America’s decision to support military action against the Ghadaffi regime in Libya was heavily influenced by Samantha Power, the Irish-born National Security Council special advisor to President Obama on human rights.
Power and UN Ambassador Susan Rice were named by The New York Times as the two key figures who convinced first Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then President Obama to commit to force.
The Times reported that “The change became possible, though, only after Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according to senior administration officials speaking only on condition of anonymity.
“Ms. Power is a former journalist and human rights advocate; Ms. Rice was an Africa adviser to President Clinton when the United States failed to intervene to stop the Rwanda genocide, which Mr. Clinton has called his biggest regret."
Ironically, Power was fired from the Obama campaign during the 2008 campaign for harsh criticism of Clinton during an interview she gave to a reporter in Scotland.
In that interview she said about Mrs Clinton: "She is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything... if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."
Power is originally from Dublin and moved to Georgia when she was ten. She was previously a lecturer at Harvard on Human Rights and won the Pulitizer Prize for her book on genocide.
From 1993 to 1996, she worked as a journalist, covering the Yugoslav wars for U.S. News & World Report, The Boston Globe, The Economist, and The New Republic.
26 Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.kurtjohnson | Mar 24, 2011, 09:34 PM EDT
Had the West stayed out of Iraq in the first place, it would have been much better off - Kuwait was historically part of Iraq and ruled by its own tyrant. Moreover, Iraq under Hussein worked in the interest of the West by creating a counterbalance to Iran in terms of influence and OPEC in terms of oil prices. Sadam Hussein was primarily a secular ruler (as evidenced by the fact that his foreign minister and primary adviser was Christian).
kurtjohnson | Mar 24, 2011, 09:30 PM EDT
I don't understand the strategy of "dealing with" Libya as opposed to leaving it alone and minimizing Western/Libyan casualites (particularly given that Quaddafi exterminated muslim terrorist from Libya). The people that take power may turn out to be far more dangerous than Quaddafi's regime. The Western public seems to buy the bizarre delusion that democracy can be exported as if its some cheap commodity.
cuchulain9 | Mar 24, 2011, 12:19 AM EDT
Kurtjohnson: I get your point and in essence agree with it. Its a variant of what I was saying. Whether we should intervene in Saudi, or Bahrain or whatever doesn't get us out of dealing with the Libya question either. That's the essence of the problem. What is the appropriate criteria for intervention? I've said plainly I don't know.
kurtjohnson | Mar 23, 2011, 10:16 PM EDT
By your logic, cuchlain9, why is the West "staying out" of Saudi Arabia - the most repressive regime in the Middle East. Is it because their tyrant is more successful in preventing armed rebellion?
cuchulain9 | Mar 23, 2011, 01:33 AM EDT
GeorgeDillon way over reacted to Bailey2000 who said plainly it was a 'close call' and he 'thinks' the west has it right. Those measured comments are consistent with the divergence of opinion left and right in the states on this. It is a hard call. The world clearly made a mistake in staying out of Rwanda. So when is it certain that an unacceptable level of civilian casualties will occur if the international community does NOT intervene? Damned if I know.
kurtjohnson | Mar 22, 2011, 12:05 AM EDT
Meanwhile, the Saudi tyranny is invading Bahrain to put down a popular uprising. Ironically, Sadam Hussein ran one of the most secular and egalitarian regimes in the region (with a Christian as his foreign minister and a hatred of islamic radicals).
GeorgeDillon | Mar 21, 2011, 02:32 PM EDT
Bailey2000 == Chickenhawk. These people love to watch bombings on TV. And they swoon when some old wardog from the military, US or UK, maybe even French, comes on to talk about "precision bombing" and "high value etargets". That's the kind of bombing that killed tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqis, of course, but that was just "collateral damage". Listen, if you think it's such a good idea, Bailey, why don't you go over there and get involved in the killing? Chickenhawk.
kaydog1 | Mar 21, 2011, 01:31 PM EDT
GeorgeDillon, I suspect johhnyb is being sarcastic, like I am when I say that Obama is TRULY earning his Nobel Prize for Peace in that he is managing now THREE "Peace Wars" and yet still has time for vacations in Rio and Ireland AND to fill out his NCAA basketball picks card! (You know, they awarded him the 'Prince of Peace' title before he had even become President - he's just getting started now!) I still remember how proud I felt on that day (sarcasm, again), watching him reach out with those two soon-to-be bloodstained hands of his to take that Peace Prize.....I'm getting a tingle up my leg...
jcaulfield | Mar 21, 2011, 01:03 PM EDT
Gaddafi has been Libya's leader for more than 41 years. What exactly has he done in recent times to justify the present itervention?
Towngate | Mar 21, 2011, 11:03 AM EDT
LIBYA IS A MEMBER of the United Nations. That organisation should have insisted on a Total Ceasefire on threat of military intervention - appointed an Independent Negotiation Council - and settled this internal dispute within a friendly member nation. ........ but what happened? The 'West' sat on its hands to see if the ARMED Rebels would succeed on their own. When they got kicked back to Benghazi, Quadafi offered an Amnesty to the rebels. THIS was the tipping point for the 'West' and endangered their Hidden Agenda! so it was time for action! The US and their puppets; France and the UK , the News media, and each of us should hang out heads in shame as we ignore Unenforced UN Resolutions and actual invasions in the region. Shame on us and our duplicity and hypocracy!
