Are the media airbrushing Obama’s speeches? Update: Wouldn’t ICE qualify?
posted at 9:30 am on July 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
World Net Daily does not have a great reputation for accuracy in its reporting, but Bob Unruh has pretty solid evidence for his report on a disappearing section of a speech given by Barack Obama. On July 2nd, Obama spoke in Colorado Springs and hit themes of national service, foreign policy, and national security. In that vein, Obama proposed a rather extraordinary idea — that the US should spend as much money on a civilian national security force as it does on the military. The quote comes from 16:45 in the clip below:
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 not quite clear what Obama meant by this. If he meant that the military had taken over too many functions that normally should be handled by the State Department, then that echoes what Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week. It seems to reference the costs associated with reopening consulates and doubling the Peace Corps, but that wouldn’t come close to matching what we spend at the Pentagon. The phrasing of it — a “civilian national security force” — sounds much more like a quasi-military organization operating within the US under the control of the federal government.
The media needs to ask Obama about it — but they’d have to report it first:
The stunning comments from Democrat Sen. Barack Obama that the United States needs a “civilian national security force” that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar United States Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force have mysteriously disappeared from published transcripts of the speech.
In the comments, Obama confirmed the U.S. “cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set.”
Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting a comment on the situation. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.
WND points out two newspapers that printed the supposedly complete transcript of the speech, the Wall Street Journal and the Denver Post, as examples. The New York Times didn’t post a transcript, and neither did the Washington Post nor the Los Angeles Times. Most oddly, as Unruh points out, the Obama website doesn’t have that speech available, either.
Obama needs to clarify what he means by “civilian national security force”, and how it would be funded. After all, we have a panoply of federal security agencies already: FBI, BATF, DEA, and more, plus the National Guard on the state level. Where would Obama get the money to fund it at the same level as the Pentagon? What would its mission be, and where would it get its authority? What would be the lines of jurisdiction?
All of these questions need to be answered — but first the media has to find its objectivity and start asking about the speech and report it correctly. Obviously the Obama campaign provided them with an advance copy for the event, and just as obviously Obama deviated from it. Aren’t any journalists curious as to why?
Update: Doesn’t this statement conflict with Obama’s statement about ICE?
When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it.
Wouldn’t ICE be part of a civilian national security force? Obama sounds more and more confused by the day. (h/t HA reader Jeff D)
Update II: Note to desperate Obama apologists: the Peace Corps is not a “national security force”.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Burglars lock homeowner in gun closet with predictably hilarious results
Miller was full of it and there was clearly targeting going on says…Chris Matthews?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Incompetency is just a liable as Malevolence…
Doctors are held accountable for incompetence…so should those in Government.
workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM
Here is the crux of the matter. The Obysmal administration was so intent on portraying Libya as a great success in the flourishing of democracy and that Al Qaeda was “on the run” that they hadn’t prepared for the jihadists’ attack. Sending in help or a rescue might have cost even more lives, and they didn’t want the body count to even go higher. The O-team was content to keep the “collateral damage” relatively small for their own cynically political purposes.
onlineanalyst on May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM
I consider them both but if they are publicly saying this as their excuse, then you can bet they are worried that the actual info is about to come out. For all those not paying attention, that would be Fast and Furious 2; The benghazi edition.
Boehner should step up and say, “ok, we are all in agreement that you are idiots, now we are going to find out just what the hell you were doing over there!”
can_con on May 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.
blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM
Regarding the Rush caller near the end of his program just now wondering why all the focus on the coverup of the Benghazi matter and not the cause of it: it’s because if you look at the factors that led to the attack you’ll find McCain, Rubio and Graham were promoters and the GOP establishment would prefer people only focus on the aftermath and Democrat coverup rather than the bi-partisan cause.
FloatingRock on May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Their best defense: We’re horribly incompetent and shouldn’t be allowed to run a hamburger stand. But we still don’t think our incompetence caused anyone to die.”
And even there, we can point to 4 people who died, and many more that would have died if 2 of those 4 hadn’t responded without waiting for orders and staged a rescue action.
So it’s not really, “incompetence that didn’t cost any lives.” It’s “incompetence that cost 4 lives.
