptop. Power was in Zagreb, Croatia, when on February 5, 1994, Bosnian Serbs mortared the Markale market in Sarajevo, killing 68 civilians. As she watched news footage of "market vendors carrying away the bloodied remains of their mutilated friends," she found herself "rooting for the first time in [her] life for the United States to use military force." She spent the next year and a half writing pieces on civilian suffering that she hoped would engender a domestic outcry and convince President Bill Clinton to forcibly end the siege of Sarajevo.

As time went on and Clinton refused to intervene (the U.S.-led NATO Operation Deliberate Force would not commence until August 1995), Power began to consider a new track that was "less about describing events and more about directly trying to shape them." The decisive moment came in July 1995, when she learned that the Bosnian Serb army murdered more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. The sheer brutality of the genocide compelled Power to take up a place at Harvard Law School (she had applied and been accepted earlier that year), with the intention of becoming a prosecutor "who could bring murderers to justice."

At Harvard, Power returned to the question that had haunted her at the Anne Frank House and Dachau: Don't Americans, as citizens of the world's greatest power, have a personal responsibility to save lives if we have the capacity to do so? She enrolled in a class on the ethics of using force and, most important for her future career, she wrote a paper that examined "what U.S. policymakers themselves were thinking" when they failed to respond to twentieth-century genocides. This paper was her first step toward her 2002 book "A Problem From Hell," which codified a decade of liberal thinking about humanitarian intervention, and which transformed Power into an internationally renowned expert on human rights and genocide prevention.

"A Problem From Hell" had two main arguments. First, it claimed that throughout the twentieth century "the United States has consistently refused to take risks in order to suppress genocide" and, by not acting, had failed the people of Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, among other places. Second, the book maintained that in the future, U.S. decision-makers should take steps to prevent or halt atrocities along "a continuum of intervention" that would range "from condemning the perpetrators or cutting off U.S. aid to bombing or rallying a multinational invasion force." Power did not, as many critics later avowed, unthinkingly advocate military intervention; rather, she considered intervention as the final in a series of graduated steps intended to avert or stop genocide. But as Power herself would soon learn, when Americans were presented with the hammer of military force, many atrocities began to look like nails.

Power's book was perfectly primed for the post-9/11 moment, during which the question on many Americans' minds was not whether the United States should remake the world, but how. "A Problem From Hell" quickly became a cudgel in the debate over invading Iraq; as Power notes, several pundits clamoring for war invoked her book, arguing that the 1980s Iraqi campaign of genocide against the Kurds gave the United States a casus belli. Even though Power herself opposed the invasion, the writers who referenced "A Problem From Hell" were not exactly misreading the book: Power had placed U.S. military intervention on the menu of options available to policymakers who said they wanted to protect human rights.

In a moment defined by paranoia, revenge fantasies, and a sense of moral crusade, it is not particularly surprising that "A Problem From Hell" was employed to rationalize war. The book's relevance at the time, in fact, helps explain why it won the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction in April 2003, one month after the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq.

Samantha Power in 2013 at an International Civil Society event with Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Adviser Susan Rice Jin Lee/Bloomberg/Getty

With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, Power got the chance to use her ideas to shape U.S. policy more directly. Obama and Power first met in the spring of 2005, when Obama was an ambitious junior senator from Illinois. They worked together for a year (Power volunteered to serve in his office), and when Obama won the Democratic primary in 2008, he hired her as a foreign policy adviser, later appointing her to the National Security Council as senior director for multilateral affairs and senior director for human rights.

In government, Power swiftly learned that few officials cared about human rights; many, in fact, deemed them a distraction from more important issues of power politics. Nevertheless, while at the NSC, Power helped expand by $50 million U.S. aid to Iraqi refugees, increased the number of Iraqis allowed to resettle in the United States, and doubled the government's refugee stipend. She also advocated for the United States to run for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council , which it won in 2009. From this perch, U.S. officials spurred a number of resolutions focused on revealing human rights abuses in various nations, including Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea. Moreover, Power proudly emphasizes, the United States "succeeded in getting the Human Rights Council to reduce by half the share of country-specific resolutions on Israel."

