A new documentary whitewashes the U.S. Ambassador to the UN’s record of covering for some of the worst human rights abusers.
One should note that despite calling for constant military intervention in the name of preventing atrocities/genocide, Power herself is now responsible for supporting and contributing to a genocide—that of the Palestinian people.
Humanitarian intervention is a complete lie! It’s equivalent to “humanitarian” colonialism. There is no such thing.
Western leaders need to stop exploiting genocide and Rwanda in order to justify further aggressive and self-serving intervention.
These people couldn’t care less about the lives of others and contribute to countless foreign policies that result in large scale death of human beings all the time. Why would they suddenly care so much if another Rwanda took place or not???
I’m slightly surprised by Friedman’s stance on China’s one-party autocracy which he describes as being “led by a reasonably enlightened group of people.”  In my opinion, the Eastern ability to reach consensus is pretty impressive and something unfathomable to achieve in the West. Having said that, a consensus amongst an autocratic élite is still not nearly as impressive as a natural ability for people to get along in the face of ever shrinking forms of illegitimate control. That’s why I think the more natural anarchist approach would eventually be the best for the future.
(Also, Friedman may not be praising the Chinese one party state for their ability to reach consensus; he may only be praising them because of their willingness to maintain China’s status as a market economy relatively open to trade and opportunity for the West.)
A major bone of contention I have with Friedman (and his equivalents) is his upholding of “radical centrism”  – one of the most oxymoronic and sinister terms not at all unlike The Economist’s formal declaration of the collective stance for their writers as being “high-centre.” There is a desire amongst people like Friedman, Power, and the elitists working for the Economist to create a cleverly-crafted heir of heroism, radicalism, and dissent for themselves (redolent of a controlled chemical-reaction using a catalyst) only because true radicals and dissenters of the past have been so lauded for their efforts. However, the tactic of sinister sorts like Friedman or Power, who don’t actually want to put up with the backlash or persecution of being a true radical/dissident, is to just pretend/declare that they are while staying squarely in line with whatever’s convenient to those that matter most (ie. those that call the shots.)
Soon Samantha Power will push for American military intervention in Canada and Sweden to “help” us.
Power’s willingness to exploit the Rwandan genocide in order to justify Western intervention has garnered her countless awards and career advancements.
Not only did she ignore the genocides the US contributed to in her ‘Pulitzer prize’-winning book, she downplayed the United States’ role in Rwanda itself and made the US look like an innocent bystander with no role in the atrocities whatsoever.
Today’s servant of power is:
Most egregious lie:
I’m a humanitarian hawk.
What she truly is is an opportunistic vulture.
Samantha Power’s sinister mentality is no different from those intellectuals that supported British rule over India for liberal/progressive, “humanitarian” reasons.
Power loves capitalizing on genocide and human suffering. She uses genocide not only as a convenient subject to garner money, book deals, and prizes for herself, she also gets to cozy up to the right people stemming from her willingness to manipulate the truth.
Power is riddled with hypocrisy and self-contradiction.
Power states it doesn’t matter whether a state has genuinely good intentions or not. In my opinion, this is a flagrantly outrageous assertion and even the most basic, human common sense knows that there will be nothing but disastrous consequences stemming from such lazy and backwards rationale. On top of this, history has provided us irrefutable proof of the brazen fallacy of this type of justification for imperialistic intervention time and time again.
In her Pulitzer Prize winning book, Power basically ignores every genocide America has contributed to and only discusses those atrocities outside of stark American influence.
She then uses this as a tactic to try to convince the rest of humanity that, as always, America and the West need to intervene more rather than learning to hold themselves back and stop contributing to the multiple accounts of human rights abuse they are already responsible for. Power is so convenient for any state because she is willing to give justification for shameless state and military intervention;- the likes of which are concerned with little more than trying to further economic affluence for the right people and gain hegemony over coveted resources.
Clearly, Power is driven by nothing but deeply malicious self-interest that is willing to put the lives of countless millions in jeopardy to bolster her own career, status and personal comfort. By her own logic, there is nothing wrong with the rest of humanity viewing her in that light.