Sunday, July 20, 2008

Reason #896 why we can't trust the major media

Especially when something reflects badly on the guy who give them a thrill up their leg:
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
.

Said it before, I'll say it again, this idea of Barack Hussein Obama's should scare the crap out of you. The fact that his own website, let alone so much of the media, skips that part of the speech tell you one of two things:
He realized what a pile he just stepped in, and want to hide it, or
He realized just what people think of that, and wants to hide it until after he's elected.
I tend to think it's the latter, "I shouldn't have said what I really think because the peasants aren't ready for it."

Added: Confederate Yankee has a note: Snark at excitable Andy's spelling error aside, his defense of Obama is an original one, essentially, "Bush is Hitler, Obama is only Himmler."

Why, that's just far more reassuring isn't it?

3 comments:

jed said...

You know, it ain't what he meant, but whenever that line comes up, I'm reminded of Hamilton's description of the armed citizenry in Federalist #29:

… but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

He doesn't realize it, but we already have one, if they'd just let us be properly armed.

Windy Wilson said...

As you said, that's supposed to be a comfort? He's trying to minimize the danger by comparing him to a different Nazi. Obama wouldn't be harmless if he were Albert Speer.
Besides, he doesn't know his history. Obama is not Himmler, he's Heydrich.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm.....IIRC, we already have a "national security force." See: Rights, Bill of, Item #2.