Invade Pakistan and Israel. Barry Obama and his team are hell on allies!
Well it is like, well like those rich Jews would just have to deal with it ya know…
Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer
asked her this question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Power gave an astonishing answer:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention…. Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
Barry’s foreign policy adviser Samantha Power draws a moral equivalency between Sharon and Arafat, then says we should invade our ally. To her credit she defends herself by saying she does not know what she was saying. No really that is her defense…
“Even I don’t understand it,” she says. And also: “This makes no sense to me.” And furthermore: “The quote seems so weird.”
Read the whole article it is illuminating. Our enemies have to be giddy with the idea that Barry and his kids are going to be leading the Arsenal of Democracy! Oh sorry, that was the politics of fear again wasn’t it? Be afraid then, be very afraid.
gurusteve
DFV the Scribe
Andre the Defiant
Wes
pg - your humble messenger
hairybeast
thompaine
Drowning Creek
So someone explain to me again why the US should pump billions of dollars into a nest of fanatical belly bombers who hate the Jews more than they love their own children? Just thought I’d ask.
Dave the Infidel Sage
4 Mar 08 at 12:07 am
[...] have the Israelis planning preemptive strikes for their survival. I believe they are ready have. I posted a little note on Harvard professor Samantha Power a few weeks ago. In that post I link to a very telling article [...]
Senator Barack Obama, Israel, the oppressed and global socialism. « Constitution Club
21 Mar 08 at 9:53 am
Thanks for the pingback PG.
Power is of course no longer part of the Obama campaign. This as we all know has nothing to do with the above comments but her calling Billary a “monster.” So Hillary is worse than the Palestinians? Well… uhhhh geez that’s a tough one.
Is the above a reflection of how Obama feels? Perhaps perhaps not. Is it frightening regardless? Yes it is.
What is more confounding is that this comment
“Even I don’t understand it,” she says. And also: “This makes no sense to me.” And furthermore: “The quote seems so weird.”
Comes from a Pulitzer prize winning author and Harvard professor.
thompaine
22 Mar 08 at 8:38 am
[...] I posted a little note on Harvard professor Samantha Power a few weeks ago. In that post I linked to a very telling article on Power regarding Israelby Martin Kramer. I could just as easily have pointed to another article on the professor by Lasky: Samantha Power and Obama’s Foreign Policy Team. This woman who was once identified as a “senior foreign policy advisor” for Obama speculated that it might be necessary for the USA to invade Israel. She called for us to give the Palestinians additional billions in aid. Apparently so they can continue to purchase arms to use on Israel. She wants us, the USA, to put a security force in Israel to protect the Palestinian’s interests. Now pray tell me how that would work? If she could have kept her mouth shut regarding Senator Clinton she would have been a senior official in Obama’s administration. More regarding Power here, here, and here. Zbigniew Brzezinski, that is a name that is not looked upon fondly by anyone with any sense regarding the Middle East, unless they place the Palestinians above the Israelis. The addition of the Z-man to Obama’s team even scares Martin Perez at TNR. Keep in mind how the Middle East was left at the end of the Carter Administration. Speaking of ‘chickens coming home to roost’, look what we are dealing with now due to Carter’s legacy. Ben Smith in his article at politico: Obama adviser worries Israel supporters puts it like this… Still, people involved in Jewish and America-Israel politics across the political spectrum expressed surprise at Brzezinski’s high profile in the campaign. Indeed, the former national security adviser has been at odds with elements of the American Jewish community since the Carter administration. “Brzezinski was a major obstacle to bridging the divisions between the president and the Jewish community,” said Mark Siegel, who was Carter’s Jewish liaison until resigning in 1978 in a dispute over the sale of fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. “I’m very, very surprised that someone would have him directly involved in a presidential campaign.” Robert Malley - Mr. is he, or is he not, an adviser. Apparently he is acknowledged as one now by Obama. He is an extremely brilliant man who has devoted quite a bit of his time lately to revising recent history. The JP talks about him this way… Robert O. Malley, another former Carter Administration diplomat and President Clinton’s special advisor on Arab-Israeli affairs, is an unabashed advocate for the Palestinians, co-authoring a spate of anti-Israel propaganda with former Arafat advisor, Hussein Agha, including a tract that blames Israel for the failure of the 2000 Camp David talks and another piece which blames the Bush Administration for continuing Israeli-Palestinian strife. [...]
Barack Obama, Israel, the oppressed and global socialism. « Constitution Club
22 Mar 08 at 6:48 pm
[...] Originally Posted by Stefan F invade pakistan : Well it would be fun if i asked you to quote him , but you wouldnt be able to so ill wrap it up to you.Has also been covered and explained so many times i wonder what sort of news media you look at, if any at all.He said that if they can pin point bin laden, and the pakistani army is unable to act in time, he would order an airstrike without asking permission to the pakistani gouvernment, its something that is already being done by the Bush administration. Well Pakistan thought it was important enough to protest. To boot, one of his foreign policy advisers has called for an invasion of Israel. [...]
Obama back in the pulpit - Page 5 - FileFront Gaming Forums
2 Jul 08 at 7:02 am
In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.
