Er … this is so inexplicable that it almost defies analysis. Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, went to an interview with Mubarak Ali Gilani at a restaurant in Karachi, Pakistan, but was kidnapped on the way. He was brutally murdered and decapitated by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man behind the 9/11 terrorist plot. The video of the murder was sent out immediately as a demand to free all of the detainees at Gitmo, whom KSM would shortly join.

Late last night, for no particular reason — Pearl was murdered on February 1, 2002 — US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power sent out this tweet, which I’ve screen-capped rather than embedded in case it gets deleted:

What “cycles of violence” does Power mean?  Did the Wall Street Journal declare war on Pakistan? Was Pearl planting roadside bombs in Karachi? Do interviews that allow terrorists to present their agenda count as “violence” that adds to these “cycles of violence” to which Power refers? And what is meant by “individual accountability” in this case? KSM has been in Gitmo for more than a decade, and thanks to this administration’s actions has yet to answer for his crimes in the military-commission system that Congress has repeatedly authorized. If they want to pursue “individual accountability,” then they could quit trying to move KSM to federal court and get his trial under way.

Twitchy has a couple of good round-ups on social-media reaction, but we need to see some media reaction.  The White House should be pressed to explain this. This looks like a desperate attempt to draw some moral equivalency between Pearl and his butchers, and between terrorism and anything that opposes it. If this is the quality of American diplomacy, then we need a bigger housecleaning than just getting rid of the incompetent bundler-bunglers we’ve seen at recent Senate confirmation hearings. This is just appalling.

Update: My friend John Hinderaker pondered the meaning of the tweet:

I saw this on Twitter late last night and pondered it for a while. What is it supposed to mean? I have no clue. Power refers to “individual accountability.” If by that she means tracking down and killing the people who slit Daniel Pearl’s throat, I am with her all the way. But somehow, I don’t think that is the accountability she has in mind.

Well, we’ve already done that. Pakistan hung one of the perpetrators, and we have the mastermind in Gitmo. But John is merely warming up:

What cycles of violence is Daniel Pearl’s murder a “reminder” of? Is Power suggesting that Pearl’s murder was carried out in retaliation against prior killings of al Qaeda terrorists by Wall Street Journal reporters? I don’t think so…but what “cycles of violence” she associates with Pearl’s beheading at the hands of terrorists, I can’t imagine. …

I think Samantha Power–who among fans of the Obama administration is considered a deep thinker!–suffers from the muddle-headedness that typifies most liberals. She can’t face the truth, which is that radical Muslims are an existential threat to civilization and freedom, with whom we can never be reconciled. So in lieu of truth, she emits platitudes about “cycles of violence” and so on. The sad reality is that her boss, Barack Obama, who has appointed her to a series of high-profile foreign policy positions, has just as incoherent a view of the world as she does.

Exactly.

Update: Walkback:

https://twitter.com/AmbassadorPower/status/437965052709068800

As I said last night, the men who murdered Daniel Pearl did so because "he was an American, and most of all, because he was a Jew."

— Samantha Power (@AmbPower44) February 24, 2014

Daniel Pearl did do great and courageous work at the WSJ, but let’s remember why he was in Karachi – he was following up leads about links between shoe-bomber Richard Reid and al-Qaeda.  He wasn’t satisfied with just “individual accountability,” but wanted to expose the reach of the terrorist network responsible for the terrorist attempt. Even Power’s walkback is nonsense on stilts.