July 18, 2008
Still No Good Explanation for Obama's Plan For A State Security Apparatus
Our good friends on the far left have plenty of snark to drop in this post, suddenly finding an aversion to Third Reich analogies after seven years of BushHilter and comparisons of the RNC to Nazis.
What they have not done, nor even seriously attempted, was to explain the comments the media so carefully edited-out of a speech that Obama recently gave, where he advocated a "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the nation's military.
As I noted in my last comment to that post, "national" means United States, or domestic in nature, not a international force. Security means "police."
Unless Obama was uttering "just words," he was advocating domestic state security. That he would make plain his intentions to make his SS "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the strongest military in the history of Planet Earth should be a cause for concern for everyone, and not just because he's talking of creating another massive bureaucracy and colossal tax burden.
Why does a free nation that already has the FBI, ATF, and DHS on the federal level, SBIs, state police, and highway patrols on the state level, in conjunction with local sheriffs and police agencies, with the backing the Army and Air Force National Guard and Coast Guard units for the most extreme emergencies, need an additional national domestic security apparatus dwarfing all current federal law enforcement agencies, equal in power and scope to the military?
How does the Democratic frontrunner make a call for such an alarming organization, and the media not report it. Worse, how do they get a way with erasing those words from transcripts of the speech?
I'm getting a lot of snark from those on the political left for stating that I didn't like Obama's plan any better in the original German, but precious few explanations of why a free nation would need such an imposing force, one only useful against it's own citizenry.
Update: closing comments due to surge in comment spam.
Can he call it The American Protective League ?
Please?
Seems to fit will with his other ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Protective_League
Or maybe The Assault Detachment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
Jon's got more on this over at our blog,
http://exurbanleague.com/2008/07/07/dont-worry-mr-godwin-has-been-notified.aspx
Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at July 18, 2008 01:42 PMThe name will be Security Service (SS) and the uniform will include brown shirts. The will assist in insuring your children learn spanish, that you are not the owner operator of an unauthorized SUV and your thermostat is set to the prescribed tempurature. This service (the SS) will be useful to be sure dissatified citizens who have been moved from urban areas onto collective farms do not try to make unauthorized excursions to Mexico or Canada.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 18, 2008 02:41 PMOh, for God's sake! Read or listen to his speech! He wasn't referencing a need for American Brownshirts; he was saying that we need to spend the same time, money, and effort in trying to put together a civilian (i.e. diplomatic) force that is devoted to national security as much as the military. "Speak softly AND carry a big stick" instead of just swining our big stick all the time, as Bush (and, moreso, Cheney) do.
Posted by: diogenes at July 18, 2008 02:48 PMdiogenes, if he was referencing a diplomatic corps, then whey doesn't he say so? Why does he specifically and repeatedly reference security forces?
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
He doesn't say anything about diplomacy here (defined as negotiations between foreign states or groups), and speaks only about his national security force.
You have a problem with reading comprehension; Obama may have a problem with speaking comprehension (saying what he actually means), but what he actually said is unambiguous.
Diogenes, he didn't say "diplomatic"; he said, "national security." He also used the word "force," a word not usually associated with bureaucracies that don't use the government's monopoly on the legal use of force to accomplish their ends. You hear of a "police force," not a "force" of diplomats or ag inspectors. How many times are he and his supporters going to have to rely on the defense of "I know you understand what you think I said, but what you heard isn't what I meant," defense.
Not to mention the fact that just-as-well-funding this force would require additional expenditures by the federal government equal to those of the military. He's already on record proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending before this announcement. Where's the money for that just-as-well-funded force going to come from?
Posted by: Diffus at July 18, 2008 03:20 PMDiffus, not to worry. Obamameister has spoken about what cuts to the military he plans to make. Weapons systems we do not need. Greatly reduced funding to the missle defense system. A plan do dispose of our nukes. Go to youtube and look up his 52 seconds to defeat speech. The money saved on military expenditure and new taxes on thel rich (those not on welfare) will fund his new Republican Guard.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 18, 2008 03:44 PMREAD WHAT HE SAID, PLEASE!
"As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer.
"So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we're going grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
It's right there, if anyone wants to take the time to listen and try to understand, instead of listening to find ammunition against the man.
Now, if you want to switch horses in midstream, you have every reason to wonder where the $$$ will come from. THAT'S a valid issue and a valid concern. But quoting words out of context won't advance that debate one iota.
We will never hear a viable explanation on this. Hus sycophants are already suggesting that Obammy never said the offending words.
Posted by: Snooper at July 18, 2008 04:38 PMOur last post on this is from this morning and we have been writing about it since the article I read in the AARP
Posted by: Snooper at July 18, 2008 04:42 PMDiogenes, the fact that he said the words you quote doesn't change the fact that he also said the words the others have quoted.
Sorry, Diogenes, Obama is truly calling for a national security force. Spin all ya want, you won't change that.
But, don't worry... he'll soon flip-flop on that one, just like he has on the Surge, FISA, public financing of campaigns, etc...
Posted by: C-C-G at July 18, 2008 06:40 PMDiogenes, please explain why we cannon continue to rely on the military for our national security? We have city police, county sheriffs, highway patrol, state police, the FBI and the National Guard. I really would like to know what national security objectives Obama has in mind that would require such a force as he describes. Could they be the ones to enforce your children learning spanish? Would they seek out those who own and operate unauthorized SUVs? The mind boggles.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 18, 2008 06:56 PMZelsdorf Ragshaft III, that speech cracked me up. When I heard it I thought......I keep my thermostat at 70 degrees during the day and 68 at night. I like to sleep when it's cool. I didn't know I was supposed to ask England, France, Cuba, North Korea, Japan, Mexico, Canada, etc..if that was ok. Obama made it sound like 72 was too cold, hell, I'd be sweating at 72. Obama is such an intellectual nitwit.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 18, 2008 07:02 PMHmmm... I wonder if these new state security services will be in charge of enforcing Obama's mandatory service requirement?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 18, 2008 07:46 PMThe new organization will be called the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
Posted by: American Muslim at July 18, 2008 08:29 PMMaybe we can call it the National Main Security Directorate (RHSA). Herr Obamessiah hast ein gut idee.
