Posturing aside, can anyone really explain what Obama meant by his statements about forming a civilian national security force? Choosing a new chief of staff, Rahn Emanuel, who has called for mandatory service in his 2006 book doesn't help allay my concerns. "Moderate Georgia Republicans should be outraged that they are represented by such an idiot."I would rather see someone get a little hyperventilated about watching after our liberty, than have someone complacently rely on the good faith of our nation's politicians. After events like Iraq, Watergate, Vietnam, the Kennedy assasination (need I go on?) do you really look at our politicians and think of them as a group that can be trusted implicitly? Try and turn the situation around, if it helps: if Bush proposed a new civilian national security force, would you be concerned? Maybe a bit? So, can anyone answer what Obama had in mind? My initial thoughts were that this was just to augment the peace corps, or something like that, but in the same remarks he seemed to pretty clearly differentiate the peace corps. I want to believe that it is harmless, but the phrase "civilian national security force" has historically not been a good thing.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rati