On July 17, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gave a “mostly cordial reception” to Samantha Power, President Obama’s nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Reporting on the hearing, the New York Times writes that Power “appeared to face no serious obstacles to confirmation.” Although not unexpected, it is unnerving given Power’s record on human rights, the locus of sovereignty, and the purpose of UN-sponsored war.
Parroting the party line and demonstrating her fondness for undeclared wars featuring U.S. troops fighting under that infamous blue flag, Power told senators, “We see the failure of the U.N. Security Council to respond to the slaughter in Syria a disgrace that history will judge harshly.”
Unfortunately, Power herself is not being judged at all, it appears.
Even ranking Republicans were ready at Wednesday’s hearing with a compliment or a vote of confidence. Again, as reported by the New York Times:
Several key Republican senators, including Bob Corker of Tennessee, the ranking member of the committee, and John McCain of Arizona, offered their support.
“I know you’re going to be received very well,” Mr. Corker said at the outset of the hearing.
For his part, in an earlier statement, McCain praised Power, saying, “I support President Obama’s nomination of Samantha Power to become the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I believe she is well-qualified for this important position and hope the Senate will move forward on her nomination as soon as possible.”
The only wet blanket seemed to be Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Rubio fired a couple of good questions at Power, but failed to follow up when the would-be ambassador offered oblique answers. Committee member Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) did refer to Power’s answers as “non-responsive response[s].”
Click here to read the entire article.