Posted by: Johnnie at July 18, 2008 09:48 PMWe cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
You people are just...man, I don't know what you are, but it's bad. Look at the words. Look at what he actually said. He's talking about a civilian force helping the goals of our Armed Forces --- not the police, not the FBI, not the friggin' Coastguard, the military. You know, the people we send overseas to do the things we need done? That's who he plainly intends this force to augment. The military is damned effective at what it does, but it doesn't do everything. Obama thinks that we need another organization to fill in those gaps. If you don't think we need something like that, fine. But don't just make up a bunch of silly paranoid stuff just because you don't like the man.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Sophist FCD at July 18, 2008 10:52 PMYou want a concise explanation of what he was talking about? Here it is:
We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military.
He thinks that we need to do more than just blow the bad guys up. He thinks we also need people who have the sort of skills and training that will allow them to fix things afterwards. You know, that whole hearts and minds thing. Winning the peace, etc. I seem to remember that sort of thing being important.
Posted by: Sophist FCD at July 18, 2008 11:01 PMHe simply wants to organize the black panthers and the nutty followers of Islamic Louie Faroutandgone into a military unit to control the streets of America, and you. I've always said he is a dangerous man and the left wing nuts will find it out the hard way. No matter what happens as a result of these idiots I will die laughing at them.
Posted by: Scrapiron at July 18, 2008 11:18 PMIt's getting really obvious that nobody here gives a damn as to what he actually said or what he actually meant. This is getting to be more like "Last Comic Standing" in that you all are trying to come up with a better punch line than the last joker.
Why don't you just give it up, admit that you don't really have a reason why you hate the guy so much, and that you don't need a reason to hate him and mock him? It'd be a lot more intellectually honest than what's going on here!
(Besides, bottom line, we all know what your real objection to Obama is, don't we? You're just coming up with all this other crap for "cover.")
Adios, dimwits!
Posted by: diogenes at July 18, 2008 11:48 PMOK diogenes, you tell us: WTF is he talking about? Explain it please! America really needs an in-depth understanding of this unaccountable proposal, maybe you can provide it? I for one sure as HELL do not like the sound of it!
A "civilian national security force"??!!
Posted by: Ed at July 19, 2008 03:38 AMEd, try getting your mom to read this to you: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/07/070708mt_obama_transcript/
Posted by: Dr Zen at July 19, 2008 03:39 AMDiogones, Sophist and Zen - pretty typical of your ilk - if someone doesn't understand, they way you want them to understand, the context and text then it's because they are 'dimwits' or need to have an adult explain things to them. Thank God you guys weren't around to advise Martin Luthor while he was writing his 95 Theses.
A 'civilian national security force', whether an extension of diplomatic agencies or a separate agency entirely, is neither warranted or necessary. We already have diplomatic agencies. Sophist pointed out that 'He's talking about a civilian force helping the goals of our Armed Forces --- not the police, not the FBI, not the friggin' Coastguard, the military.' and 'He thinks we also need people who have the sort of skills and training that will allow them to fix things afterwards.' - Ever hear of the State Department? That's their job. Creating a separate agency to fulfill this role will only expand government unnecessarily. Of course that may be what he wants - he's a socialist and the answer to any problem is more government. Change we can believe in.
Diogones pulled the previous segment of the speech to provide 'context'. You might be able to parse it to read that his call at the end of the quoted section as one to expand the agencies he referenced earlier (and thus the correct 'context'). But he doesn't. The man has professional speech writers for heaven's sake. They know that if he wanted to imply that agencies like the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and the Energy Corps needed to be expanded then that last line would read something like "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have *THESE* civilian national security force(s) *BECOME* as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.".
He said 'a' civilian national security force. This implies a separate organization and not an expansion of existing agencies. This is an unnecessary expansion. Change we can believe in.
As CY already pointed out - we already have 'civilian national security forces' at both the Federal and State levels. Is he calling for a reorganization of these agencies? Combining state and federal agencies into one cohesive force? I don't parse his words that way. Maybe I just don't 'understand'. I do know that it's a poor carpenter that blames his tools.
Posted by: Dan Irving at July 19, 2008 07:25 AMSecurity means "police."
You better let the US Air Force know this. When I was in, we had what were called SPs. That stood for security police. But, if they mean the same thing, isn't that redundant?
Diogenes, we're just reading his words; his actual, spoken words.
Now, if you want to ignore some of his words, that's your right... you can be just as ignorant as you want. But you can't force us to ignore them just because you want us to.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 08:15 AMThat stood for security police. But, if they mean the same thing, isn't that redundant?
Redundancies abound in American English.
One obvious one is "ATM machine." ATM itself stands for "Automatic Teller Machine," so "ATM machine" really means "Automatic Teller Machine machine."
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 08:17 AM(Besides, bottom line, we all know what your real objection to Obama is, don't we? You're just coming up with all this other crap for "cover.")
If you had 18 July at 11:48 PM in the "When will the lefties finally play the race card" pool, please come to the ticket window to collect your prize.
