The Woman Who Pushed Obama To War – Samantha Power *Bumped*

Previously we shared the inside story on the inside discussions that led us to War with Libya. The “Key” player in this decision, the one who pushed Obama, and ultimately the United States, to war was Samantha Power.   So let’s get to know this radical member of the Obama team a little better.   President Obama’s actions involving Libya have been baffling at best. He did nothing for days.  He talked about waiting to build a coalition for multilateral action.  He downplayed the concept of regime change, yet one of the main objectives for engaging has been to get rid of Colonel Qaddafi. It’s been a strange couple of weeks for Obama in terms of his foreign policy, and there still hasn’t been a clear explanation for what we’re doing in Libya and why we’re doing it.

Cass Sunstein - Regulatory Czar and husband of Samantha Power

Much of the motivation behind Obama’s Libya policy stems from the ideology of Samantha Power, the Irish-American, hard-Left humanitarian activist who has been the president’s Director for Multilateral Affairs at the National Security Council since 2009 (and, incidentally, the wife of Obama’s “Regulatory Czar” Cass Sunstein). Power is the woman behind the curtain in terms of Obama’s policy on Libya, but a look at what she advocates reveals a troubling agenda.

Power has advocated a foreign policy that can easily be described as what Stanley Kurtz calls “humanitarian interventionist.” Power and other activists like her seek to build American foreign policy around merely stepping into situations in the name of preventing genocide and other humanitarian aims. This type of foreign policy relies heavily on international law and multilateralism. It is also the reason behind Obama’s actions in Libya and the timing of them. As Kurtz states:

Most of the commentary on Libya has focused on the tension between Obama’s apparent desire to displace Qaddafi and his reluctance to admit to it. But the chief reason for this intervention is the one that’s staring us in the face. Obama dithered when it was simply a matter of replacing Qaddafi, yet quickly acted when slaughter in Benghazi became the issue. What Samantha Power and her supporters want is to solidify the principle of “responsibility to protect” in international law. That requires a “pure” case of intervention on humanitarian grounds. Power’s agenda would explain why Obama acted when he acted, and why the public rationale for action has not included regime change.

Yet Obama has so far been reluctant to fully explain any of this to either Congress or the American public, perhaps because he realizes that the ideological basis of his actions would not be popular if openly admitted. If Obama were a different sort of president, we would have all heard about “responsibility to protect” long ago. The country would have thoroughly debated Power’s ideas, and the public would have quickly recognized the core motives of the president’s actions in Libya;

While this type of foreign policy agenda might in some small way make sense to some people in a situation like the one in Libya, it is absolutely dangerous as the basis for an entire foreign policy. You see, Samantha Power and her supporters have Israel in their sights as a target for American military intervention on humanitarian grounds. Witness this exchange in an interview Power gave with Harry Kreisler, director of the Institute for International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley in 2002:

In another interview five years later, Power stated that we in the United States brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because of our relationship with Israel, and she noted that that relationship:

…has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics…

In the eyes of activists like Power, we are chained to a genocidal power by aligning with Israel. So, how do large chunks of Obama’s foreign policy fall into the hands of dangerous Leftists like Samantha Power? Stanley Kurtz explains the Obama-Power history well:

It seems reasonable to conclude from his long-term relationship with Power that Obama shares her interest in making humanitarian military interventions more common. Yet the president has said little about this, and the obvious policy implications of his ties with Power are rarely drawn. In his biography of Obama, David Remnick describes the beginnings of the Power-Obama relationship thus: “Obama did not strike Power as a liberal interventionist or a Kissingerian realist or any other kind of ideological ‘ist’ except maybe a ‘consequentialist.’ In foreign policy, Obama said, he was for what worked.”

Here we have the classic protective presentation of Obama. The future president reads a book by a passionately ideological humanitarian interventionist and quickly hires her as his key foreign policy advisor. Yet the obvious ideological implications of this are left entirely unexplored. Instead we are quickly reassured that Obama is nothing but a pragmatist.

There is a germ of truth to the pragmatism claim. Obama doesn’t seem to have a single overarching strategic perspective. Instead he “pragmatically” juggles competing sensibilities on foreign policy, ranging from multiculturalist non-interventionism, to postcolonial exhortation, to humanitarian interventionism, to a political desire to keep foreign-policy problems sufficiently in check to allow a focus on domestic transformation.

