Samantha Power is part of an administration that has been winning the War on Truth
This is the same lecture that she promoted with her infamous Tweet, "Daniel Pearl’s story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence" which she later corrected after repeated criticism to say that she meant his journalism carried that message.
Apparently Samantha Power decided to deliver the Daniel Pearl memorial lecture on the topic of "The War on Truth (and what we must do to win it)."
The jokes rather obviously write themselves considering that Samantha Power is part of an administration that has been winning the War on Truth quite effectively.
While Daniel Pearl's story that culminates with his murder at the hands of Muslim terrorists because he is a Jew has a rather obvious message, the Daniel Pearl Foundation's message is the usual fuzzy content that Power's tweet embodied.
The Daniel Pearl Foundation hands out Muslim journalism fellowships. Its honorary board includes the likes of Bill Clinton, Ted Koppel, the Queen of Jordan, Christiane Amanpour and Sari Nusseibeh. Its mission statement is the properly liberal mission to "address the root causes of this tragedy" and by tragedy they mean the brutal murder of Daniel Pearl and by root causes, they mean something other than Muslim anti-semitism.
While Daniel Pearl's famous last words were, "My father’s Jewish, my mother’s Jewish, I’m Jewish. My family follows Judaism"... the word Jew or Jewish doesn't appear anywhere in the foundation's mission statement.
The Foundation's mission is dialogue and tolerance and all those sorts of nice things that sound good to liberals but don't amount to much. Judea Pearl means well, but in the process his son's death has been reduced to a dialogue opportunity. So while it's easy to jump on Samantha Power for idiotically covering up the meaning of Pearl's death, she's just echoing the same empty liberal nostrums that mean nothing.
When you determinedly try to be positive about a negative thing, it may make you feel better, but you're denying the problem and you're denying what happened.
The liberal approach to the Muslim world is built on this sort of calculated denial.
In an article on Churchill and Obama, I wrote that, "Chamberlain’s rejoinder to Churchill reduced a practical problem to a philosophical one."
“It seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that… friendly relation… with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe,” he said, reciting true facts with the air of a conspiracy theory.
If that were indeed the case, Chamberlain argued, “There is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living.”
Peace stopped being a rational program and became a philosophical one. A world where dictators could not be successfully appeased was not a world worth living in. The appeasement of Iran follows that same self-pitying mysticism.
For Churchill negotiations were a practical policy with a practical end, but supporters of appeasement had made negotiations into a moral absolute so that practical issues could be ignored and the dismantling of Czechoslovakia could be rationalized for the greater good of peace.
Any contradictory information was drowned in enthusiasm for peace with Hitler, which became indistinguishable from enthusiasm for Hitler.
Their modern counterparts substitute the Supreme Leader of Iran for the Fuehrer, or leader, of Nazi Germany, but otherwise they make the same mistake.
To believe in world peace, they must believe in Hitler, in Stalin and in Khamenei and believe that regimes which ceaselessly talk of war, build weapons of war and torture and murder their own people on a whim somehow share their hopes for peace.
That's the underlying problem with Power's response and the Daniel Pearl Foundation. When any alternative to peace and reconciliation becomes intellectually unacceptable, then denial and infinite intellectual contortions make it impossible to address what is actually taking place.
And that is how the War on Truth is won.