"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."
World Net Daily's Joseph Farah endeavored at the time to learn from the Obama campaign what exactly Obama had in mind. "Are we talking about creating a police state here?," Farah asked. Farah noted that such initiatives had been undertaken in Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Venezuela but not free countries like the U.S. Farah later followed up in August on his original column and made a stunning claim about the origins of Obama's secret $439 billion civilian national security force. Farah wrote on August 21:
Enough of the mystery – let me tell you who this high-level Bush administration Cabinet officer is and why he will remain in his powerful position no matter who Americans send to the White House in 2009.
His name is Robert Gates, and he is the defense secretary.
Are you shocked?
Farah's prediction in August began to make a whole lot more sense when the Washington Post reported today that the U.S. military plans to deploy "20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials." The Post reports, "Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters." "Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates." "He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training."
The silence from the Left is deafening. The One has just announced that an old CIA hand, a veteran of the Iran-Contra scandal no less, close friend of the Bushes, supporter of "waterboarding" during interrogations of enemy prisoners and a key player in the administration which launched the Iraq War will stay on in his administration as the top civilian defense official. The left-leaning Talking Points Memo described Gates as a "heavy-hitter." "The message is that only the best will do; previous rivalries or petty subplots generated in the press as a result of his picks be damned." This is the same blog which ascribed bad faith motives and conspiracies to almost every single action taken by the Bush administration the past eight years. How the world has changed.
8 comments:
It appears that the Left, passing over some actual minor complaining that has occured, is going to give Barack Obama a chance.
A real, honest-to-gosh "we are a little surprised that you are going to go this direction but this is a representative democracy and you've been elected to do a job" chance.
On the other hand, comparing the Left's chronic suspicion of a right wing politician to their reaction to a liberal is a little disengenous.
Of course an idealogue is going to be more suspicious of someone on the opposite side.
That's the whole point of partisianship - you give your side a break and always criticize the other side, no matter what.
Both sides do it; it's endemic to American politics and thus not an idictment of liberalism as such.
I asked a die hard liberal about the Gates holdover appointment.
She said that Gates had been no cheerleader on the Iraq occupation and has said, essentially, "We are out of here."
So she justified it that way - no mention of Gates's past history.
As for the civillian defense thing-a-muh-jig, I honestly don't know that much about it, nor whether it is unique to third world countries, etc.
I will wait for information to come out before deciding.
I do think that Barack makes a lousy dictator - it is just an ill fitting allegation.
Naturally I like the fact that he appears devoted to his wife and children - no one can produce the tiniest smidgen of evidence or innuendo that he is anything but a devoted family man, and apparently a good father to boot.
So hopefully he'll be as devoted to the common good and the public trust as he is to the fam fam.
Hmmm, I believe there is something called the Posse Comitatus Act that would (should) keep a constant military presence on hand for the express purpose of, well, face it, keeping the American people in line. Elements of the 82nd Airborne were sent to assist in South Florida after Andrew without a Constitutional brouhaha over the PC Act, the Insurrection Act or the need for a special John Warner National Defense Authorization Act.
Are they really expecting 20,000 terrorists over here? If so, then fine. But, the whole thing smells.
What's even weirder is that Civil Defense Force-there is an audio interview of Rahm Emanuel talking about it from some time ago. Doesn't sound good from what I heard.
Most military folks and local law enforcement will not enforce the coming gun bans. The ObamaNation needs people who will go door to door to confiscate firearms!!!
Perhaps retention of Bush's Defense Secretary is due to Obama recognizing he's incapable of bringing in a new DS and dealing with all the executive decisions that would entail? So he just let's that position 'ride.'
Obama has to word things more carefully or else the ultra right wingnuts will gladly take soundbites like this and display them out of context, with plenty of sterile conjecture.
What Obama had planned to do was expand the Peace Corps and Americorps.
It's not like I'd expect a right wing group of warmongers to recognize diplomacy or civic virtue if it came up and bit them in the ass, the only language the neoconservative understands is to go off half-cocked and drop bombs on people.
BTW, the only gun legislation Barack Obama has proposed of any substance is requiring the same instant background checks for gun shows that gun shops have to abide by now.
For all you know, I could be a habitual violent felon, and go into a gun show and get a gun with no questions asked and start blowing people away.
The Bill of Rights gives you the right to go on a drunken killing spree, but not to have access to medical care.
Think about that.
BTW, the only gun legislation Barack Obama has proposed of any substance is requiring the same instant background checks for gun shows that gun shops have to abide by now.
For all you know, I could be a habitual violent felon, and go into a gun show and get a gun with no questions asked and start blowing people away.
So? Are you trying to tell us that the habitual violent felon couldn't buy the gun some other day in some back alleyway? That by passing this law, no habitual felons will ever be able to buy another firearm again?
spooknp: It's that kind of logic that really makes my blood boil.
With your argument, we should repeal the laws against making or possessing bombs, because the laws we have didn't stop Timothy McVeigh or the Unibomber.
We should repeal traffic laws because they don't stop everyone from speeding or not putting their turn signal on.
No law will ever stop 100% of crime, they're there to minimize, they're there so that when someone gets blown up or shot or raped, we can say we did what we could to try and deter it.
"If you think the Democrats will take away your bible, you're an idiot, if you think they'll take away your gun, you're an armed idiot, and if you think they'll take your gun and give it to a gay Mexican to shoot Jesus with, you're Bill O'Reilly." - Bill Maher
Cthulhu, where does the bill of rights say you can go on a drunken killing spree? And since when is health care a human right? I think you've been spending too much time At the Mountains of Madness! (sorry, couldn't resist)
Sincerely, though, I would argue that any kind of gun ban at this point really serves NO fundamental point whatsoever. I have a hunch the assault weapons ban is probably coming back. All that means is that the tens of millions of 'assault' weapons out there made before the original ban or after the ban expired will increase a little bit in value. It can't be enforced retroactively, so essentially all you're doing is forcing gun companies to make weapons and tools that will be obsolete when the ban gets repealed down the line. It serves no viable purpose.
Is the system screwed up? You bet. If the police arrest someone for murder, technically they can't even hold their gun permit until there's been an admin hearing. You could have pending charges for looting & pillaging and go out and buy up guns. It would be nice if they tightened up gun laws by actually SIMPLIFYING them or even enforcing the laws they have on the books. Unfortunately this isn't done very often.
I have no issue with the aforementioned fingerprinting issue to have your guns released, though I'm not familiar with it. If you don't want to be fingerprinted, nobody's keeping you from buying another gun, but don't plan on ever getting that one back. Every handgun placed in the property room is also shot and tested for ballistics matches. It's been this way for a LOOOOOONG time.
There are thousands of serious violent felons out there in possession of handguns as I type this. It's the consequence of living in the land of the free. I see where you're coming from, but it's not going to make much difference at this point. There are as many guns as people in this country. There are neighborhood guns just laying around, in bushes, gutters, siding, and wherever else they can be hid. Whenever somebody wants to shoot somebody, they can just go where everybody knows there's a gun and there you have it. I can't speak for other gun shows, but I'm not familiar with anybody ever going on a killing spree with firearms they purchased from the 1500 here in town.
One legacy of the 2nd amendment, IMHO, is that of every civilization that has ever existed, I firmly believe our country has the least likelihood of EVER being conventionally occupied. I think that was the original intention, and it's serving it's purpose.
Post a Comment