And, Here's Obama's Gobbly-Gook, Mumble-Jumble, "What the H*ll Is He Talking About?" -Video Clip of the Day
Here’s the latest nutty Obama interview of the day…
Barack Obama talks about private security contractors (code for “The evil Blackwater mercenaries”):
Even his facial expressions are telling in this interview– He doesn’t have the slightest clue on what he’s talking about… It is amazing.
Here are a couple of notable lines:
–Private security contractors put our troops in harm’s way(?)
–If you start building a military premised on the use of private contractors and you start making decisions on armed engagement based on the availability of private contractors to fill holes and gaps that over time you are, I believe, eroding the core of our military’s relationship to the nation(?)
–I think you are privatizing something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is a monopoly on violence(?)
(2 minutes 21 seconds)
Edmond Jenks at Power Line Forum offered this analysis on Obama’s latest Far Left mumble jumble on private security contractors in Iraq:
Somebody please ask junior Senator Barack Obama what he means when he says that contract worker support of our war effort should be just used for kitchenwork and automobile repair. Does Barack Obama actually know what kind of invaluable service outfits like Blackwater perform in the support of our efforts in ferreting out zeolots who want to do harm to the Iraqi citizens we are trying to liberate?
This is what Barack said to The Military Times, July 2, 2008:
There is room for private contractors to work in the mess hall, providing basic supplies and doing some logistical work that might have been done in-house in the past. I am troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements… I think it creates some difficult morale issues when you’ve got private contractors getting paid 10 times what an Army private’s getting paid for work that carries similar risks…
Does Barck even understand what Blackwater does … they are NOT mercenaries. They do not replace the activity of our armed forces but actually complement the effort through special tasks best left to security professionals.
But Barack continued:
…When it comes to our special forces, what we’ve seen is that it’s a potential drain of some of our best-trained special forces, and you can’t blame them if they can make so much more working for Blackwater than they can working as a master sergeant. That, I think is a problem.
Q: Blackwater would argue that they’re a bargain: that you get a higher level of ability, that they can put people there, they can keep top-level talent there perpetually.
A: I am not arguing that there are never going to be uses for private contractors in some circumstances. What I am saying is if you start building a military premised on the use of private contractors and you start making decisions on armed engagement based on the availability of private contractors to fill holes and gaps that over time you are, I believe, eroding the core of our military’s relationship to the nation and how accountability is structured. I think you are privatizing something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is a monopoly on violence. And to set those kinds of precedents, I think, will lead us over the long term into some troubled waters.
Barack Obama doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.
What does he mean when he says I think you are privatizing something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is a monopoly on violence. WHAT?!
War is war and to be truthful, there is no monopoly of violence when bullets start flying or when people are strapping bombs to themselves to blow innocent citizens up. What does exist is an environment where specialized talents are placed into use to enable our effort to push back and win more efficiently and effectively. This is not much different than how American Rules football is put together, where specialized talent helps to move the ball down the field.
The same interview showed that Barack also does not understand the difference between an ally and an enemy.
And if you look at costs and benefits and if you look at the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, overall I think it was a bad decision on the part of our commander in chief.
Those are the kinds of decisions that are going to be coming up in the future.
We’re going to have to make decisions about Iran, we’re going to have to make decisions about Pakistan.
The capacity of the next commander in chief to forge alliances so that we can, when we act militarily, act in the ways that we did during the first Gulf War, a war in which, not only were our casualties kept low, but it effectively cost us almost nothing in terms of taxpayer dollars…
Our ability to engage the Muslim world in a serious way so that we are tamping down anti-American sentiment even as we recognize that there is always going to be an element of extremism that can only be dealt with militarily.
Here’s are a few more comments:
— There have been few casualties in this Iraq War (only 2 so far this month). In fact, although Obama believes the Far Left drivel, the casualties per month are lower in this war than in the first Gulf War.
— And forgive me for calling Obama an appeaser. We all know how sensitive the Left is when you call them out on the carpet. But, appeasing radical Islamic fundamentalists is not a way to “tamp down on anti-American sentiment.” In case he did not notice, it hasn’t worked so well in Pakistan lately.
It is frightening to think Obama is one step away from being Commander in Chief.
UPDATE: Astute Bloggers has more on Obama’s Far Left attitude on Blackwater employees.