Posted by: TheGonz at July 19, 2008 08:44 AMMaybe you say ATM machine. I just say ATM because I know that the M stands for machine.
Posted by: fauxmaxbaer at July 19, 2008 09:21 AMDanIrving:
They know that if he wanted to imply that agencies like the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and the Energy Corps needed to be expanded then that last line would read something like "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have *THESE* civilian national security force(s) *BECOME* as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.".
He said 'a' civilian national security force. This implies a separate organization and not an expansion of existing agencies.
Seriously? You're going to base your paranoid fantasies on the use of "a" rather than "these"? Doesn't that seem a little, um, thin? From the Military Times interview:
I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side in the way the State Department is structured and [Agency for International Development] and all these various agencies. That hearkens back to the Cold War. And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight. When we talk about reinventing our military, we should reinvent that apparatus as well. We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military.
You people frothing about fascism are aware that we have civilian agencies working in national security, right? That we have a State Department? If you don't read it with the intent of finding phrases to misrepresent, Obama is fairly clearly stating his plans to reemphasize the role of State and associated agencies in contrast to the current administration's emphasis on Defense. It's pretty simple, actually. If you're looking for an explanation of why nobody else has noticed Obama's plan for an American Gestapo, it's because it's a figment of your imaginations. Nobody who read his statements without a strong bias against Obama would see anything like what you're talking about. Get a freaking grip.
Posted by: Larv at July 19, 2008 09:39 AMLarv,
Come back when you decide to dispense with the ad hominem attacks and maybe I'll deign to read what you write.
Posted by: Dan Irving at July 19, 2008 11:25 AMOh, please get off the pedestal, Dan... you're crowding Barack already!
Obama said what he meant and meant what he said. And anyone is entitled to debate whether or not more $$$$ needs to be spent in the civilian areas (State Dept, etc); I've not argued against that, and it's a legitimate difference of opinion. What most of us who don't see things your way are saying is that this drivel about Obama Gestapo Brownshirts is pure fantasy, driven by an innate bias against all things Obama.
And, sorry, but one step removed is deciding that "these" would have been the correct choice instead of "a". See, Dan, you don't get to write Obama's speeches, and neither do I. As a matter of fact, if you bother to look at the prepared text of the speech, the two sentences that bother you so damn much aren't even in the text.
What I for one would like to see is, if we can ever get past this meaningless quibbling over fantastical nonsense, why you guys feel that McCain is a better choice. Taking potshots at anybody who's on TV 24/7 isn't that tough. Tell us why McCain is the better choice... and don't weasel out with "Well, ANYBODY would be a better choice than Obama."
On Iraq alone, the events of yesterday and today seem to indicate that both Bush and al-Maliki have, in their own ways, conceded that Obama's insistance that U.S. troops be removed within 16 months is, well, correct.
Posted by: diogenes at July 19, 2008 12:59 PMWords mean things to me. "National Security" means being part of knowing America's enemies and making sufficient preparations to thwart or defeat attacks and threats. "Just as powerful, just as strong" means this "civilian national security force" will have guns, bombs, rockets, ships, planes, satellites, a Pentagon size building, bases around the world, and be willing to project and utilize that power against American enemies. By "civilian", I take it to mean that this "force" could or would be used where the American military cannot, inside The United States. I'm thinking baby-blue helmets, which would clash with brown shirts, but not red ones.
Why would I interpret Obama's words to be so fascist? Twenty years with Wright, unrepentant terrorists friends, communist associations, his wife, his parental influences, his other writings proving his liberal totalitarian belief,.... Mostly, it's my forty plus years experience picking truths from tiny data points of evidence. That experience was gained from some years working for NSA, where I interpreted Russian and did some cryptography stuff. Later, I got more personal experience with the human organism going to medical school, where solving puzzles is still the game. Obama is not a puzzle to me, not as a political animal nor as a human being. He is a danger to American liberty and to The Republic. Did I mention, he's black?
Posted by: twolaneflash at July 19, 2008 01:14 PMDan, you might want to look up just what ad hominem means. It doesn't cover the labeling of paranoid fantasies as such, particularly when an explanation of that labeling is offered. An ad hom would've been something like "Don't listen to anything Dan says, he's a raving nutbar with Obama Derangement Syndrome." See, it doesn't engage with anything you said, just calls you names and diverts the argument to whether or not you are in fact a raving nutbar. That's not what I did. I said that your interpretation of the remarks in question was ludicrous and disingenuous, and quoted material to support a contrary interpretation. I realize that it's easier to just dismiss all opposition as illegitimate instead of engaging with it, but it's pretty damn weak.
Posted by: Larv at July 19, 2008 01:20 PMGee,I thought we already have a militia composed of citizens to handle these sorts of things.How well regulated this militia is may be another case for SCOTUS.
Posted by: Elle at July 19, 2008 01:44 PMThanks for making Obama's point so clearly, twolaneflash.
" 'Just as powerful, just as strong' means this 'civilian national security force' will have guns, bombs, rockets, ships, planes, satellites, a Pentagon size building, bases around the world, and be willing to project and utilize that power against American enemies."
Uhhh, not necessarily. Part of our problem is believing that the ONLY thing we need to protect American security is guns, bombs, rockets, ships, etc etc etc Somewhere in that mix, many of us might argue, are things like "brains", "diplomacy", "logic", "reason", "cooperation with Allies", etc. It's kinda been a forgotten option after eight years of Bush/Cheney, but history has shown that it is, in fact, sometimes achievable.
"I'm thinking baby-blue helmets, which would clash with brown shirts, but not red ones."
Uhhh, keep thinking. Do you see any flying monkeys in the mix? Great big guys with black fur hats and long-tailed coats, wielding battle axes? A melting witch?
