Text 8088, 148 rader
Skriven 2008-11-04 09:40:43 av Ross Sauer (1:123/789.0)
   Kommentar till text 8086 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: WND "wisdom"
====================
"TIM RICHARDSON -> ROSS SAUER" <1:123/140> wrote in
news:25226$POL_INC@JamNNTPd:

 RS>> And people wonder why anyone with an IQ higher than single digits
 RS>> consider WorldNet Daily to be a joke?


 RS>> Topic: WorldNetDaily


 TR> And people wonder why anyone with an IQ higher than single digits
 TR> wouldn't have found this:


 RS>> Obama has already proposed the creation of a homeland police force
 TR> that

LIE.

In a July 15 column, Joseph Farah sounded the alarm bells about a
statement Barack Obama made in a July 2 speech -- "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."
Farah went into freak-out mode:

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the
phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a
little curious about what he has in mind.

[...]

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big,
powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't
this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the
military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some
kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even
bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the
Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would
want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly
happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some
curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

[...]

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force
bigger and more expensive than that?

If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?

So far, despite our attempts to find out, the Obama campaign is not
talking.

[...]

Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national
security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the
Constitution does he see justification for the federal government
creating such a domestic army?

The questions are endless.


Farah clearly didn't look very hard to find an answer to those
questions. From a July 8 Military Times Q-and-A (as noted by Sadly,
No!):

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. One of the
things I have been so impressed with is the heroic job that our men and
women in uniform have done basically on the fly having to train
themselves on the spot to function as engineers or function as social
workers or function as translators or political consultants. There's
just been a whole bunch of work that has been done that we haven't
prepared people for. They learn on the job, but if anything Iraq should
have given us a template for the kinds of skill sets that we're going to
have to provide to our military. And that's true in Iraq. That's true in
Afghanistan. That also means, by the way, that we're going to have to, I
believe, reconfigure our civilian national security force. In a way that
just hasn't been done.

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.

Q: WHAT SECRETARY GATES HAS CALLED SOFT POWER.

A: Absolutely, but the only problem with soft power is the term itself
makes people think it's not as strong as hard power. And my point is
that if we've got a State Department or personnel that have been trained
just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out
there alongside our military and engage, then we don't have the kind of
national security apparatus that is needed. That has to be planned for;
it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all
have to be integrated and that is something that we have not
accomplished yet, but that's going to be what's increasingly important
in our future to make sure that our military has the support that it
needs to do what it does the best, which is fight wars.
Given that this Q-and-A was posted a full week before Farah wrote his
false accusations, it would seem that Farah is either incompetent or
lazy.

We'll go with the latter. Despite such evidence to contradict his
scaremongering, Farah expanded on his lie in a July 21 column, falsely
referencing "Barack Obama's secret $439 billion plan for a mysterious
initiative called the 'civilian national security force.'" Farah went on
to lie: "We don't know any more about this plan than we did when Obama
announced it July 2 in a speech," going on to claim that it's "some kind
of domestic Big Brother program as the chilling words first suggested to
me."

Farah played dumb, making no reference to the Military Times interview;
while he notes that "a few have suggested" Obama was talking about "a
greatly increased commitment to the Foreign Service," Farah quickly
dismisses it in order to launch into his conspiracy theory.

Farah included among the alleged "questions raised by this nebulous
proposal": "Why do Obama campaign officials not respond to WND's
repeated requests for more information about his initiative?" Could it
be because WND has an established track record of telling lies about
Obama and smearing him at every opportunity while John McCain receives
relatively benign treatment?

Farah concluded: "The only thing that will force Obama to come clean on
this plan is public pressure." Or maybe if Farah stopped lying about
Obama.

 TR> Anyone with an IQ higher than single digits would start getting real
 TR> concerned about what's coming if B. Hussein gets elected president.

"B. Hussein"
Have anymore grade school reject playground insults?

--- Xnews/5.04.25
 * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)