And this is their best defense. Which almost certainly means they’re lying, and there really was deliberate malice and/or neglect behind it.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM
Here’s a crazy thought. Earlier in the day, the Cairo embassy had been besieged. Why not put fast-response forces on standby THEN?
Basically the U.S. response on 9/11/12 was the same as a rabbit when it notices a nearby wolf. Hold very still and hope the threat passes by.
hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM
That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.
Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.
hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?
Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”
AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM
“I can’t answer the god*!mn 3am phone call…cause I’m too drunk to find the f*#kin’ phone…@#$%&*$#@!!…” – Hillary Clinton
workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM
The GOP should use that quote in every political ad against Dems from here on out.
Of course they won’t…they don’t want to “alienate moderates” or something limp-wristed akin to that.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Who gave the ‘stand down’ order…?
Seven Percent Solution on May 17, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Weapons To Syria.
Libyan weapons to Syria, Mali and Gaza Strip – US Security Council Report.
We were in Benghazi for the weapons.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM
“US” – Should be UN Security Council
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Syrians squabble over Libyan weapons – Sept. 15, 2012.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:45 PM
So it seems that the real clusterfark of idiocy is that no accounting was made for how to deal with Libyan weaponry and we have essentially armed a whole region of
terroristsmilitias and rebels.oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM
Stevens was probably in Benghazi to review weapons “applications” from different bidders. As long as you didn’t have anything like “Tea Party” in your militias name, you could buy sell or trade weapons.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM
If I remember the logic puzzle correctly, the right question to ask would be something like “If I asked you yesterday whether you were an idiot or a liar, which would you have answered?”. Idiot still says “idiot”, liar would have said “idiot” yesterday, but must now lie about that so must say “liar”.
WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.
bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM
WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.
bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM
Oops.
oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM
When incompetence merges with complete corruption you have a perfect storm.
MaiDee on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Those maps are old, but ok, One sec…
Ok I did that. There are a number of jets on the tarmac. I knew there would be.
That was my point. Any adult would know this. There is no excuse for letting those men die.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM
We can either charter one or if necessary we have people that can borrow one.
dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM
I think “lying idiots” pretty well covers it!
Another Drew on May 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM
I keep going back to Hillary’s 3:00 A.M. Phone Call ad. It seems that everybody in the administration failed that test. They’ve sunken below even my lowest expectations, and I don’t see anyone in the GOP bullpen likely to rise above ideological squabbles and lead us out of this.
flataffect on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM
The challenge was issued above by an obvious Obama apologist, to look at a Google map of Sigonella and report whether any aircraft were seen there.
The question would be, “why not”. Actually, if there are no aircraft there now, there soon will be because the Italian government has just reported that 200 U.S. Marines plus two aircraft are being based at the joint U.S. Italian base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Just across a short stretch of water from Benghazi.) “Quick, the horse is galloping down the lane, close the barn door.”
Oldflyer on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM
This is why I do not believe it was stupidity. I believe whoever left the ambassador isolated, wanted to make sure he was not covered
I am a minority, but I believe there was to be an event to lead to a glorious hostage exchange – but it was foiled by the brave men who refused to stand down. Whoever started the evil chess game was left hanging and they had to run with the video fast, precisely because no one, no one, would be able to explain withholding cover from the victims. If I am right, I will never be vindicated, because the scandal will be too great so they have to fall back on stupidity
IMHO stupidity in such a case implies a total contempt for the lives of the victims. This is why we need an IRS scandal.
In any case, there is no way Obama can justify flying off the next day to a fund raiser. That in itself demands an IRS scandal. Since the Whistleblowers were coming, the guilty ones had to start a chicken dance, fast.
AP scandal was the one and only way to get the MSM willing to beat up on Obama’s IRS
entagor on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM
My vote goes to: you are lying idiots.
ghostwalker1 on May 17, 2013 at 11:18 PM
This is a theory that makes all the pieces fit. It’s true they’re incompetent, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t also up to no good.
Cara C on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM
Wonderful article by Sharyl A. The administration appears to be conceding they have lost the debate and are plea bargaining for the lesser charge of idiocy over malice. This won’t do. In the entire piece, no explanation was given for the arrival of the video onto the scene.
Don’t fall for that hangdog expression, Repubs. Those watery eyes are shifting about.
MaxMBJ on May 18, 2013 at 3:30 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2