And, in your incredible NSA-trained political mind, you were able to determine that Obama is (1) a terrorist, (2) a fascist, (3) a communist, and (4) a totalitarian. Wow. Could it be that after examining all those "tiny data points" you've developed an extreme case of myopia?
And no, you didn't mention that Obama is black, until you did.
Oy vey iz mir mit den meshugena goyischem.
What Obama said: "I should add, by the way, that part of the change that I want when it comes to Army and Marine structures is the mix of training that we’re providing and mix of personnel that are in these forces.
"I believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force. In a way that just hasn’t been done...
"That also means, by the way, that we’re going to have to, I believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force.
"I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side in the way the State Department is structured and all these various agencies. That hearkens back to the Cold War.
"And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight. When we talk about reinventing our military, we should reinvent that apparatus as well. We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military."
Notice, please, the importance of the function of the word, "THAT," in the last paragraph. "We need THAT wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight" and "we should reinvent THAT apparatus as well."
Source is that Obamamaniacal left-wing rag, the Military Times, link is http://tiny url.com/57do9o
Is that the SS? Is that the SD? Is that the NKVD?
No. According to the National Security Act of 1947 and its 1949 amendment, which created it, it comprises all of the civilian agencies that perform national security missions.
That Act created, among other things, the Defense Department (uniformed national security) and the Central Intelligence Agency (civilian national security), and the National Security Council (civilian national security).
In the Act we read that the goal of the Act "is to provide a comprehensive program for the future security of the United States" through the "establishment of integrated policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to the national security."
For further discussions of civilian national security agencies, please see National Security Presidential Directive 1, "Organization of the National Security Council System," (February 15, 2001), which says "national security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe."
Those interests are advanced by uniformed and civilian national security agencies alike. Among the members of President George W. Bush's National Security Council is the Secretary of the Treasury (not in uniform).
Now, is that easy enough to understand?
Posted by: Hemlock for Gadflies at July 19, 2008 02:22 PMVery interesting, Hemlock.
However, the interview reported on by the Military Times is not--I say again, is NOT--the speech (which was public, not given solely to one publication) that CY is referring to. The speech CY is writing about can be found at two sources, here and .
You can stop swirling the red cape, we won't charge at it.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 03:09 PMOops, that second link got messed up... so here it is again.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 19, 2008 03:10 PMIf he wants another force "just as well-funded" as the military isn't that sort of a budget buster?
Of course, if he cuts the military budget in half then that money could be applied to the Obama-force.
Posted by: Arthur at July 19, 2008 03:13 PM"National Security" means being part of knowing America's enemies and making sufficient preparations to thwart or defeat attacks and threats.
No.
"National Security" means nothing more than making our nation secure, and believe it or not there are methods beyond blowing people up.
"Just as powerful, just as strong" means this "civilian national security force" will have guns, bombs, rockets, ships, planes, satellites, a Pentagon size building, bases around the world, and be willing to project and utilize that power against American enemies.
Also no.
"Just as powerful, just as strong" has nothing to do with tanks and aircraft carriers and laser-guided whatevers. It's about the kind of soft power that can sometimes make using tanks and aircraft carriers and laser-guided whatevers unnecessary.
By "civilian", I take it to mean that this "force" could or would be used where the American military cannot, inside The United States.
For the last time, no!
Seriously, in what sort of fever-dream state do you have to be read "civilian" as code for gestapo? As other posters (posters on you side of the debate, I might add) have already pointed out, we already have some civilian branches of the national security apparatus who do their work outside the country. "Civilian" simply means "non-military". I mean, duh.
Posted by: Sophist FCD at July 19, 2008 03:15 PM"Oh, please get off the pedestal, Dan... you're crowding Barack already!"
That did sound rather elitest I'll admit. See? Already I'm miles ahead of Obama - I didn't accuse you of misunderstanding me!
"Obama said what he meant and meant what he said. And anyone is entitled to debate whether or not more $$$$ needs to be spent in the civilian areas (State Dept, etc); I've not argued against that, and it's a legitimate difference of opinion. What most of us who don't see things your way are saying is that this drivel about Obama Gestapo Brownshirts is pure fantasy, driven by an innate bias against all things Obama."
I'm not the one enspousing the Brown Shirt meme. Simply posting on this site does not mean I agree with other posters nor the author. My bias isn't against all things Obama, rather all things socialist. I'd be doing the same thing with anything Hillary said (and getting beat up by my wife for doing so).
"And, sorry, but one step removed is deciding that "these" would have been the correct choice instead of "a". See, Dan, you don't get to write Obama's speeches, and neither do I. As a matter of fact, if you bother to look at the prepared text of the speech, the two sentences that bother you so damn much aren't even in the text."
This somehow makes it better? That he would be so inarticulate when he went off copy? Words mean something. In this particular speech he wasn't talking about enhancing existing agencies - he was talking about a seperate agency altogether. Do I think it will devolve into Schutzstaffle propotions? No. Do I think it's the wrong action to take, creating another unnecessary government agency? Yes.
If this isn't what he ment to say. I am indeed 'misunderstanding' his postion then he hasn't done a very good job and explaing said position in a clear and articulate manner. This is exacly the thing our current PoTUS gets slammed for on a regular basis and if it isn't good enough for a Republican President then it isn't good enough for a potential candidate.
"What I for one would like to see is, if we can ever get past this meaningless quibbling over fantastical nonsense, why you guys feel that McCain is a better choice. Taking potshots at anybody who's on TV 24/7 isn't that tough. Tell us why McCain is the better choice... and don't weasel out with "Well, ANYBODY would be a better choice than Obama."