As this last comment indicates, for Power, protecting human rights means disciplining nations of the Global South that are not U.S. allies. Throughout The Education of an Idealist , she barely mentions Israel or Saudi Arabia -- she says nothing about Israel's occupation of the West Bank or the Saudi war on women and LGBTQI+ people. These silences are deafening, because the type of world Power wants to build will never be realized if only certain countries -- namely, those that stand outside America's imperial sphere -- are held to account. Her approach does not make much sense from a pragmatic perspective either: U.S. officials have the highest likelihood of ending human rights abuses in countries that depend on us; there is little point in spending political capital in a mostly quixotic attempt to transform antagonists like North Korea.

Meanwhile, Power completely ignores the human rights violations that took place in her own country under Obama's watch; like many liberal interventionists, she is far more vexed by suffering abroad. Nowhere does she address police violence against African Americans, mass surveillance , refugee detention , or mass incarceration . Nor does she give much thought to the colonial violence that defines American history: In The Education of an Idealist , she recalls inviting a Serbian official to meet with her in the so-called Indian Treaty Room, where she lectured him on the importance of apprehending the war criminal Ratko Mladić. Somehow, Power overlooks the irony of championing justice in a room named for repeatedly broken treaties that the U.S. government made with the native population against which it committed genocide.

Power's most consequential decision during Obama's first term displayed a shortsightedness that has often accompanied her faith in U.S. military power. With the outbreak of civil war in Libya, Power began to advocate vociferously in favor of intervention to stop a potential massacre at Benghazi. In particular, during a March 15, 2011, meeting, Power endorsed U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's proposal to establish a no-fly zone over Libya and attack Muammar Qaddafi's forces. Obama approved Rice's plan, and on March 19, a U.S.-led NATO coalition began bombing Libya , initiating a process that concluded with Qaddafi's death. Despite the war's expansion and the chaos that ensued, Power remains proud of her contribution. For her, "once the revolution spread, the real question became how to use the tools at our disposal to bring about the best possible -- or the least bad -- outcome."

But was that the real question? Here are some other questions that are equally important and that she should have taken more seriously before Obama commenced Operation Odyssey Dawn: Is the war likely to expand? If the war expands and Qaddafi is deposed, who will govern Libya? Is the United States -- especially the American public -- willing to commit itself to reconstruction efforts? What precedent does the intervention potentially set? Power never really asked these questions, because ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian intervention a categorical imperative (as long as it doesn't involve U.S. allies, of course). For this reason, throughout her time in office Power regularly encouraged war.


In Obama's second term, Power left the NSC to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In this position, she won many admirable victories: She aided in establishing a U.N. post dedicated to monitoring global LGBT rights; brought countries together to end the deadly Ebola outbreak of 2014; and promoted a resolution that demanded the United Nations deport any peacekeeping units from countries in which U.N. soldiers were reported to have committed sexual assault.

Yet it was also during Obama's second term that Power found herself less able to convince the president of the moral necessity of intervention. In her memoir, she relates that when she first learned that Bashar al-Assad's government had employed chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, she hoped "Obama would respond forcefully" and was disappointed when he didn't. Nevertheless, in August 2013, Power was heartened to discover that Obama intended to answer the Syrian government's murder of 1,400 people in a chemical weapons attack with airstrikes of military targets.

Power's expectations, however, were dashed when she was informed that Obama had decided to seek congressional authorization for the airstrikes. "What happens if Congress doesn't support you?" she asked the president. "Does that mean Assad could just keep using chemical weapons?" In the end, Obama determined that Congress would rebuff his plan and chose not to go ahead with a vote; against Power's wishes, he also refused to intervene. Instead, the president accepted Russia's offer to work together to disable Assad's chemical weapons program. For her part, Power "shuddered at the inadequacy of the effort" to decrease Assad's stockpile, despite the fact that U.S.-Russian collaboration provided an opportunity to build the trust necessary to reach a political resolution of the conflict.

Power's recollection of the Syria debate highlights her meritocratic skepticism of democratic politics. She writes that she "regretted that our administration had not ascertained whether we had the votes before the President announced he was going to Congress. Had he known he would fail, [she] did not believe he would have chosen the path he did." Power, in other words, wanted Congress to rubber-stamp Obama's decision to intervene; she wasn't interested in having a real public discussion about the potential benefits and drawbacks of using military force. In fact, Power has the temerity to express disappointment with the U.S. public for refusing to support intervention. Most Americans, she laments, "wanted no part of Syria. The student activists, civic groups, churches, mosques, and synagogues that had come out en masse to demand help for the people of Darfur [where in the mid-2000s a genocide erupted] were largely silent." Such a statement evinces the privilege of an individual who has no reason to fear the effects another Middle Eastern intervention might have on her own family -- or on the people of the Middle East.


