Quote Of The Day
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Partisan Hacks, Quotes, Republicans, WTF?
“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force. I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”
- Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) in an interview with the AP
Well, he’s got one thing right…it does sound both crazy and off base.
But wait…there’s more!
“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”
And still more!
“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”
The ignorance is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
First off, any national security force wouldn’t be answering to Obama…it would answering to the President. And that President changes every 4 to 8 years.
Second, if Broun honestly thinks that something anywhere close to what happened in Germany and Russia could happen in America, he’s either not a student of American history or he needs to get on some powerful anti-anxiety meds immediately.
Moving on…
This entry was posted on Monday, November 10th, 2008 and is filed under Partisan Hacks, Quotes, Republicans, WTF?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Does this guy not realize that an army is synonymous with a “national security force”?
What does an army do other than protect a nation’s security (in theory)?
November 10th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
OK Everyone here’s your fact of the day from the AP: Obama was referring in the speech to a proposal for a civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure — an idea endorsed by the Bush administration.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Isn’t that fairly similar to what we already have with a CIA that conducts para-military operations?
November 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
We want our elected officials to be working together… not spreading rumors about each other.
If you think that Paul Broun’s comment was innapropriate and he should think twice next time he disparages washington colleagues, please sign my petition to censure him :
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/CensurePaulBroun/
November 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
This guy is the poster child for why the US electorate is so disenchanted with the Republican party.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Wasn’t this dude a Bush booster? And he’s worried about executive overreach from Obama?
From the annals of misunderestimating irony.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
What were Obama’s actual words? I think that this dude’s conclusions are way overboard, but the equivalent of a domestic army is not a great idea. Again, most likely one of those things said on the campaign trail that won’t materialize.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
no! rebuilding infrastructure and para-military operations are not the same!
November 11th, 2008 at 3:54 am
Aaah, Paul Broun! He fits right in with the rest of the shipwrecked G.O.P. A great cartoon about him and the recriminations flying back and forth on the Reasons To Be Cheerful, Part 3 blog!
November 11th, 2008 at 8:34 am
“What were Obama’s actual words?”
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=305420655186700&secure=1&show=1&rss=1
Like it or not that is exactly what the SA was. Thats not partisan politics thats history.
These types of organizations, whatever the good intentions of their founding, have been abused time and again. Just because we are Americans we are above such temptation?
What lessons did you guys learn from Abu Ghraib?
This is an “innovation” we can do without.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:07 am
The first hint that a speaker has no clue what they are talking about is referring to Hitler (unless the subject is Rwandan genocide or the such). It has become so commonplace to compare someone/something to Hitler that is has become a joke.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:27 am
If they weren’t so dangerous, I’d say let these wack jobs keep talking. The right wing of the Repubs are diagnosing themselves - they have a severe case of stupid. The faster they implode the better we’ll all be.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:14 am
RE: Civilian Security Force. He was talking in that speech about expanding Americorps, the Peace Corps, the Foreign Service and the like to help aid in the overall security of the country.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw
Starts at 14:00
November 11th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Sheesh….what does it take to either accept A) He misspoke when he used the term “civilian national security force”, or B) He meant exactly what he said.
This “Oh he meant what he said…but he doesn’t mean what the words plainly mean” is tortured beyond all rational belief.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I think people are accepting B), just not on your terms. “National security” has a much broader definition than what you’re suggesting. There are more facets to it than just the military, as things like an expanded peace corps and fully staffed embassies both serve national security purposes. And that’s exactly what he said.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Justin: “Second, if Broun honestly thinks that something anywhere close to what happened in Germany and Russia could happen in America, he’s either not a student of American history…”
You dont really believe this right? What makes us so special?
November 11th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Andrew…as stated does it SOUND quasi-militaristic?
“just as powerful, just as strong”
What do you think it means to say the military is “powerful” and “strong”?
November 11th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Hi Rich,
He meant what he said, but not in the way so many like the Congressman seem to be taking it. I don’t believe he was talking about creating paramilitary forces by any means. Andrew beat me to the punch and I should have been more clear in what I was trying to get across. Sorry.
In terms of National Security, no one doubts the strength of the military - the other services Obama wants to beef up haven’t gotten a lot of attention and are just as important as the military component. These two, when coupled together, do need to match up as being equal in effectiveness in terms of what they’re designed to do.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Rich, get a clue.
If you actually listen to the speech and don’t just take one soundbite out of context, you will see that Obama is talking about expanding the Peace Corps and adequately funding and staffing international development and civil affairs programs.
He may have used a poor choice of words, but he is not talking about secret police or stormtroopers or something along those lines.
Anyway, Paul Broun is a well-known right-wing fundie nutcase. The main piece of legislation he has sponsored in his most recent term is a law banning pr0n on military bases.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
“He meant what he said, but not in the way so many like the Congressman seem to be taking it. I don’t believe he was talking about creating paramilitary forces by any means. Andrew beat me to the punch and I should have been more clear in what I was trying to get across. Sorry.”
Then that is “A” he misspoke and we can look forward to NOT having a Civilian Security Force as powerful as, as strong as and as well funded as the Armed Forces.
I for one will sleep easier.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Haven’t read all comments so not sure if this is a repeat of other comments but…
Here is a post that gives the quote IN CONTEXT, making it *beyond clear* that the “nat. sec. force” discussed here refers to programs such as Americorp, Peace Corp, etc. Yeah, real scary!
http://www.pithyurl.com/?TNKBS
My question is: Why doesn’t the post here give context for the quote, which would have easily explained why these accusations are not only absurd but why they suggest an utter lack of reading comprehension among those who heard/read Obama’s speech and came away with an interpretation like Broun’s.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:14 am
[sigh] I do wish more people would point out how astoundingly silly it is to say that Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. No such event ever happened; whether you could call Weimar Germany a functioning democracy or not is debateable (I’d say it wasn’t), the fact is that Hitler actually usurped power. The German people never elected him to a damned thing; his party won just enough seats to win a minority government, then using assassination, brutality, and flagrant disregard of the law, locking out all opposition, seized 100% power and handed it all to one man to be dictator for life.
No one elected Hitler to that agenda–NO ONE.
It’s sad that people have so little respect for democracy and what it really is that the claim that Hitler was elected democratically pass with no comment. This fascist usurper was NEVER elected Democratically.
He also faced strong opposition among democratic (and non-democratic) forces in Germany, who he ruthlessly imprisoned, murdered in cold blood, or terrorized into silence. It’s a sick degrading of everything we call democracy to even compare any democratic system of government, let alone one of our own democratically elected leaders, to this murderous tyrant.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:55 am
[...] Justin Gardner notes some recent insanity by a Republican Congressman. [...]
November 15th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Comparing Bush to Hitler…
I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”…