Why should we have to defend McCain? Why is it automatically assumed that someone attacking Obama is automatically FOR McCain? What if I endorsed Bob Barr? Nadir? Cynthia McKinney? How about this - McCain is a better choice because he's less of a socialist than Obama.
"On Iraq alone, the events of yesterday and today seem to indicate that both Bush and al-Maliki have, in their own ways, conceded that Obama's insistance that U.S. troops be removed within 16 months is, well, correct."
Off Topic but does show his lack of foreign experience. You don't tell the bad guys when you are going to raid their building just like you don't tell them when you're not going to patrol their streets or eat your chow. The words Maliki spoke and what was realeased to the press have already been shown to be dissimilar. What both Bush and Al-Maliki have concurred on is that there needs to be a plan in place for withdrawl. I agree with that assessment. I also think it shouldn't be linked to a specific timetable but rather to certain milestones. Having 10 of your 18 provinces fully under your control is a good start for the Iraqi government. Having Al-Anbar, once decried a lost to Al Qaida, almost ready to be turned over is a significant point in their favor as well. Having a government that has made progress on 15 of 18 benchmarks, while not a success, is definately a significant point. In fact, that's an improvment on 13 additional benchmarks in the last year - they got more done than our own Congress.
Now on to Larv:
Dan, you might want to look up just what ad hominem means. It doesn't cover the labeling of paranoid fantasies as such, particularly when an explanation of that labeling is offered. An ad hom would've been something like "Don't listen to anything Dan says, he's a raving nutbar with Obama Derangement Syndrome." See, it doesn't engage with anything you said, just calls you names and diverts the argument to whether or not you are in fact a raving nutbar. That's not what I did. I said that your interpretation of the remarks in question was ludicrous and disingenuous, and quoted material to support a contrary interpretation. I realize that it's easier to just dismiss all opposition as illegitimate instead of engaging with it, but it's pretty damn weak.
Alright, I concede your point. You were just being insulting not actually conducting and ad hom - my mistake you sniviling sack of refuse with the congnizant capacity of a moldy rock. I actually did read what you wrote and maybe you just misunderstood me. (see I can do it too).
'You people frothing about fascism are aware that we have civilian agencies working in national security, right? That we have a State Department? If you don't read it with the intent of finding phrases to misrepresent, Obama is fairly clearly stating his plans to reemphasize the role of State and associated agencies in contrast to the current administration's emphasis on Defense. It's pretty simple, actually. If you're looking for an explanation of why nobody else has noticed Obama's plan for an American Gestapo, it's because it's a figment of your imaginations. Nobody who read his statements without a strong bias against Obama would see anything like what you're talking about. Get a freaking grip.'
For one, I'm not 'you people' and yes I am aware that there are already existing agencies to fill the role that Obama outlines. My point is that Obama doesn't seem to think there is an existing agency in place to fill this role. Quibbling an 'a' for a 'that' is thin? Have you lost what small capacity for understanding you had left after the labotomy? The man aspires to be President of the United states. If what Diogones said is true, then he went off copy and spoke from the hip, or his mind or from wherever it is he pulls these gems from. Words mean something as you were so gracious to point out to me - you can't sling one then say later that you actually ment something else. You can't go on record saying others are misunderstanding. You take your lumps, say 'my mistake, what I ment was ..' and drive on. Obama, instead, choose to obfuscate. Classic politician.
BTW - I actually did read the Military Times piece. I agree with a lot of what he says in it. I also disagree with a lot of what he said. I also agree with C-C-G: it's entirely beside the point.
We have an ATF, FBI, INS, state police, local police, etc, etc. Why do we need a militia no matter how innocent?
Posted by: David at July 19, 2008 03:57 PMDan,
For the record, the second part of my post wasn't directed specifically at you, so apologies if you took it to be. Both the host and several commenters are making ludicrous accusations of fascism, and that was directed at them. But I should have been more clear about who I was referring to.
If you wish to limit yourself to the rather odd argument that Obama's use of "a" instead of "these" in unplanned remarks indicates a desire to create some mysterious new agency, I suppose I can't stop you. But yes, it's thinner than tissue paper. His specific citation of several existing agencies, notably the State Department itself, in the immediately preceding remarks would seem to undercut it, for one thing. The fact that you're able to squint and see what you want to see in his words doesn't mean that they're careless or obfuscatory either, just that you're reading for ammunition rather than comprehension.
BTW - I actually did read the Military Times piece. I agree with a lot of what he says in it. I also disagree with a lot of what he said. I also agree with C-C-G: it's entirely beside the point.
How so? It's Obama speaking to exactly the same issue as in the speech. Between the two, it is utterly inescapable that he's talking about reemphasizing or extending the roles of existing civilian diplomatic agencies. He specifically references State, USAID, and the Peace Corps. There is nothing in either about Stasi-esque national security squads or new agencies to supplant the existing ones. Except that "A", of course, which as we all know proves that Obama is a socialist. QED. Posted by: Larv at July 19, 2008 04:44 PM
Folks, I've read the transcript and I think I even watched the video clip once or twice, and I still have the same reaction to Gilderoy Obama's words:
I don't understand what the hell he's talking about.
What does he mean by "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded [as our military]?" I know how conservatives interpret it, I know how liberals interpret it, but I don't have any idea what he actually meant by it. I personally do not connect "national security" with diplomacy or technical-assistance teams. Nor do I connect it with ordinary police functions. "National security" to me means one thing and one thing only: the active defense of our sovereignty and vital interests at home and around the globe. That is and always has been the job of our military. A "civilian national security force" appears to me to be a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: wolfwalker at July 19, 2008 06:54 PMHey, Larv? Sophist? Are you beginning to get the feeling that many (if not most) of those who say they simply can't understand what Obama meant kinda WANT to pretend like they don't understand?
