A New Era of Service and a Civilian National Security Force: An Obama Conspiracy?
About the Author: Born in Boston, I lived and worked in the D.C. area for a time, but have spent most of my life in Tennessee, where I graduated from the University of Tennessee. My political philosophy could best be described as eclectic, though mostly right of center. Read more from this authorOn July, 2, 2008, Barack Obama was in Colorado Springs to deliver a speech on his plans for public service. The text of the speech was given to the media in advance, and we printed it belatedly as a new site trying to feel its way on content. As is typical for such things, the planned speech varied a little here and there from what was delivered. But there was one section, two sentences, that were a bigger change than simply getting into the local vernacular flow. These two sentences weren’t in the press release at all and are causing a bit of a stir in blogland. Is there some sort of strange conspiracy afoot to hide Obama’s intentions for a new and nefarious government program?
Here is the portion of the speech in question. The first part, in black, is what was released and what leads up to the missing section, which is in red.
We’ll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We’ll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we’ll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. 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.
I put the sentence preceding the red material in bold lettering because everyone seems to be missing the connection between this sentence and the next two–or at least they claim to be missing it. As much as I, a rabid conservative, would like for this to be some grand conspiracy, it is absolutely clear that he is speaking of Foreign Service, closed consulates and the Peace Corps when he says “civilian national security force”. As a well-known, part-time pacifist, Obama is sarcastically pointing out that we need a foreign policy that offers tea and cakes as often as it offers a thwack to the head. The idea that this is some new Obama paramilitary concoction flying under the radar is ridiculous.
So is the Obama campaign explicitly trying to hide something here? First of all, it is not at all unusual for speeches to vary that much from the prepared text. Like most people preparing a statement, Obama was probably going through the speech over and over before taking the podium. Who knows when he decided to throw that in? It could have been in the car on the way there. It could have been as he was listening to his introduction. It does not matter. Speech texts are always sent out with the disclaimer “as prepared for delivery” or something similar. Speeches change, and this disclaimer is a nod to that. The campaign has not released a “final version” of the speech, so they can’t be accused of hiding anything. In fact, they put the whole speech on YouTube (the point in question is right before minute 17).
Other questions are being floated by bloggers (on blogs I really enjoy). For instance, they look at the “just as well-funded” remark and try to put all the money together for this, concluding he can’t be talking about just the “Foreign Service, closed consulates and the Peace Corps” because the funding won’t equal out. They are even pointing out that the Peace Corp can’t be considered a “defense force”. Are we so blind in our dislike of Obama that we cannot even properly interpret the simplest figures of speech and off-the-cuff hyperbole?
And we are a site that posted a story this morning called “Jackassery We Can Believe In” (a story I really liked, by the way). We aren’t exactly drinking the Kool-Aid here. Constantly turning something into nothing is an excellent way to get everyone to stop listening to you. Obama has enough serious problems that we can point out without this sort of nonsense. Things like this, if taken to extremes, could actually lead to public sympathy for Obama. Taking things completely out of context and blowing them out of proportion should be left to the pros on the left. We on the right are supposed to be able to maintain our foothold on reality.
Also in network: The Sheer Stupidity of Demonizing Michelle Obama
The expression used by Mr. Obama is “civilian national security service”. Perhaps the “missing” statement is an added paragraph, to stand on its own, not an additional sentence to be read in light of the rest of the paragraph.
I agree with your conclusion, since your interpretation is as plausible as the one I am alluding to. There are quite more important problems with Mr. Obama’s understanding of war and peace than this one.
That is incorrect. Listen to the speech via the link. He clearly says “civilian national security force”. But it is just inconsequential. He clearly didn’t mean what the bloggers are trying to say he meant.
My mistake. I should have typed “force”.