How did I miss this one? Barack Obama uttered this back on July 2:
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he also said the nation’s future and safety depends on more than just additional soldiers….
“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.”
Note – there is a reason why I cut the two paragraphs I did; I will return to them later in the post.
The first mention in a search of my over-bloated feed reader came from Charles Johnson over at Little Green Footballs on the 8th. Michelle Malkin put it in the Hot Air Headlines on the 13th. There were a couple of other mentions between then and today, but still somehow I missed it until Leslie Carbone and Fred picked it up today.
If one only looked at the portions of the article I quoted, it would either be exceptionally-good news or exceptionally-ugly news. Does that mean I’ll be able to get that Paladin (I still qualify as a member of the unorganized militia as defined in the United States Code)? Does it mean that Asian Badger (an ex-Navy pilot) would not only be able to mount a minigun on AB1, but replace AB1 with an F-15E Strike Eagle, complete with bunker-buster bombs (I call back seat!)? If it means that, we’re looking at something north of $400 billion in spending.
Does it mean that the military loses those and future weapons to match the inability of the populace to get automatic weapons or explosives? After all, Obama is on record as advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament and a “slowdown” of developing new conventional military weapons.
I guess it’s time to bring in the “missing” paragraphs to help explode some fantasies:
“It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia,” he said.
Obama had first outlined many of the proposals he talked about Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.
It sure sounds like a combination of a return to the wussification of the standing military conducted under Bill Clinton and a massive expansion of the federal nanny state. Not at all surprising, yet disappointing, from a person whose first considered reaction to 9/11 was that the college-educated leaders of Al Qaeda just didn’t have enough education and welfare opportunities.
You will not get the Tinfoil Hat award for missing the obvious: The O-and-Savior would like a Stasi for the US.
I toyed with breaking out the participants in the Night of the Long Knives, but that would have only belabored the point.
Besides, we know that the Left isn’t exactly peaceful.