When a speaker says a whole bunch of things on the same topic, and then kinda wraps it up at the end, it's perfectly OK to connect the thoughts. You don't have to go "Well, where did THAT come from?"
It's like watching a guy drop a red water balloon from ten stories up, then going to street level and finding a wet spot splattered all over the sidewalk, with little bits of red latex scattered in the area. And saying, "Well, we didn't see exactly what happened... how can we be sure that this is from the water balloon that we just saw getting tossed?"
(And, if I really wanted to get snotty, they would wonder "Do you think some Commie-Fascist-Democrat types did this when we weren't looking?"
And if any of you truly don't understand what Obama was trying to say, then I apologize. And I understand why you're voting for McCain or whatever splinter candidate you wanna vote for. When you finish 894 out of 899 at the Naval Academy and you take your policies from Bush's playbook, it's a lot easier to offer "Straight Talk" because you're not really capable of nuanced differentiation... or words exceeding two syllables.
Posted by: diogenes at July 19, 2008 09:15 PMWords matter, senator, now explain yours.
Or don't explain them, your constituency of brain-dead fanatics won't care either way.
Obama for Big Brotha 2008!
Posted by: Saltine at July 19, 2008 10:45 PMIf you don't get it now, saltine, you never will. His words are clear enough, if you want to listen. Instead of haughtily issuing orders to a Senator. "Now explain yours" indeed. Buy a dictionary and figure it out for yourself.
Posted by: diogenes at July 19, 2008 11:10 PMLarv,
Thanks for being an adult. I take back all the mean things I said about you.
The MT piece came after his speech. He used it as an opportunity to clarify on what he had said previously. So in the context of his entire stance, yes he isn't going Schustaffle on us.
I don't mean to bemoan the *a* for *that* argument but it's telling that a candidate for high office doesn't get the same flack given to the current incumbent. If you can't articulate what you really mean when you go off copy then what are you going to do when meeting with foreign powers? Obama has made a lot of boneheaded comments these past few months and yet he's given a pass and it's our fault for 'misunderstanding'. If he can't say what he really means maybe he should just stay on copy.
And no, the 'a' doesn't prove he's a socialist. His policy does.
Posted by: Dan Irving at July 20, 2008 07:28 AMit's telling that a candidate for high office doesn't get the same flack given to the current incumbent.
An excellent point, Dan. Can you imagine the media uproar if Dubya said that there were 57 states, or that we didn't have interpreters in Afghanistan because they're all tied up in Iraq?
If you're not sure how the MoveOnMedia would react, see Quayle, Dan.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 09:02 AMFor further discussions of civilian national security agencies, please see National Security Presidential Directive 1, "Organization of the National Security Council System," (February 15, 2001), which says "national security includes the defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe."
Uhnnnnhhh...
I do not see the Department of State listed here. Clearly, the PSD includes Defense, arguably it includes NSA/CIA. I could live with AID, Ex-Im, etc. as part of "...US...interests..."
But State?
The O-and-Savior's problem is now, and always has been, "off-script" comments. He says stuff that is ....jolting?.....astounding?....completely inane? (take your pick). In the case at hand, he said something that clearly meant OTHER than what he meant--and even the "clarification" you cite is a stretch, at best.
Can't wait for him to have no-precondition "chats" with Ach me I'm a nutjob--or Putin.
Posted by: dad29 at July 20, 2008 12:56 PMIf you can't see how the State Dept. could figure into some, if not all, of those missions ("defense of the United States of America, protection of our constitutional system of government, and the advancement of United States interests around the globe"), well, it just shows how single-minded our system is under Bush/Cheney: if we can't blow it up, it doesn't exist.
It's apparent that few of you are diplomats in waiting. You're warriors! (I Am Xena, Hear Me Roar) Nobody makes good diplomacy movies; everybody loves a good wartime blood-and-gutser. But hang in there, you definitely have your place. Sooner or later we usually release the hounds of war.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 01:34 PMYou are either blind, stupid or both diogenes. Obama was, in that speech was covering a variety of needs. When it came to security, Obama said we could not continue to rely on our military to meet the security requirements we (he and Michelle) have set. Diogenes, why was this not it the transcript of the speech? Surely, a wordsmith like yourself can prevaricate their way out of this. One look at Obama's past associate. Who's ideas appealed to him in his formative years? Could you catagorize them as liberal? How about socialistic? I think the name Marxist and even Communist is closer to the mark. That is a fact Diogenes. Bill Ayers is more that a liberal democrat. Next, why is it Obama needs aditional security forces here in CONUS (continental United States)? Is it because he cannot rely on the military to carry out actions agains U.S. citizens? If there were a created crisis, could a militia, made up of Obamites, forcefully disband congress and arrest our military leaders in the Pentagon? Who would enforce a Presidential decree of a gun ban? You want to look at worst case senario with McCain and best case senario with Obama. Fact is, Obama has never lead a thing yet he want and believes he can lead this Nation to change. Change what? Our form of Government? Our freedom to servitude? You want America to take a chance on a Chicago politician with no leadership experience and an unproven track record along with proven faulty judgement. Why?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at July 20, 2008 01:52 PMJeez, nice frothing at the mouth there, guy. How did you manage to keep the Rev. Wright out of this conspiracy you have formultaed in your mind?
I mean, I believe that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, but your paranoia greatly exceeds mine.
