but this ad hominem bullshit doesn't settle the question either way.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is just so damn touchy. They absolutly freak the fuck out about every little tiny thing.And why should Power care at all , I think to myself ? She takes one for the party by removing Clinton's agitprops from smearing Obama indirectly by smearing her, that's one plausible explanation. But this confirms that the two are attacking each other : which is the same line used by Berlusconi agitprops, painting opposition as divided and quarreling.
The responses are as weak minded as one would expect from someone watching the Home Shopping Network all day.It's hillary campaign fault ! It's obama aide fault ! Turn it left, turn it right, it still lands on dems.
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?Tom Friedman?!? The guy who thinks claiming the world is flat is a helpful addition to public deliberation?
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.
SAMANTHA POWER: No, but we can talk about that. I don’t think the Clinton administration set out to deliberately destroy the Iraqi people as such.Okayy...
JEREMY SCAHILL: Oh, I totally disagree...
« Older Oil Tops Inflation-Adjusted Record Set in 1980. No... | Buster Martin... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by louie at 9:59 AM on March 7, 2008 [1 favorite]