re: #326 avanti

Fact check

Hey, I realize that that Obama quote has likely been blown out of proportion, but to claim that “Security Force” = “Peace Corps” or “AmeriCorps” or “USA Freedom Corps” is just silly. None of those last three have anything to do with “Security”.

Here’s the relevant part of his speech:

Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to 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 clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to 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 only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

In context, he’s speaking of a variety of service options that will make up his new plan, one of which is a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded”.

It’s a specific mention of a separate force that is not part of the three others mentioned in your link.

Oh….and the link is from annenberg…. hardly objective as can be seen in their characterization of “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as “exaggerated”…… it’s a direct quote, not an exaggeration.