That’s right, Barack Obama is willing to sub-contract his foreign policy to fellow leftists like Power in order to concentrate on his stealth socialist domestic agenda. In his brilliant book, Radical-In-Chief, Kurtz illuminates the way Obama’s foreign policy takes a back seat to a transformational, radical domestic agenda:

Obama’s stance toward foreign policy and cultural issues combines quick and easy progressive changes with a still stronger desire to hold political conflict at bay. The point is to keep side issues stable enough to permit Obama to focus on structural changes to the economy.


For Obama, slow-motion economic transformation (in a socialist direction) is the key to every other change.

Rather than disproving the claim that Obama is a socialist, these [issues] reveal a president clever enough to preserve his political capital for the structural changes that matter most.

The long and the short of it is that Obama saw Samantha Power as enough of a fellow traveler, as it were, to give her a plum position on his foreign policy team. Then he allowed her to shape a major piece of urgent foreign policy while he focuses more intensely on domestic economic transformation.

Major foreign policy decisions in the hands of people like Samantha Power not only make for strange actions like those surrounding Libya, but they could also create hazardous situations involving other nations — namely Israel.

Samantha Power, Susan Rice, President Obama - Take us to WAR in Libya

This entry was posted in Egypt & Libya Part 2, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to The Woman Who Pushed Obama To War – Samantha Power *Bumped*

  1. Jennifer H says:

    Good analysis, especially the danger this foreign policy has for Isreal.
    One note, that isn’t Valerie Jarrett in the photograph- I think it’s Susan Rice…


  2. wendy ann says:

    Not surprised that Samantha Powers is married to that rat Cass Sunstein…they are suited for each other = Lefty Loons!


    • Ad rem says:

      How convenient….he regulates the death of domestic drilling in the Gulf, then she negotiates brand new drilling contracts with Brazil. Hand meet glove.


  3. tnwahm says:

    Rush was talking about this yesterday. His take is that everything that BO/BS does is in the framework of 2012. First, Quackdaffy is unpopular so we must take him out, then there was blowback about taking out a head of state , so he’s back pedaled on that now. He wants to be on both sides of the issue, so that whatever happens, he can take credit for it.

    Also, a marine called in from the Reagan era, and she said that the Pentagon has contingency plans for everywhere and everything around he world. If we are truly on the fly in Libya~as Sec Gates told the KGB in Russia~ then BO/BS is intentionally doing the opposite of what the Pentagon has planned for.

    2012 can’t get here fast enough.


  4. Jennifer H says:

    What keeps nagging at and bothering me is why Libya, why not Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Bahrain, Iran … the list goes on and on.
    Here is another opinion that just may be the real reason we got into this one.

    “Obama’s world view is based on no one nation being better than any other. If this is the case, as his own words and actions (the historical perspective, as I call it) show, then how could the United States speak up for those in harm’s way? How can the U.S. bring forth a coalition of free and thinking nations to help those in Libya? To “fundamentally transform” the nation is not just how it works on the inside, but how it presents itself to the outside. The fundamental transformation is the abdicating of America as the moral center of the world.”


  5. Sharon says:

    CasSamantha are just a happy power couple enjoying the big times, aren’t they? Why isn’t zippy being charged with treason? Why isn’t anyone stopping him?

    In the interests of credibility and in a public demonstration of our civil IQ, I think we need to dispense with all oaths of office from here on out. Willingly listening to any of them take an oath of office and somehow taking comfort in hearing them promise stuff requires, to borrow Hillary’s term, a willing suspension of disbelief.

    Clarification: I know that these women probably didn’t take an oath of office. I’m talking about a snootful of Congresspeople who did…and are not fulfilling their oaths. Congress is letting these Stepford wives do what they’re doing, and they’re not stopping them.


    • Ad rem says:

      And now we have some judge in Florida willing to settle a case based on the Quran. Says it’s okay because both parties are in agreement with it.