The assumption running through Power's career is that the American empire is able to act as a force for good in the world. At her memoir's end -- and in the wake of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria -- she affirms that "on issue after issue, either the United States brought a game plan to the table or else the problem worsened." Though this might be true in some cases, it is certainly not the rule, especially when one considers the disastrous effects of the nation's wars in the Greater Middle East; its pointless antagonism of China, Russia, and Iran; its unwillingness to take the business-unfriendly steps required to arrest climate change; and its unhesitating promotion of a capitalist system that has exploited the labor of untold millions. The last several decades have taught us that the world needs far less American "leadership" than it has enjoyed.

If you accept Power's premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely philosophical inquiry: Is it right to save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a thought experiment; it takes place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical uncertainty. Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all.

Simply maintaining an enormous military able to intervene anywhere in the world carries its own set of malign consequences: endless wars, global arms proliferation, a militaristic political culture, the diversion of resources from welfare to weapons, and the strengthening of the military-industrial complex, to name just a few. The Education of an Idealist does not account for these social ills, or consider that the only way we can avoid them is by giving up the capacities that enable us (theoretically, if not in practice) to alleviate foreign suffering.

The historian Samuel Moyn has warned that we must be careful not to elevate "the narrow and rare problem of when to send the military to help strangers into the decisive one around which the future of American foreign policy revolves." Power's memoir shows how much the discourse of humanitarian intervention obscures. By focusing on the question "Do we save innocent lives?" liberal interventionists like Power shift our attention from an equally important query: "How do we change conditions so lives don't need to be saved?" A world oriented around this last question would look very different from the one we have now. Daniel Bessner is the Pyle Assistant Professor in American Foreign Policy at the University of Washington and author of Democracy in Exile: Hans Speier and the Rise of the Defense Intellectual . @ dbessner

[Sep 04, 2019] Military Intervention Isn t Humanitarian by Daniel Larison

Libya war was a pure oil grab. Pretexts always can be found.
Notable quotes:
"... Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all. ..."
"... The most telling part of Power's career in government was that she served as ambassador to the U.N. at a time when the U.S. was enabling and supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and as part of the administration she had nothing to say about the crimes being committed against Yemeni civilians by coalition forces with U.S. military assistance and weapons. ..."
"... As Bessner notes, she doesn't have much to say about the abuses of U.S. clients in her book. She has been eager to advocate for using force against hostile or pariah regimes when they commit atrocities, but when client states use American weapons to commit the same atrocities while enjoying full U.S. backing Power didn't so much as utter a protest. After she left government and Trump became president, Power criticized U.S. support for the war, but when she was in a position to challenge a monstrous policy from inside the administration she apparently said nothing. ..."
"... And no one with enough intellectual honesty to mention that she was among the greatest enablers of Yemenis' suffering yet before the said "Tyrant" (who might be a tyrant to anyone but her social class) entered the office. Profiles in cowardice, all of them. ..."
Sep 04, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Daniel Bessner has written a very interesting review of Sar's memoir, The Education of an Idealist . Here he focuses on her narrow thinking about "humanitarian" intervention:

If you accept Power's premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely philosophical inquiry: Is it right to save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a thought experiment; it takes place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical uncertainty. Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all.

Can military intervention ever be humanitarian? It may be possible in theory, but as Bessner notes it doesn't work that way in practice. "Humanitarian" interventionists want the wars they support to be judged by their intentions to save lives and not by the results of ensuing chaos, instability, and violence. Taking sides in foreign conflicts inevitably means deciding that our government should end the lives of some people that have done nothing to us because we have concluded that it is the right thing to do. That takes for granted that our government has the right to act as judge and executioner in other people's wars simply because we have the power to affect the outcome. When we think about "humanitarian" intervention this way, we can see that it is driven by the worst kind of arrogant presumption. The first question we should ask is this: what gives us the authority to interfere in another country's internal conflict? We should also ask ourselves what gives us the right to cast aside international law whenever we deem it necessary. Isn't "humanitarian" intervention in practice little more than international armed vigilantism?

The Libyan war is one example of just such a "good" intervention that pretty clearly caused more harm than it prevented. It also violated most of the requirements of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine that was invoked to justify it. Like more than a few other die-hard Libyan war supporters, Power remains convinced that it was the right decision, because she doesn't ask the questions that would force her to confront the harm that the intervention did to Libya and the surrounding region. Bessner comments:

Power never really asked these questions, because ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian intervention a categorical imperative (as long as it doesn't involve U.S. allies, of course).

That last qualification is an important one, and it gets at the heart of what is wrong with "humanitarian" interventionism in the U.S. and the West. If a government is considered to be on "our" side, it can commit war crimes with impunity, devastate whole countries, and starve tens of millions of people, and the most vocal "humanitarian" interventionists will usually have nothing to say about it. I have remarked on several occasions that "humanitarian" interventionists just ignored the catastrophe in Yemen despite the fact that it was the world's worst man-made humanitarian disaster, and it has only been in the last year or two that any of them have spoken up about it now that it is Trump's policy.

The most telling part of Power's career in government was that she served as ambassador to the U.N. at a time when the U.S. was enabling and supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, and as part of the administration she had nothing to say about the crimes being committed against Yemeni civilians by coalition forces with U.S. military assistance and weapons.

As Bessner notes, she doesn't have much to say about the abuses of U.S. clients in her book. She has been eager to advocate for using force against hostile or pariah regimes when they commit atrocities, but when client states use American weapons to commit the same atrocities while enjoying full U.S. backing Power didn't so much as utter a protest. After she left government and Trump became president, Power criticized U.S. support for the war, but when she was in a position to challenge a monstrous policy from inside the administration she apparently said nothing.

Bessner observes that railing against hostile and pariah states while letting clients off the hook makes no sense if the goal is to minimize the harm to civilians:

Her approach does not make much sense from a pragmatic perspective either: U.S. officials have the highest likelihood of ending human rights abuses in countries that depend on us; there is little point in spending political capital in a mostly quixotic attempt to transform antagonists like North Korea.

Of course, it is much safer politically to denounce the states with which our government has no ties or influence, and it is much easier to remain silent about the crimes of client states that have significant clout in Washington. The point here is not just that Power failed her own test when she served in government, but that the impulse to intervene on "humanitarian" grounds amounts to agitating for war against certain governments while giving U.S. clients a free pass to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with our government's blessing.

Alex (the one that likes Ike) 5 hours ago

There's yet one more reason to why she wasn't saying anything about Yemen when in office beside the one that it were her guys who directed that war then. Perhaps less phony, but, I'd rather say, more tragic. It's much easier to criticize someone for neglecting his duties than not to neglect those duties when you've got them yourself.

I almost see those lemmings on her Twitter chirping: 'Oh, you're so brave, you're standing up to the Terrible Orange Tyrant.' (Not that the "Tyrant" was even aware that she's standing up to him).

And no one with enough intellectual honesty to mention that she was among the greatest enablers of Yemenis' suffering yet before the said "Tyrant" (who might be a tyrant to anyone but her social class) entered the office. Profiles in cowardice, all of them.

[Feb 06, 2019] Female neocons are actually worse then man neocons.

Feb 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

istt , 3 minutes ago link

This is one of the things I find so disingenuous about the Jews. On the one hand, they claim they are always the victims. On the other, they claim they are superior intellectually. They are a money cult and they promote one another shamelessly. And yet they have the balls to talk about white privilege. Talk about a red herring. My God.

But I digress...

istt , 8 minutes ago link

And to think this woman writes for one of the most prestigious papers in the world. Or at least it was... What a total crap the NYT has become.

[Jan 22, 2019] Something about female chickenhawks: they probably perceived that only males could be doves. A total lack of integrity.

Jan 22, 2019 | www.theguardian.com

Haigin88 -> Tom J. Davis Clinton's Iraq war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China, she probably perceived that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from Clinton.

Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college; her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think ,

Clinton's Iraq war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China, she probably perceived that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from Clinton.

Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college; her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think

[Apr 11, 2018] Samantha Power Liberal War Hawk by Robert Parry

There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
"... Ukraina po-nad u-se! ..."
Jun 15, 2015 | consortiumnews.com

32 Comments

Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.

Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having written about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.

Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.

Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.

Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed " the weaponization of human rights. "

We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was rather mealy-mouthed in her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.

For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day.

Power in Power

Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups.

Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered.

The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians. It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.

Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith predicted "the next genocide in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.

Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.

Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.

A Propaganda Speech

Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."

Despite the key role of neo-Nazis acknowledged even by the U.S. House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.

Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February 2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's destabilizing actions in your country."

Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and the message you heard from President Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.

"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.

"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]

Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.

"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in order to topple a democratically-elected government."

Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to "midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]

The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence. Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias, organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.

Inventing 'Facts'

But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:

"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.

"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.

"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled by outsiders.

"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers. Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "

Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.

"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.

"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women, including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.

"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.

"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled by the separatists."

One-Sided Account

Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence, but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."

Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]

Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014, burning alive scores of ethnic Russians while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.

Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.

Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism operation."

Use of Propaganda

In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's " How Reagan Promoted Genocide ."]

Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the "bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians.

During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."

Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom a chastened Obama invited to a White House lunch last year).

But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.

The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.

That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom. And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."

There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.

Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.

Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.

Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here .


incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm

It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands of time' to save their victims from more misery.

Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm

These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.

Debbie Menon , June 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm

I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.

X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and have only resulted in financial ruin,

NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the United States to dissolve the alliance.

X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism, has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.

Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.

The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.

X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.

The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.

MikeH , June 16, 2015 at 7:12 pm

I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.

One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review, which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.

There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth Ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiKsKy7lFw

Anonymous , June 20, 2015 at 10:23 pm

There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called "liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system. These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in the past and as they do now.

michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm

If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!

hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm

Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.

That's all one really needs to know.

Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and is therefore target of blackmail.

Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm

and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale and Harvard.

dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.

Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm

. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened, and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be deterred or stopped.

Debbie Menon , June 19, 2015 at 12:33 am

In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian Empire.

It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.

The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.

I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.

I just pray that we are both wrong.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.

The Ambassador from Hell returns to the scene of the crime:
Remarks at the October Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine (June 11, 2015)
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/243583.htm

“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€

The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.

Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm

There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!

F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm

I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history. That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats" has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled, those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall? If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm

She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.

Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm

All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties -- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth and (abusive) power accumulation.

The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.

Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm

Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.

While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm

As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.

Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights
by Chase Madar
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/09/10/samantha-power-and-the-weaponization-of-human-rights/

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:04 am

Thank you for this important reference.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:58 pm

Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent, hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?

A Diplomat From Hell: Samantha Power and The Quest For Eternal War
By Michael Smith
http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2013/06/samantha-power-and-imperial-delusion.html

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 12:14 am

The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are presented as the perpetrators of war.

The Globalization of War
By Michel Chossudovsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=74&v=34j2Rf-IvJQ

onno , June 16, 2015 at 5:35 am

It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty profits.

Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have suffered too much in the past.

It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating 'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons. And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!

Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am

DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT

Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.

"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.

Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.

-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am

She's like John Bolton in drag.

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm

She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism

"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.†-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online

"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am

What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives are worth allowing.

Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am

Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy. It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."

There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.

She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.

That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm

Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers "

The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:

Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.

Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned, and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.

He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article 111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.

Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional coup.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140321165941/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20140405140914/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30130.html

cathy , June 22, 2015 at 1:29 am

All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.

Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you, or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks like it will be sooner than expected, too.

hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm

The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little girls on Big Wheels.

Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm

These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.

Debbie Menon , June 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm

I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.

X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and have only resulted in financial ruin,

NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the United States to dissolve the alliance.

X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism, has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.

Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.

The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.

X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.

The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.

MikeH , June 16, 2015 at 7:12 pm

I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.

One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review, which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.

There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth Ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tiKsKy7lFw

Anonymous , June 20, 2015 at 10:23 pm

There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called "liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system. These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in the past and as they do now.

michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm

If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!

hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm

Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.

That's all one really needs to know.

Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm

Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and is therefore target of blackmail.

Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm

and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale and Harvard.

dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.

Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm

. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened, and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be deterred or stopped.

Debbie Menon , June 19, 2015 at 12:33 am

In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian Empire.

It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.

The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.

I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.

I just pray that we are both wrong.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm

Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.

