TargetRichEnvironment

Our friend the Blue Collar Muse (link) points out a questionable statement (which are so plentiful that they’re tough to keep up with, given all the blather) from the Obamessiah:

“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.”

Is he referring to Americorps? Expanding the existing civilian national security apparatus (CIA, NSA, and the rest of the alphabet)?  Or maybe something new? 

I think after viewing the video at Fort Hard Knox (link), it’s most likelty that he’s murkily presenting a common liberal view that volunteers and nanny-state boondoggles are better for national security than the military. Kinda like the stupid bumper sticker about “maybe someday the schools will have all the funding they need and the military will hold a bake sale”.  It’s a mentality that lacks any awareness of the existing realities of human nature and history, but sure sounds good if you’re trying to pick up smelly liberal chicks at a take-back-the-night rally.

But regardless of the meaning, I must agree with the Blue Collar Muse’s sentiments in his comment (#11):

The problem I, and many others, have with his comment is that it is not clear from context. To go from talking about service to the country and the world via Americorps and the Peace Corps and “renewing our diplomacy” to calling for a program (not several) which would have a budget that rivals the military’s and then wrapping it all up under the umbrella of a “civilian national security force” is, in no way, shape or form, clear!

How in the world can you ask me to believe that it is? If Obama is being misquoted and misunderstood, all he has to do is explain himself. That he hasn’t or won’t speaks volumes!

I concur in that for how eloquent the Obamessiah is, whenever he speaks the truth, it’s later called inartful and we’re told by a pliable media that he really meant what he said in a literal fashion that we’re being divisive.

In newspeak, eloquent is now the antonym for plain-spoken.