  6. Sad4theUS says:

    You know, this president makes bad enough foreign policy decisions w/o dangerous people like this adding to it! There really are certain people that you shouldn’t give power to! This woman, (in a long list of Obama’s czars, and you might as well add Obama too!) is one of them! (I think her last name has gone to her head! LOL)
    He had his chance to take Qaddafi down and he fiddlefarted around trying to involve other countries. (But they’re a lot smarter!)
    Now he has us in a war that is totally unwinable (unless we assassinate Qaddafi.) and will only make things worse for the rebels when we do have to pull out! And where does BO think we’re getting the money for fighting this war??
    This President has gotten us into more wars than any president before him… I’m a little curious, why isn’t our Congress protesting this more… Oh, I forgot, war is good business!


    • Welcome Sad4theUS, nice to see you. 🙂 Hope you enjoyed your visit. Great bunch of peeps participate ’round here. You are welcome to stroll along with us, we love diverse perspectives and muchly enjoy meeting new people.

      Welcome 😀


    • Sharon says:

      So glad to see you. We likes us kitties and doggies!!!…I’m a bluejay, so what can I say.!…..that bluejay is a photo I took from our kitchen of the fellow on the birdfeeder, and I just love that I actually got a decent photo, so I just keep on with it!….welcome…


      • Ad rem says:

        That’s a super photo Sharon…you can see each individual feather. I had always assumed it was professionally done…say Nat Geo. 🙂

        (Looks good enough to eat! Sorry…just couldn’t help myself.)


      • Sad4theUS says:

        Beautiful pic Sharon, you’ve got a good eye! And you’re right, Bluejay’s can be quite aggressive, I saw them attack a cat… it was pretty comical! 🙂


    • Menagerie says:

      We are glad you decided to drop in Sad4theUS. Enjoyed your dead accurate comment. I don’t believe I have heard the term ‘fiddlefarted around’ since my Mama died. She would let you know in a greased minute if you were fiddlefartin. Anyhow, we sincerely hope you will join us regularly.


  7. If I just heard that State Department Statement from Pantsuits correctly she just stated that the US has given permission for our military to continue engagement in NATO including a neccessary troop presence to protect Libyan civilians…..

    Anyone else catch that?


  8. Jennifer H says:

    It has become apparent to me over the last two and ½ years that I have started paying attention to politics (abou time, I know!) that the left lies without fear of retribution from any source that is deemed credible. So here is my question: Is it all ‘group speak’ to hide their agenda- or do most not even know the ulterior motives of their leaders?


    • Sharon says:

      That’s sort of the core of what blows my mind, Jennifer, and I’ve been “paying attention to politics” for a long time. They are never called to account and their absolute fearlessness about being exposed has just gotten more and more blatant. I used to assume that threats of exposure would slow liars down. Not with these people.

      My old theme: The left thrives on deception/deceiving; and as long as they can find enough people willing to be deceived, exposure of their lies will not slow them down one bit.

      There is such a thing as light vs. darkness; lies vs. truth…and it can’t be wished away. I don’t know the direct answer to the excellent question you pose, I don’t think. I’m guessing it’s a mix of the two.


      • Perhaps it is because one of the fundamental blocks of importance in a truely free society is the “freedom of the press”. Without media scrutiny, or in this case having the media be water carriers for the left, they can operate with immunity from reprecussions. The naive masses within the center of citizenry just do not know what is occuring, and rely on a manipulated narrative to keep check on events. Most disinterested folks just don’t know how manipulated the message is that they receive.

        The check is missing within the “checks and balances”. Subsequently why would any administration fear lying when they know the lies will never be discovered, and even if discovered only a very small percentage of people would know the truth. That to me is the big issue and eminates the big problem.

        While the media does not neccessarily create the problem, they worsen it by turning a blind eye to it and allowing it to occur.

        Seriously it is perhaps that simple. For whatever reason the media, and we must accept that 95% are leftist media, is under peer pressure from within their own ranks to continue this great affection and deception on behalf of President Obama.

        It is obvious to the point of ridiculousness.


        • Jennifer H says:

          So again I say, The office of the President our congress the judicial branch and the media- We have to change this for our nation. I only pray that it is not too late.


      • Jennifer H says:

        Sharon “light verses darkness; lies verses truth…”
        I believe that this universal truth is our past, our present and our future.