The Ambassador from Hell returns to the scene of the crime:
Remarks at the October Palace in Kyiv, Ukraine (June 11, 2015)
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/243583.htm

“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€

The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.

Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm

There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!

F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm

I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history. That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats" has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled, those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall? If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm

She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.

Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm

All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties -- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth and (abusive) power accumulation.

The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.

Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm

Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.

While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm

As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.

Samantha Power and the Weaponization of Human Rights
by Chase Madar
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/09/10/samantha-power-and-the-weaponization-of-human-rights/

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:04 am

Thank you for this important reference.

Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:58 pm

Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent, hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?

A Diplomat From Hell: Samantha Power and The Quest For Eternal War
By Michael Smith
http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2013/06/samantha-power-and-imperial-delusion.html

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 12:14 am

The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are presented as the perpetrators of war.

The Globalization of War
By Michel Chossudovsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=74&v=34j2Rf-IvJQ

onno , June 16, 2015 at 5:35 am

It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty profits.

Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have suffered too much in the past.

It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating 'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons. And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!

Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am

DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT

Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.

"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.

Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.

-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am

She's like John Bolton in drag.

Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm

She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.

Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism

"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.†-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online

"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference

ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am

What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives are worth allowing.

Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am

Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy. It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm

Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."

There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.

She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.

That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".

Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm

Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers "

The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:

Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.

Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned, and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.

He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article 111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.

Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional coup.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140321165941/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter05.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20140405140914/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30130.html

cathy , June 22, 2015 at 1:29 am

All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.

Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you, or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks like it will be sooner than expected, too.

hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm

The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little girls on Big Wheels.

[Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

Highly recommended!
This is US specific bank of chickenhawks, who feed from MIC cramps. this breed is really entrenched in State Department too (Madeleine Albright, Nuland, Powell, Haley, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria! ..."
"... It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names? ..."
Apr 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Art , Next New Comment April 11, 2018 at 11:18 pm GMT

War and peace! About 75% of the on-air personalities on Fox Jews are women. Do any of them have a peaceful brain cell – it appears not. They are all 100% on message – bomb Syria!

It is feminism gone mad – the traditional female role of hope for peace has been extinguished in America. How sad – how unnatural – how dangerous – how bloody – dare we call them names?

Think Peace -- Art

annamaria , Next New Comment April 12, 2018 at 12:02 am GMT
@Art

American female anchors on MSM look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

[Mar 20, 2018] When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services

Notable quotes:
"... in reality -- the security services have the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it. ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against Trump ..."
"... When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America. America will triumph over you. ..."
"... Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan." ..."
Mar 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Kurt Gayle , March 19, 2018 at 9:34 am

Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?

In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie (Martine McCutcheon):

"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? --
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do -- the SAS are absolutely charming -- ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."

It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that -- in reality -- the security services have the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.

Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.

Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against Trump :

" When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America. America will triumph over you. "

Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this: "Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."

When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.

After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.

Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?

[Aug 19, 2015] Undiplomatic power

Samantha Power favors aimless, unfocused interventionism. Like anticommunists during the Cold War that couldn't recognize divisions that existed between different communist states, neocons today go out of their way to to promote "might is right" theory and instead of using ignore the differences and hostility among different religious and sectarian rivals favor brute force solution (with bombing as a favorite component). They display real lust to fritter away America's resources on unending conflicts.
"... She married Cass Sunstein, ... Power is a promoter of Sunstein's values..."
"...There were John Kerry's Angels.. Jen Psaki, Victoria Nuland, Marie Harp and Samantha Power... Only women were chosen to tell lies.. When I watched them on TV, I always thought that Halloween came earlier.. "
Aug 19, 2015 | RT - CrossTalk

How should we assess the behavior of Samantha Power, Washington's top diplomat at the United Nations? Called by some a "foremost scholar on genocide," Power is quick to back the use of military power in the service of so-called humanitarian goals. She is also fond of using the word 'outrage' – what does this tell us about her?
CrossTalking with Daniel McAdams, Scott Rickard, and Patrick Smith.

Seán Murphy

Jörg Lissenden

Yes, amazing! No wonder the turnout at the last free and fair democratic election (as reported internationally, but not inthe USA) resulted in an overwhelming majority vote in favour of Basher Al Assad. Funny old world isn't it...
Christians, Yazidis, Sunni and Shia, atheist and possibly even the odd Jew, all voting for this terrible tyrant!