These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.
Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.
Over the years of America’s on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia … etc., etc., etc.,
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.
I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?
The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn’t very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?
John Maszka
19 Jul 08 at 6:54 am
WOW, cool and all John. Nice cut-n-paste facts that lead to a silly conclusion. BTW - the Pakistanis are not Arabs, and Pakistan is not in the Middle East. Southwest Asia don’t ya know?
The Holocaust even?
I would indulge further, but my days of detailed deconstruction are gone. I am sadly reduced to sniping and “atta boys”.
pg - your humble messenger
19 Jul 08 at 11:53 am
Dear pg,
My reference to Pakistan is the result of years of studying the culture and political history of the country- a country comprised primarily of Muslims (96%) of which nearly 80% are Sunni and roughly 20% are Shi’a- it is not a product of cut and paste (please see my most recent release,Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine, in which you will find an entire section dedicated to Pakistan.
My reference to the “Middle East” refers to the various areas of occupation and employs the meaning of the term as popularized during the two terms of the Bush administration, which includes Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of Central Asia and the lower Caucusus.
As for Pakistan being in the Arab world, it’s a figure of speech long used by academics and politicians. You can split hairs over the demographics of Pakistan if you like, and of course, technically your point is valid. But especially given the sarcastic nature of your comment, I’m certain it wasn’t intended to enrich anyone’s understanding on the issue. I believe the main thrust of my argument remains in tact.
John Maszka
19 Jul 08 at 3:08 pm
In the spirit of good sportsmanship, I am re-posting my comment with a minor edit to indulge my pedantic new friend, pg.
In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.
These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.
Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India.
Over the years of America’s on again- off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia … etc., etc., etc.,
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million people (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.
I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?
The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn’t very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?
John Maszka
19 Jul 08 at 3:15 pm
We didn’t “unleash” anything. The Islamic jihadists did. If we unleashed anything it was the same tapped up justification and crusade that we did against the Nazi’s and the Japanese miltarists of WWII. The enemy we face is no less diabolical, determined, bloodthirsty and worthy of being defanged and occasionally pounded into dust when necessary.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
19 Jul 08 at 3:16 pm
Exactly what enemy do you speak of, Dave? The countless women and children we’ve massacred from the comfort and safety of our planes? - Or in the case of those in favor of such actions: from the comfort and safety of your home?
By the way, pg- a “silly” conclusion is far better than anyone can hope for given the worst-case potential of the crisi we face.
John Maszka
19 Jul 08 at 3:25 pm
No my friend, Pakistan is never referred to as an “Arab” country, nor is it considered to be in the Middle East, by anyone with any sense, this is especially true of “academics and politicians”. Pakistanis do not speak Arabic and are ethnically and culturally unrelated to Arabs. It is like saying Mexico is populated by Japanese and located in South America. Besides, you compared the population of Pakistan to the total population of the Arab world, not the Muslim world.
Your excuse that the Middle East has come to include “Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, parts of Central Asia and the lower Caucusus(sic)” in popular circles due to the Bush administration defining it as such is specious. No such process has occurred. Even if it had, it would not provide an excuse to use such an inaccurate description in a serious discussion. You’re infantile declamations aside.
You are a pretender, a pseudointellectual who has written a pretend “book” only his mother bought. You have no real credentials while you affect otherwise.
My point, which seems to have escaped you, was that a person who did not understand the basics that you have shown a failure to grasp should not be taken seriously on the subject. You are a self-promoter seeking attention. I feel like we should deactivate the link in your name and see if you continue to post.
Cheers
pg - your humble messenger
19 Jul 08 at 4:33 pm
Nice to have PG back, isn’t it?
hairybeast
19 Jul 08 at 4:57 pm
I do enjoy the lack of tolerance PG has for flawed theses. And although I find John Maszka well mannered, I also get irritated with the notion that the U.S. is responsible for the state of constant warfare in the greater Middle East region. I also lose patience with the idea that the U.S. is violating coutries’ sovereignty when every action we have taken is a direct result of helping others who have had their soverignty violated.
E the Wise
19 Jul 08 at 7:27 pm
Not back Beast, just a few comments is all this weekend. You can relax. I would not have unloaded on him, but he said I was being pedantic. Only Eric can say I am pedantic. Well the only one I would let say I am pedantic.
pg - your humble messenger
20 Jul 08 at 12:36 pm
THB’s comment was a positive one, PWG. We enjoy hearing from you when you get a chance to add a few words from time to time.
Dave - the Infidel Sage
20 Jul 08 at 10:16 pm
Yeah it was a compliment pg. The Beast is never sarcastic - ever. When he says something it means exactly what it says. Your takedown of that boob was beautiful.
hairybeast
21 Jul 08 at 9:43 am
Senator Obama is turning out to be a real disappointment and a very dangerous man. Moving the war on terror to Pakistan could have disastrous consequences on both the political stability in the region, and in the broader balance of power. Scholars such as Richard Betts accurately point out that beyond Iran or North Korea, “Pakistan may harbor the greatest potential danger of all.” With the current instability in Pakistan, Betts points to the danger that a pro-Taliban government would pose in a nuclear Pakistan. This is no minor point to be made. While the Shi’a in Iran are highly unlikely to proliferate WMD to their Sunni enemies, the Pakistanis harbor no such enmity toward Sunni terrorist organizations. Should a pro-Taliban or other similar type of government come to power in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda’s chances of gaining access to nuclear weapons would dramatically increase overnight.