(Cue: This is where you avow that only God-fearing patriots like yourself, with clear thoughts and cogent insights, can save truth, justice, and the American Way.)
Have a begl and another cup of coffee.... decaf this time.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 02:11 PMJeez, nice frothing at the mouth there, guy. How did you manage to keep the Rev. Wright out of this conspiracy you have formultaed in your mind?
I mean, I believe that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, but your paranoia greatly exceeds mine.
(Cue: This is where you avow that only God-fearing patriots like yourself, with clear thoughts and cogent insights, can save truth, justice, and the American Way.)
Have a bagel and another cup of coffee.... decaf this time.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 02:11 PMSorry for the stutter!
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 02:15 PMdiogenes, if he was referencing a diplomatic corps, then whey doesn't he say so?
The State Department already has its own security apparatus -- the DSS.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 20, 2008 03:31 PMI note that Diogenes didn't bother to answer any of the points Zelsdorf made.
Just pointing that out for those who aren't capable of seeing the obvious due to their ideological/partisan blinders.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 04:16 PMThe reason, C-C-G, is that Z is totally off topic. This post was about Obama announcing, in his July 2 speech, the coming of Brownshirts to a neighborhood near you. That is, simply, a load of crap, and it's all been laid out numerous times here. Now Z has changed to discussing Obama as a Socialist, how he's never accomplished anything in his whole life, etc etc Oh, and I almost forgot: Z somehow got into discussing a hypothetical armed insurrection taking over Congress. I kinda think that, whoever gets elected in November, the likelihood -- even the possibility -- of an armed insurrection is not only kinda small, but really quite fantastical. So no, I didn't explain to Z how that would play out. No sense chasing a crazy man down a rabbit hole, y'know? And Bill Ayers is about as relevant as the Mad Hatter. You want fantasy? Go buy a ticket to "The Dark Night." It's got a more realistic plot than this nonsense.
You want to talk about leadership, I will concede that Obama doesn't have a proven track record. But take a look at McCain? What has he led in his political career? No, I'm not diminishing his service as a Navy pilot, but c'mon, that was forty years ago. What has McCain led in the last four decades? Answer: nothing. He hasn't even been a leader of the Republican Party, as he's always made his reputation as a "maverick." The only time he's really been center stage is when he was implicated as one of the Keating 5. As a result, he championed campaign reform, and got McCain-Feingold passed.... which most Republicans now vilify as an unconstitional restraint on rich Republicans' ability to buy elections.
There's risks in electing ANYBODY President; you never know for sure what's gonna happen down the road. But, given McCain's anger management issues and his already confessed willingness to have American troops remain in Iraq for a hundred years, I'll take my chances with Obama and the extremely thin possibility of him taking down a Democratic Congress with an AK-47 and a Molotov cocktail.
"And they all lived happily ever after."
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 07:13 PMDiogenes, you're obviously forgetting his leadership of the Replacement Air Group in Florida, which he took over 1n 1976, at a time when the squadron had, as even the NY Times admits, a "mediocre record." When he left, again according to that Bible of liberalism, the NY Times, they had all their planes flying and had received their first Meritorious Unit Citation.
It may have been over 30 years ago, but that's still more leadership than Obama has shown in the 46 years of his life.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 07:30 PMGood Lord, if THAT is supposed to be a meaningful dividing line for presidential candidates, then we are in worse trouble than onybody realizes.
A Meritorious Unit Citation for getting all of the unit's planes to do what planes are supposed to do (i.e., "fly") forty years ago????
McCain can't tell Sunnis from Shias, and he thinks it's a problem that Russia is currently dissing Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed in 15 years! He panics when a reporter asks him about Viagra, and he needs to be reminded how he voted on any given issue. He's against Bush's tax cuts until he isn't anymore, and he disdains evangelicals until he needs them to get elected, whereupon any evangelical preacher who wants to give him a "Say Hallelujah!" is A-OK in McCain's book.
McCain in 1988, I would have voted for. McCain in 1992 , I might have voted for. McCain in 2008, when he is sadly clueless about where he even is half the time? No way.
And all you guys can see is how OBAMA might pose a threat to our existence? What if McCain starts a war with Czechoslovakia?
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 08:05 PMif THAT is supposed to be a meaningful dividing line for presidential candidates, then we are in worse trouble than onybody realizes.
So what organization has Obama ever fixed that was broken?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 20, 2008 08:10 PMAnd, refresh my memory, Diogenes, what leadership had John Kerry shown when all you lefties were saying that he was the best choice back in 2004? He served as "second banana" a couple of times, around the same time McCain was turning his squadron around, but never in the top seat.
Doesn't even get a "nice try," Diogenes. If you had half a brain you would have seen that question coming a mile off.
Oh, and 1976 was 32 years ago. Not 40. At least get your math straight.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 08:21 PMC-C-G, you are a master at finding distinctions without a difference.
And Purple Avenger, that's the point: if you want to step back and be honest, none of these guys show that much more leadership than the next guy. If you ain't the lead dog, the view's the same.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 09:04 PMIf you can't see how the State Dept. could figure into some, if not all, of those missions...
Even if I concede that, WHY in Hell didn't The O-and-Savior SAY THAT? What's so damn hard about saying "..civilian entities such as State, AID, etc.,..." instead of "civilian security [whatever]"?
Back to Square One. The guy opens his mouth and inserts his foot, or both of them.
Not ready for prime-time, Diogenes.
Posted by: dad29 at July 20, 2008 09:13 PMIf you ain't the lead dog, the view's the same.
Precisely, Diogenes.