  9. demetris says:

    what does humanitarianism have anything to do with leftist policy? well none its about time someone said enough and intervened to save at least some lives. ironically traditionally leftist countries or hard left communist countries like venezuela and china refused to interfere are they not humanitarian? it doesent make sense and it comes down to the general fear americans have thinking that anything involving some intervention by goverment is imediatly evil or leftist as they call it which am sure it’s got nothing to do with the ideology. americans need to go to their nearest library and open a book before they open their mouths to utter absolute nonsense. peace


    • Demetris, Hello. In response to your question you appear to be confuscating the ideological difference between left and right around a political continuium. This is not an accurate way to view Left vs. Right in this discussion. The continuium of definition is “freedom”. To the left you have increasing statist controls (ie. larger government) such as socialism, communism, and totalitarianism. Toward the right you have diminished statist controls (less government) and greater individual freedoms, liberties, republicanism, self reliance, and on the extreme, anarchy. This distinction must be made as a base point to defining a response.

      Secondly do not diminish Americanism by stating we need to go to a library. That is dismissive, argumentative, and ideologically elitist. A typical elitist eeuropean view of America. Nor, it is nonsensical to point out the ideological hypocrisy within a “humanitarian interventionist” or “Responsibility to Protect” ideology. This ideology is based on a concept of ‘Global Governance’ or ‘One World Order’, and diminishes the sovereignty of individual nations toward a collective. As you reduce sovereignty you move left, as you move toward a collective mentality you move left.

      Should you wish to debate the hypocritical ideology behind R2P global principles, I would be more than happy to engage in that topic. However, your approach at disingenuously dismissing the inherent contradictions within such ideological principles lends me to believe you have established a mental framework, or belief system, and are only looking to affirm a flawed opinion of those who would disagree with you.

      I would suggest you read the latest thread on this topic prior to further engagement.

      All the best.


    • Pantsuits basically outlined what was becoming clear. Obama took us to war at the request of Pantsuits, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice, based on a principle of “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). Now known as The Obama Doctrine. It is obvious the Pentagon/Defense Department did not concur with the State Department’s interventionist approach.

      Interesting she states we went to war in Libya at the request of Italy, France, and the UK (in that order) as loyal payback for their support in Afghanistan. Clinton admits we have no immediate interest, and dismisses that concern by stating our allies had no immediate interest in Afghanistan. So the overt narrative is we went to war #1. to stop a slaughter in Benghazi (humanitarian), and #2. to support Italy, France and the UK.

      This lends to what exactly why were Italy, France and the UK so concerned about? (The covert narrative) Two major issues. #1. Libyan oil for their diesels. #2. Stop the flow of immigration from North Africa – and the subsequent economic impact from it.

      Herein lies the problem with R2P intervention ideology. Where does it stop? In this Libyan instance it is less about Libyan people (humanitarian), and more about Europe (economic). So you can see economic impacts have a larger influence in R2P principles than humanitarian ones. Indeed, this is historically the case. Rwandan genocide had no economic benefit for intervention. Nor does Israel. See where this global principle leads? Indeed the R2P consideration stops at the door of irrelevent economics. But, that is indeed what ultimately the United Nations interventions come to. How does this impact globally? If economically unquantifiable, then no intervention is needed.

      Obama has conceeded sovereignty in this approach. The New World Order being played out on stage around the R2P principles. This is the ideological Obama Doctrine of global intervention. It is also why this doctrine is filled with massive hypocrisy.


      • ZMalfoy says:

        ((((Sundance)))) Thanks for writing this, hon. Such clarity it refreshing after the nonsence I’m currently dealing with at work. It’s appreciated.


  10. texan59 says:

    I guess Samantha took her hubby’s advice and gave a little “nudge” to dear leader. What kind of club do you have to join to find all of these wackjobs? There are a few I had heard of before our leader took office, but these rats just keep coming out of the woodwork. GB did his show yesterday on this whole thing. Of course spooky dude has his fingers in each piece of the pie. While it is purely wishful thinking, every one of these people should be strung up. Even with all the red’s in FDR’s administration, even he wasn’t this brazen.


  11. Pingback: Refugee funding to be reduced, but by how much? « Refugee Resettlement Watch

  12. Pingback: Libya is Hillary's War Released emails Show Depth of Hillary … | Kit4Security

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s