There are, of course, two sides to every argument; and this argument is no exception. On the one hand, some insist that American forces are needed in order to maintain political stability and to prevent such a government from rising to power. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a deliberate attack against Pakistan’s state sovereignty will only further enrage its radical population, and serve to radicalize its moderates. I offer the following in support of this latter argument:
Pakistan has approximately 160 million people; better than half of the population of the entire Arab world. Pakistan also has some of the deepest underlying ethnic fissures in the region, which could lead to long-term disintegration of the state if exacerbated. Even with an impressive growth in GDP (second only to China in all of Asia), it could be decades before wide-spread poverty is alleviated and a stable middle class is established in Pakistan.
Furthermore, the absence of a deeply embedded democratic system in Pakistan presents perhaps the greatest danger to stability. In this country, upon which the facade of democracy has been thrust by outside forces and the current regime came to power by coup, the army fulfills the role of “referee within the political boxing ring.” However, this referee demonstrates a “strong personal interest in the outcome of many of the fights and a strong tendency to make up the rules as he goes along.” The Pakistani army “also has a long record of either joining in the fight on one side or the other, or clubbing both boxers to the ground and taking the prize himself” (Lieven, 2006:43).
Pakistan’s army is also unusually large. Thathiah Ravi (2006:119, 121) observes that the army has “outgrown its watchdog role to become the master of this nation state.” Ravi attributes America’s less than dependable alliance with Pakistan to the nature of its army. “Occasionally, it perceives the Pakistan Army as an inescapable ally and at other times as a threat to regional peace and [a] non-proliferation regime.” According to Ravi, India and Afghanistan blame the conflict in Kashmir and the Durand line on the Pakistan Army, accusing it of “inciting, abetting and encouraging terrorism from its soil.” Ravi also blames the “flagrant violations in nuclear proliferation by Pakistan, both as an originator and as a conduit for China and North Korea” on the Pakistan Army, because of its support for terrorists.
The point to be made is that the stability of Pakistan depends upon maintaining the delicate balance of power both within the state of Pakistan, and in the broader region. Pakistan is not an island, it has alliances and enemies. Moving American troops into Pakistan will no doubt not only serve to radicalize its population and fuel the popular call for Jihad, it could also spark a proxy war with China that could have long-lasting economic repercussions. Focusing on the more immediate impact American troops would have on the Pakistani population; let’s consider a few past encounters:
On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid.
On October 30, 2006, the Pakistani military, under pressure from the US, attacked a madrassah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan. Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced that the US military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America!” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam.
On November 7, 2006, a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, adding that terrorism will be eliminated “with an iron hand.” The point to be driven home is that the attack on the madrassah was kept as quiet as possible, while the suicide bombing was publicized as a tragedy, and one more reason to maintain the war on terror.
Last year trouble escalated when the Pakistani government laid siege to the Red Mosque and more than 100 people were killed. “Even before his soldiers had overrun the Lal Masjid … the retaliations began.” Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center. Guerrilla attacks that demonstrated a shocking degree of organization and speed-not to mention strategic cunning revealed that they were orchestrated by none other than al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman Al-Zawahiri; a fact confirmed by Pakistani and Taliban officials. One such attack occurred on July 15, 2007, when a suicide bomber killed 24 Pakistani troops and injured some 30 others in the village of Daznaray (20 miles to the north of Miran Shah, in North Waziristan). Musharraf ordered thousands of troops into the region to attempt to restore order. But radical groups swore to retaliate against the government for its siege of the mosque and its cooperation with the United States.
A July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes that “al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan- and more centrally organized than it has been at any time since 9/11.” The NIE reports that al-Qaeda now enjoys sanctuary in Bajaur and North Waziristan, from which they operate “a complex command, control, training and recruitment base” with an “intact hierarchy of top leadership and operational lieutenants.”
In September 2006 Musharraf signed a peace deal with Pashtun tribal elders in North Waziristan. The deal gave pro-Taliban militants full control of security in the area. Al Qaeda provides funding, training and ideological inspiration, while Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Tribal leaders supply the manpower. These forces are so strong that last year Musharraf sent well over 100,000 trained Pakistani soldiers against them, but they were not able to prevail against them.
The question remains, what does America do when Pakistan no longer has a Musharraf to bridge the gap? While Musharraf claims that President Bush has assured him of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Senator Obama obviously has no intention of honoring such an assurance. As it is, the Pakistanis do just enough to avoid jeopardizing U.S. support. Musharraf, who is caught between Pakistan’s dependence on American aid and loyalty to the Pakistani people, denies being George Bush’s hand-puppet. Musharraf insists that he is “200 percent certain” that the United States will not unilaterally decide to attack terrorists on Pakistani soil. What happens when we begin to do just that?
John Maszka
24 Jul 08 at 12:11 pm