Bailey2000 | Mar 21, 2011, 07:41 AM EDT
I don't think anyone has been in love with Gaddafi for years but when he is lining up to annihilate a city of a million people I don't think you can just sit on your hands. Its a close call but I think the west had right on its side on this one.... We Irish should also not forget who funded our terrorists for years and took out the Pan Am Clipper over Lockerbie. What goes round comes round and I hope Gadaffi enjoys his retirement in Venezuela. Rents form his 12 Billion Pound portfolio of London property will probably help.
Towngate | Mar 21, 2011, 06:19 AM EDT
JUST WAIT until the 'Rebels' realise they are the 'patsys' - giving the US it's long awaited opportunity to obtain an oilrich launching pad independent of its 'enemy' - Europe! ~ ~ ~ ~ Worse than that; will be when greater 'Arabia' realises, too late, that the 'Benghazi Rebels' opened the door to the destruction of the Arab Culture Generally.
Scrivner | Mar 20, 2011, 09:58 PM EDT
I do so love the attitude, when Bush took up arms to depose a bloody tyrant who abused his own people under an UN resolution, it was evil. But when Obama does the same thing, he will probably get another Nobel. Ain't the Left grand?
kurtjohnson | Mar 20, 2011, 09:11 PM EDT
This is sad.
Towngate | Mar 20, 2011, 08:51 PM EDT
SO SAM persuaded the President ... "first wipe out Libya, then think about a visit to Ireland to spite that Queen person for not wanting people like You and Mi. at her Prince's wedding? Will you do that for little old me? You will get a great big welcome there - we Irish all love you, and really want you to come!"
Rebelforce | Mar 20, 2011, 07:08 PM EDT
No doubt these same people were self-righteously pontificating to leaders from Northern Ireland on St Patrick's Day: "Violence is self-defeating. Bombs, terror and violence never solved anything."
GeorgeDillon | Mar 20, 2011, 01:47 PM EDT
johhnyb: "I think when George Bush attacked Iraq it was all about oil but when Obama attacks Libya it's for humanitarian reasons." So are those "humanitarian" bombs we are dropping? That'll be real comforting for everyone who's hurt or killed by them.
GeorgeDillon | Mar 20, 2011, 01:37 PM EDT
1IrishMedic: "There is no doubt Khadaffi and family must be removed from power". There sure is doubt--Speak for yourself, you warmonger. You think Libyans are wrong to kill other Libyans, but it's OK for French, US, Brits etc. to kill Libyans? It's none of our damn business. If you want to intervene in Arab countries, how come you're not baying for blood in Yemen or Bahrein? Have you learned nothing from the mass slaughter we precipitated in Iraq?
1IrishMedic | Mar 20, 2011, 12:59 PM EDT
There is no doubt Khadaffi and family must be removed from power. They have raped that country monetarily and physically. Most important he is a vicious terrorist with death to his enemies as a final solution. However, our administration must be extremely cautious not to prolong "this one". We are in grave danger of producing a 3rd war where we will totally exhaust our own defenses. Our president must consult and listen to all advisers save our war mongering Republicans, who support a military and industrial complex system.
antoman | Mar 20, 2011, 12:57 PM EDT
The name is Power,Sam Power.How does she like her tea?Let me guess.Shaken..not stirred. :)
zoamchomsky | Mar 20, 2011, 12:33 PM EDT
Maybe the world would be a little better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital US national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.... In order to save Libya, it became necessary to destroy it.
johhnyb | Mar 20, 2011, 12:33 PM EDT
I think when George Bush attacked Iraq it was all about oil but when Obama attacks Libya it's for humanitarian reasons. Obvious isn't it?
Towngate | Mar 20, 2011, 10:56 AM EDT
IT MAKES ME SAD to think that there is some hard-faced Irish woman behind the assaults on Libya. If Obama and his murdering cronies were not 'dancing to an unseen but not unknown puppeteers, he and the patsy UN should have just called for a Ceasefire and appointed an independent body to Mediate between the two conflicting sides within Libya. ....BUT that was never the plan all along,now, was it?
carrickcourt | Mar 20, 2011, 10:21 AM EDT
Wonder if 'Sam" Power might be related to my third cousin John of Co. Wicklow? There a few Irish Power's out there.
Rebelforce | Mar 20, 2011, 10:14 AM EDT
So the New York Times is claiming that it is a black girl and an Irish girl who are the ones behind the decision to attack yet another Arab country in the Middle East. (And if you believe that one, I've got a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you)
GeorgeDillon | Mar 20, 2011, 08:52 AM EDT
Oh, I see--this is another case of us killing loads of people in order to protect human rights. Funny, the people in Yemen and Bahrein are being massacred, but we don't bomb those countries.