BREAKING NEWS - Obama says he's 'outraged' with pastor's comments

When Ms. Power became a burden it was arranged for her to call Clinton a monster. This one was a bit more intricate, but could be similar. If denouncing isn't working, super-double-denouncing might!

Shortly before the event she revealed very inconveniently in an interview that Obama's Iraq policy was merely a campaign strategy, and that it would change into a real one if he became president and had access to actual information and advice. This was her crossing the line (though there were many other inconveniences in her other honest views).

She's a journalist herself, and knew full well how the "monster" comment would play out. It was a distraction that worked on many people. Most fell for the "ooooh, she called Hillary a monster" excitement, and that it was the reason for her dismissal, as "Obama can have none of that lowly talk". Did you see extensive coverage of Ms. Power's statement regarding "campaign" Iraq strategy?

Do you mean hyperlinks?

Dang, less snark please! Wasn't sure if you meant "no link" as in "there was no link between Ms. Power's prior statements and her dismissal".

You know, the truth is that right after the Newsvine thing, I posted lots of links to information. Shortly after this, particularly because we're talking about contentious issues, that became a substitute for I think true information links, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our well being, I decided I won't make links to information in my posts.

Instead, I'm going to try to tell Newsvine readers what I believe will make this thread great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my Newsvine contribution.

Apparently, you think that a post with a hyperlink to information, makes that post true... And you believe that a lack of a hyperlink makes a post false.

This response above in #6.9...

Shortly after this, particularly because we're talking about contentious issues, that became a substitute for I think true information links, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our well being, I decided I won't make links to information in my posts.

...was obviously a ridiculous stance to take on my part. Clearly, links are helpful for serving the good of the NewsVine community. If nothing else, they are a sign of a solid commitment to providing a positive contribution to that community. My withholding of links was a rude, passive aggressive act done in a convoluted expression of frustration over other peoples inferior links. And, of course, it is wrong of me to consider my links to be superior to others... it was wrong of me to claim others' to have offered false-links. I should respect the contributions of others, even if I disagree with them, right?

It was also parody of this, almost word for word:

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

"Instead," he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Just an excuse to hold out on giving up a link, because I was in the process of explaining my point by asking a simple question, which was wholly ignored.

Regarding Ms. Power, I asked a really simple question way back when:

#6.3: Did you see extensive coverage of Ms. Power's statement regarding "campaign" Iraq strategy?

I think most press coverage was diverted to the "monster" statement, wasn't it? Did you see significant coverage of Ms. Power's statement regarding "campaign" Iraq strategy?

Does using this link make this post true?

He he he! ;) Good point, circular reference (or logic) makes for a fun ride but poor results!

I did, begrudgingly already embed a link in #6.11 (carefully hidden, but I think most browsers will show it if you examine closely). And it is just a small piece of the puzzle.

I'm having a little fun with the passive-aggressive and otherwise immature caricature, and also I was still hoping to hold out for at least a partial answer to my simple question (which will be tough since I'm now on ignore ;). Unless I am mistaken, the press and public fell hook-line-and-sinker for the "monster" thing, right?

Plus I'm considering writing a book (or article) on Ms. Power and the incident, such that I may have opportunity to interview and meat her in person. ;)

sirmonkey,

You mean Samantha Power, right? If you do meet her, do you plan to ask her how she justifies her stance on genocide with her pro-Palestianian, anti-Israeli position? Since your mind seems to dwell in large part with the abstract and abstracted (ie, you are my hero), she might have problems if you point out the logical contradictions inherent in her answers.

Indeed, Samantha Power.

Did you see extensive coverage of Ms. Power's statement regarding "campaign" Iraq strategy?

No. There was some coverage here and there, but by some odd coincidence a more titillating story came upon us immediately to replace it. This cover story captured our focus and co-opted discussion of real issues as revealed by a campaign FPA. So I shall stand by the obvious... that the "monster" comment by Power, a journalist herself and savvy in the ways of the press, was "flare and chaff" for evasion from heat seeking press. Her exit was the exit of "actual discussion of foreign policy" by the Obama campaign, since it was NOT going well for them to engage in deep discussion on such issues. Who has stepped up to replace Power in this role???

If someone is aware of the "monster" comment, but not the "height of ideology" comment... it demonstrates my point marvelously, that the distraction offered by the Obama campaign has served them very well. If one wishes to contest this point, let them claim that Power's statement did, contrary to my assertion, receive the full attention of the press at large... and that it's implication to Obama's entire foreign policy forte was addressed thoroughly in public debate. Let them claim that the "monster" statement did not serve as a distraction, and an end, to thorough discussion.

I admire Power's honesty greatly, despite the fact that I hold policy differences with her. I have little doubt that she has taken national security matters to heart, in their implications beyond campaign politics, in the fact that they are a matter of life and death for many on this earth. It is no surprise that she found campaigning an ill suited role, given that there is little place for integrity in this pursuit.

@6.14: I don't have a full picture of Power's Israel/Palestine policy or viewpoint, but I do know this response in 2002 interview (video @50:58) was considered controversial, and she is said to have later recanted it somewhat:

Kreisler: 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: I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem. I actually think in the Palestine - Israel situation, there's an abundance of information. What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... 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.

Is there some more that would help me pin down a particular stance on that specific issue?

SM,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, and the time you invested in it. You deserve the same.

I remember reading an excerpt from an article about Powers posted, I think, on NRO's The Corner about a month or 2 ago. The gist of that excerpt was that Power holds logically contradictory stances. Fortunately, after only a little digging, I found the source article itself that the NRO blogger excerpted: Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team from the American Thinker dated 19Feb08:

Power also advocates that America send armed military forces, "a mammoth protection force" and an "external intervention", to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. This directly contradicts her criticism of the invasion and "occupation" of Iraq and her call for the removal of American forces from that nation. On the one hand, Power abhors American efforts to remake an Arab nation, but takes the contrary view when it comes to inserting American forces in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to impose a settlement. These troops, if sent, would be seen as occupiers and be sitting targets for Arab extremists. The colonial image of America and charges of imperial overstretch would echo throughout the Arab world.

The entire article is worth a read.

Power is troubling in and of herself, but then Obama threw Robert Malley under the bus in the last day or 3. Jake Tapper of ABC has done yeoman duty litanying others. His latest entry, Obama's Inability to Hire Good Help Rears Its Head … Again posted today, summarizes the blood-dripping wheels of that bus.

The overriding point here is that Power is the type of foreign policy advisor that Obama has chosen to ally himself with. Frankley, they scare the @!$%# out of me.

Indeed the Obama campaign bus gives a bumpy ride! ;)

There is also this from American Thinker:

Samantha Power: A Comeback after 'Monstergate'?

...which does chronicle some of her adventures, though a few others remain.

So when Clinton cries, do you "feel her pain"?

Just wondering whether your sympathy was selective or general (perhaps your handle is misleading ;). That's all.

For example, do you believe that there are people that display US flag lapel pins (and other patriotic symbols) in memorial of 9/11, as an offer of solidarity and sympathy with victims, their families, heroic rescuers, and our country... and in thanks to those who serve us to protect our liberties... and in celebration of those liberties?

...or do you instead see "false patriotism" when you see a US Flag lapel pin?

Just curious whether you see life through a general prism of sympathy or if you selectively superimpose extreme cynicism to some cases and obliqueness to others.