Beck Portrays Edited Power Clip As Evidence She Favors “Mammoth Protection Force” Against Israel

Beck: Power Was Asked “What Her Policy Would Be If She Were To Advise The President On Israeli-Palestinian Issues.” From the March 24 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: [Power is] currently an adviser to Obama on foreign policy. She wrote a book called The Problem From Hell [sic: A Problem From Hell]. Do we happen to have that book here? Here it is. The Problem From Hell [sic], right here. It's all about genocide. Obama called her after reading her book on genocide. But it really wasn't -- it really wasn't Obama. Because then he left to Harvard -- she left to Harvard to work for Obama, and she became his foreign policy adviser.

So, she's in the White House. But it was more than just a book. See, this book is really quite anti-Israel, because they're being played out right now. Before she was officially advising the president, someone else asked her what her policy would be if she were to advise the president on Israeli-Palestinian issues. Now, listen. Here's how she responds. Watch.

POWER [video clip] [P]utting 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 -- literally billions of dollars not in servicing Israelis', you know, military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support I think what will have to be a mammoth protection force -- [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/24/11]

Beck: Power Said We Need A “Mammoth Protection Force” To “Protect Against Israel.” Immediately after the clip of Power aired, Beck said:

BECK: A mammoth. Let's remember this. A mammoth -- is it three Ms or one? Three. It's not very often that a bad speller gets the word “mammoth” -- mammoth. Do you know how bad this job is for somebody who's a really lousy speller?

Mammoth protection force. Let's remember that. So now she's an adviser. She's saying that we have to stop investing in Israel and start investing in this new Palestinian state, and it's a mammoth protection force that they need, one that would protect against Israel. OK? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 3/24/11]

Beck Website Falsely Asserts That In Clip, Power “Calls For Invasion Of Israel.” A post on GlennBeck.com, headlined “From TV: Obama advisor calls for invasion of Israel,” highlighted a longer clip of Power's statement:

[GlennBeck.com, 3/24/11]

In Fact, Power Said “Meaningful Military Presence” May Be Needed To Stop A Move Toward Genocide By “One Party Or Another”

Question To Power: “Without Asking You To Address The Palestine-Israel Problem,” What Would Need To Be Done If “One Party Or Another” Were “Moving Toward Genocide?” From an undated 2002 edition of Conversations With History, a program produced by the University of California-Berkeley Institute of International Studies:

HARRY KREISLER (host): Let me give you a thought experiment here, without asking you to address the Palestine-Israel problem: Let's say you were an adviser to the president of the United States. How would, in response to current events, would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least one party or another be looking like they might be moving toward genocide? [Conversations With History, UC-Berkeley Institute of International Studies via YouTube, accessed 3/24/11]

Power Responded By Saying Investment In A New Palestinian State And A “Meaningful Military Presence” May Be Needed. Power's response (with the section Beck excerpted in bold):

POWER: Well, I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem, and I actually think in the Palestine-Israeli situation, there's an abundance of information, and what we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there. What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line in sort of helping the situation. And 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 -- literally billions of dollars not in servicing Israelis', you know, military but actually in investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support I think what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old, you know, Srebrenica kind or the 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, you know, major human rights abuses, which we're seeing there. But -- is that you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line. And unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. I mean, it's a terrible thing to do; it's fundamentally undemocratic. But sadly, you know -- we don't just have a democracy here either. We have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide, you know, our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. And there, it's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people, and by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat.” I mean, I do think in that sense, there's -- that both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible, and unfortunately, it does require external intervention which, very much like the Rwanda scenario -- that thought experiment, of “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 just becoming ever more pronounced. [Conversations With History, UC-Berkeley Institute of International Studies via YouTube, accessed 3/24/11]