Funny old world, isn't it. When the USAs favourite "tyrant dictator" turns out to have been elected overwhelmingly by his people. But John Kerry says he has to go-- he has no place in his own country, elected or not.


Seán Murphy

Tim Moore

Samantha Power, born in Dublin, Ireland. Probably raised an Irish Catholic. Looks Irish; looks Catholic; married in a
Catholic church. But that's where perception ends, and reality takes over. She married Cass Sunstein, a man who, to say the least, is not Catholic. Power is a promoter of Sunstein's values, not those of her progenitors. She's given them up. She promotes the ra4bbis in her husband's ancestry, not the Catholics in her own. She's the perfect foil for the dark designs of her husband' people. Sunstein is Power's alter ego.

Thanks for that info. Didn't know Power was born here in Dublin. We in Dublin have a lot to answer for!

Antoni Jaromin

There were John Kerry's Angels.. Jen Psaki, Victoria Nuland, Marie Harp and Samantha Power..

Only women were chosen to tell lies.. When I watched them on TV, I always thought that Halloween came earlier..

Now Jen is replaced.. but they still telling lie after lie..

[Jul 21, 2015] Samantha Power in Kiev, the "great humanitarian" showing off what a psychopath she actually is

yalensis, June 21, 2015 at 5:09 am

Link from Fort Russ:
Samantha Power in Kiev, the "great humanitarian" showing off what a Nazi psychopath she actuallly is.

marknesop , June 21, 2015 at 1:14 pm

Samantha Power could just as easily buck the Ukrainians up by telling them what stout fellows they are for compromising with the east and working their problems out through dialogue rather than clubbing each other to death like seals. It suits Washington's foreign-policy ambitions to tell them what fierce fighters and natural soldiers they are. Washington is ready to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.

[June 15, 2015] Samantha Power Liberal War Hawk By Robert Parry

"...Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland – with Obama in tow – have chosen confrontation and have used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power – along with neocon allies – appears to have prevailed in the struggle over how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.

Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having written about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.

Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" – or "R2P" – she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.

Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.

Power's self-righteous approach to human rights – deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats – is a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed "the weaponization of human rights."

We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was rather mealy-mouthed in her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.

For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show - just nine days before the invasion - Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say."

However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day.

Power in Power

Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups.

Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered.

The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians. It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.

Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions – rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith predicted "the next genocide in the world … will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" - a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.

Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.

Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.

A Propaganda Speech

Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."

Despite the key role of neo-Nazis – acknowledged even by the U.S. House of Representatives – Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.

Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February 2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance – on behalf of the United States – to lay out the mounting evidence of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. … America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's destabilizing actions in your country."

Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict – and the message you heard from President Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 – has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest – then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.

"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.

"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its will on Ukraine. And that is you – the people of Ukraine – and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. … Or, as one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it:Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]

Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.

"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in order to topple a democratically-elected government."

Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations - and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "A Shadow US Foreign Policy."]

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to "midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine – "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Neocons: Masters of Chaos."]

The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence. Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias, organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.

Inventing 'Facts'

But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:

"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.

"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip him of his powers – including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several days, only to eventually reappear – little surprise – in Russia.

"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed to airbrush the Ukrainian people – and their genuine aspirations and demands – out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled by outsiders.

"Yet, as you all know by living through it – and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar – the Maidan was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers. Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. …"

Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.

"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.

"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women, including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military – people who could be helping build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression. …

"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy – as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. … It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv – where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.

"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists – including 625 women and children – and an additional 1,460 people are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled by the separatists."

One-Sided Account

Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians – along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors – suggesting not only a lack of competence, but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."

Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile documentary on this mystery is "Maidan Massacre."]

Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014, burning alive scores of ethnic Russians while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.

Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.

Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism operation."

Use of Propaganda

In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's "How Reagan Promoted Genocide."]

Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the "bad guys" – even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians.

During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."

Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom a chastened Obama invited to a White House lunch last year).

But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.

The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.

That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you … are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom. And if you stand tall together – no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."

There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.

Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland – with Obama in tow – have chosen confrontation and have used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.

Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.

Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth – the ultimate genocide.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

[Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless. Published on Apr 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sites



Etc

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2018 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time and without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.

The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: March, 12, 2020