What we can expect from Samantha Power at the UN

It is almost certain that Samantha Power will be confirmed as the US ambassador to the UN. Philip Giraldi examines carefully her record and the evolution of her views and statements and arrives at pretty much the same conclusions that I did.

Samantha Power, basically just another Ivy League-cloned ambitious parvenu with an infinitely elastic moral compass, clearly feels good about herself because she possesses a bleeding heart that is constantly on display to demonstrate how much she truly cares about downtrodden people worldwide. Excluding the Palestinians, of course, for whom human rights and dignity are just figures of speech or, at best, aspirations. She surely has enough intelligence to know how to spell and even understand the word hypocrite but is the product of a corrupt system that rewards mendacity. She is a poster child for the cowardice of the Obama Administration’s professional “progressives” whenever it comes time to speak candidly about Israel.

Power’s perch at the United Nations will enable her to make all the bureaucratically approved mitigating noises when Netanyahu steals still more Palestinian land, but she will not be in a good position to go much beyond defending Israel from its numerous critics. Far more dangerous than ciphers like Power is the continued drive by Israel and its friends in congress to jump start a war with Iran, a process which is proceeding underneath the radar. Former CIA senior analyst Paul Pillar describes it as “A prolonged campaign to keep us scared about what is depicted as an inexorable Iranian march toward acquiring nuclear weapons.” Since the few critics who might challenge such a narrative are preoccupied with crises elsewhere in the Middle East, Netanyahu and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have been engaging in what might be seen as a full court press to bring about a new war before anyone knows what is happening.

President Obama clearly does not want to go to war with Iran. Israel and its lobby in the US clearly want the US to attack Iran. So we can expect the usual ‘compromise’ consisting of increasingly severe sanctions against a country that serves no other purpose than to punish the Iranian people for the ‘crime’ that it may, just may, possibly challenge the Israeli government’s goal of being the only nuclear power in the region.


  1. slc1 says

    Samantha Power will do as she’s told by Obama and Kerry. If they tell her to support Israel, she will support Israel. If they tell her to oppose Israel, she will oppose Israel. She’s just the messenger. Don’t like the message, don’t attack he messenger, attack the folks who wrote the message.

    By the way, the claim about Israel being the only ones pushing the Iran attack button is seriously in error. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Egyptian military are also pushing the attack button. They disagree with Prof. Singham that Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons is a wonderful idea, just the thing to put those Zionist criminals in their place.

    What naive pontificators like Prof. Singham fail to understand that acquisition of nuclear weapons will not stop with Iran. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq will be under pressure from their militaries to also acquire nuclear weapons in order to counter blackmail from Iran.

  2. Rob Grigjanis says

    They disagree with Prof. Singham that Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons is a wonderful idea

    I hear he stamps on kittens as well! I can’t wait to see how you spin this as anything other than a stupid misrepresentation lie. Something about guilt by association?

  3. slc1 says

    Excuse me, Prof. Singham is on record as supporting Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.

  4. Rob Grigjanis says

    Saying that a double standard is being applied to Iran is a far cry from “supporting acquisition”.

  5. slc1 says

    Just like the double standard of Roosevelt in the 1930s favoring Great Britain over Germany.

  6. Corvus illustris says

    There’s supposed to be a quantitative version of Godwin’s law that says the probability of seeing an NSDAP reference, starting at any time, goes to 1 exponentially with time from then on: Pr = 1 – e^{-kt} (with time measured in some invariant way) so it’s a Poisson process running at rate k. It seems k(slc1) could be rather large.

  7. slc1 says

    And since we’re showing off, how about pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis.

  8. Lassi Hippeläinen says

    “we can expect the usual ‘compromise’ consisting of increasingly severe sanctions against a country that serves no other purpose than to punish the Iranian people for the ‘crime’ that it may”

    The US has always been good at making enemies. It keeps the military industry in business.

  9. Corvus illustris says

    The US made all the enemies it needed in Iran in 1953; no further work is required. Absent the excessive power of the obvious lobbies in Washington (and oil is probably more important than military hardware), though, a modus vivendi could be worked out.

  10. Ray de Silva says

    I rather think that “slc1” is a professional troll, most probably an NSA stooge.

    Can’t we stop this kind of moronic brown-noser from polluting every
    conversation? Being polite is constantly being mistaken for being

  11. slc1 says

    An NSA stooge? I don’t recall making value judgements about Snowden’s in comments on this blog or any other blogs. Actually, we already see that Snowden’s revelations are having a salutary effect on putting the handcuffs on the NSA. There are increasing calls in Congress from members of both parties who are concerned about NSA overreach. We will see if they have the balls to actually pass legislation, over the opposition of the administration, to bring the NSA to heel. Even the lamestream media (e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post) have been publishing editorials and OPEDs suggesting that the NSA has gone too far.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *