"This was not surprising coming from Power. She is the leading advocate of what is known as "liberal interventionism." She has said that as a child she was shaken by the world's indifference to the Holocaust. Her feelings were deepened by her experiences as a journalist in Bosnia. Ever since, most notably in the case of Libya, Power has recommended "going in" to stop the killing of innocents. Right or wrong, it's who she is."Ah, I see. Incidentally, remember when Rosenberg wrote this?
"I oppose war because we lost 4,400 men and women in Iraq, a war built on lies and false premises, conveyed by many of the self-same people promoting war with Iran. I don't think we should lose even one solider [sic] in a war against a country that does not directly threaten the American people."Once again we see a different standard for "liberal interventionists." When Power says that we should "go in," it is "who she is" and we should understand her "feelings." But when someone like were to advocate for disarming an Islamist dictatorship seeking the destruction of Western civilization, that makes them a neocon Zionist warmonger. The only difference between the two is whether or not MJ Rosenberg personally likes you. Of course a soldier who was killed saving lives in Libya is just as dead as one killed stopping Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb.
At this point MJ Rosenberg starts whining about how the situation in Israel must be "exempted" from "rules and theories" that apply to other situations. I partially agree: in every other conflict we sit back and let them fight it out (sometimes arming one side or the other) instead of taking an active role in solving it. We also know when to quit. But because it's Rosenberg, he says that the
So how does Rosenberg explain Power's effortless nomination? Well, because the Lobby sank its claws into her, of course!
"Power wanted more in an Obama second term and that required inoculating herself against charges that were made against her in 2008. And so she made the rounds -- visiting neocons, Jewish organizations, and Israeli officials -- and assuring potential adversaries that she was sorry."He follows this by repeating a story by Rabbi Shmuely Boteach (who never exaggerates about anything, ever) that Power got emotional and cried at one point, which got the leaders in the room where she was giving her presentation convinced that she was committed to Israel's security. Naturally, this causes Rosenbeg to fly into a rage! Someone being pro-Israel! AAAAAH!
Of course, in his effort to paint Power's behavior as a "reversal" and a "lobby win" as he does in the title of this article, he forgets that there is a lack of evidence that Power was ever anti-Israel to begin with. Saying that the USA might have to intervene to "save" the Palestinians is pretty stupid and insulting to the Israelis but it isn't anti-Israel nor does it mean that she doesn't think Israel should defend itself against attack. If anything she would be in favor of Israel defending itself robustly from people who are trying to kill them. But then if she did, Rosenberg wouldn't report it I suppose.
Check out his next "evidence" that Power has bowed to the lobby:
"Rabbi Boteach now says that he "take[s] my yarmulke off " to salute President Obama's nomination of Power. He isn't alone. This time the neocons are lining up to support her. Even the Israeli government has jumped on the Power bandwagon, with its ambassador to the United States endorsing her appointment."I hardly see why Rosenberg is surprised by this. If you read his linked article you will find the neocons like her specifically because she is "pro-intervention." Why wouldn't they support the nomination, it furthers their neocon goals! How ironic. As for Israel, of course they are going to say they like her, they welcomed Chuck Hagel as well. What are they going to say: "we don't like this?" They aren't stupid.
Speaking of stupid, want to hear something that truly fits the bill?
"But don't be quick to condemn her. If the lobby opposed her, she could not get the U.N. post or any job requiring Senate confirmation, despite being eminently qualified. That is the political reality in 2013. The Constitutional "advise and consent" function is now exercised by the lobby (see Hagel, Chuck). What is a talented and ambitious public servant supposed to do?"Saying crap like "that is the political reality in 2013" doesn't make the it truth, MJ. You talk all the time about a 'terrible defeat' that 'the Lobby' suffered and yet it has never occurred to you to think of the simplest explanation: that not everything is a battle and that "the Lobby" isn't actually as powerful as it was. Citing Chuck Hagel is just moronic: did you forget that he won and is now a part of President Obama's cabinet? I thought that you "could not get" the position if the lobby was opposed to you?
Maybe all this makes sense in MJ Rosenberg's thick head, but it doesn't make sense on the page.