So why are you in the Party of the Donkey continually pushing candidates with no leadership experience? Senator Gore had never led anything in 2000 (though it could be argued that he has done so since, we're talking about what he had done at the time of the election), Senator Kerry had never led anything in 2004, and now Senator Obama has never led anything in 2008.
Maybe that has something to do with why you lost in 2000 and 2004, hmmm?
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 09:23 PMI'm not a Democrat, C-C-G. I'm a reigstered Republican, and voted for every Republican presidential candidate from Ford to Bush in 2000. It isn't about party labels, it's about the men. McCain had a decent record forty years ago (maybe even 32 years ago, if you want to be precise) but look at the man: he's clearly past his time. He never once made me think that America may get better with him at the helm. And sorry, Obama does that with me. No, he's not the Second Coming, but after eight years of outright lying from Bush/Cheney, and after their criminal behavior into misleading this country into war, I'm willing to take a chance on making things better.
But, again, this post started with ridiculous wild-eyed accusations of incredible proportions against Obama. NONE OF US will be able to make this country one iota better if we insist on pursuing Karl Rove politics. It IS okay to debate issues without using every dirty trick to totally destroy the opposition.
Posted by: diogenes at July 20, 2008 09:49 PMHeh... oh, the old "Republican turned to Obama" spiel.
I believe it less than I believe those folks that call into Hannity and Levin with the same story. It's clearly what Rush would call a "seminar call," now we have a "seminar commenter."
You may now attack me for listening to talk radio. I'm ready for it.
Posted by: C-C-G at July 20, 2008 10:01 PMI really see no point in parsing his words on any level. He says whatever the writers write for the day. Tomorrow he will say something else.
One thing I heard him say that I do believe is that people project their desires onto him. The presidential candidate equivalent to a television green screen. The most unqualified (serious) candidate to run for the office in my lifetime.
diogenes--
From your response to Larv posted at 9:15 PM on 19 July:
"…And if any of you truly don't understand what Obama was trying to say, then I apologize. And I understand why you're voting for McCain or whatever splinter candidate you wanna vote for. When you finish 894 out of 899 at the Naval Academy and you take your policies from Bush's playbook, it's a lot easier to offer "Straight Talk" because you're not really capable of nuanced differentiation... or words exceeding two syllables"
You're headed for a cliff on this one. Can you name the Union Civil War general who placed first in his class at West Point, who lost every major battle, and was willing (as a presidential candidate in the election of 1864) to let the Southern Confederacy, slaves and all, secede from the United States? Can you name the Union Civil War general who placed dead last in his class at West Point and never lost a major battle? Oh, and yes, this last individual took his policies out of which failed US President's playbook? Be careful when you use "nuance versus straight talk", diogenes, because you're not very good at it.
I say this as a defector from the Obama camp. My wife and I were favorably impressed by Obama's stand against the leftist railroading of three innocent Duke University students on the Lacrosse team for rape. In fact, he was the only presidential hopeful to do so at the time. We were also impressed with his call for fairness in the racially-hyped Jena, LA case where Hillary Clinton, thinking she had the black vote in the bag, declared the Jena situation to be a "teachable moment". At this point in time we felt that Obama showed real leadership potential. Hillary, obviously, did not.
Then came the other news, about Obama's more than casual involvement with unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, his association with the highly anti-Semitic Professor Rashid Khalidi, now of Columbia University, his association with (now deceased) Prof. Edward Said, the individual who literally turned Middle East Studies at American Universities into a bad joke, and then his association with the racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. A person is known by the company he keeps, and Obama is no different. Obama may have thrown some of these folks under the bus for now, but will he go back and bring them on board in his administration if he is elected president? I don't know, you don't know, and neither does anyone else participating in this blog thread know. I was not satisfied with his obfuscation on his involvement with these individuals as were millions of other Americans. Now we literally don’t know where he stands on any of the major issues facing Americans in the upcoming presidential election, hence our obvious concerns about his comments on 2 July.
Bob Owens brought up a legitimate question that the Obama camp needs to answer. Perhaps making complete analogy to the Nazi SS is extreme, at least that's how I see it for now. The fact is that Obama is advocating a parallel organization that in the end will be a major rival to the U. S. Department of Defense for budget, areas of responsibility, influence and God only know what else. The analogy to the SS is relevant in this context in that the SS competed with the German Army for influence and weapons and did not report up the same chain of command as the German Army. Hitler’s contempt for his Army generals is well known. Anybody even remotely familiar with the history of World War II knows that cooperation between German Army and SS combat divisions was not the best. God only knows how many communication walls existed between these two organizations at that time.
In your response to Zelsdorf posted at 2:11 PM on 20 July you state:
"...Have another begl (sp?) and another cup of coffee...decaf this time."
My suggestion to you diogenes is stay off coffee, any coffee, period! In fact stay away from booze and bottled water as well. We know what Obama said, and it is up to Obama, not his acolytes like you, to explain what he meant by “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded”, on 2 July.
Posted by: Mescalero at July 20, 2008 10:20 PMYou can add to the 72 documented lies the fact the the birth record Hussein O provided to KOS is as phony as Blather Rather's documents. Someone at the stockyard must be good at forgery. No document exempt. Funny that when Hussein lies thousands of democrats lie. Just like the real Hussein and his Republican Guard, and just like the Republican Guard the dhimmi's who follow the new Hussein will fold like a wet dish rag when faced with a real gun.
I got a good laugh at his lie last week when he said he didn't speak a foreign language when he stated in 2006 (recorded interview) that he spoke Arabic and a little Spanish. Was he lying then or lying now? Probably both, he's a natural born liar and has mooched off the taxpayers all of his adult life. I still don't hate him or any other person on earth, but I trust a rabid skunk more than I trust him.
