Beck doesn't trust U.S. military
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, June 21, 2010 |
CONTACT Jess Levin (202) 772-8162 |
Fox News host claims "private individuals" "could probably take care of things in Afghanistan better"
Washington, DC - Glenn Beck recently declared that "I think you have private individuals that could probably take care of things in Afghanistan better" than the U.S. military. Today, Media Matters for America issued the following statement in response:
"The only conclusion one can draw from Glenn Beck's comments is that he thinks the war in Afghanistan would be better off in the hands of CEOs than Gen. McChrystal," said Eric Burns, President of Media Matters. "We shouldn't trust private contractors like Blackwater to tell special operations experts how to run the war."
Burns added: "This criticism is especially interesting coming from Beck, considering he's never served in the military."
BACKGROUND:
On the June 19 edition of Fox Business Network's Freedom Watch, Beck said:
ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Do you accept Jefferson's maxim that I always say at the beginning of every freedom watch, that "that government is best which governs the least."
BECK: Yes.
NAPOLITANO: Why do you believe that?
BECK: Because I have not seen the government do anything except cause problems, with an exception of maybe defense, but I'd like to give it a whirl, on, you know, defense that wasn't solely run by the government. I think you have private individuals that could probably take care of things in Afghanistan better.
NAPOLITANO: You know, there's a weird phrase in the Constitution that lets the Congress issue, quote, "letters of mark and reprisal." That basically means, hire a private army to get this done, and they can get it done faster, easier, and far more efficiently.
BECK: We wouldn't be in Afghanistan today if it wasn't for that. I also think that the Founders were exactly right. They knew that people, all people, go bad with power, and you've got to limit that.
RSS Feeds
I realise the word 'interesting' is used here in the 'use your imagination' sense... but I'd still have gone with 'stupid.'
There are many things, such as sending a man to the moon, that a private company could not have done. If the government is helping its citizens, it would have regulators in place to stem the excesses of private companies who forge that they are in business because of their customers not in spite of them. A military force is one of those things that the government can do and should do.
What if companies in various states had their own private militias? Those would probably operate like organized crime--carving out territories and requesting taxes from them. Private companies on foreign lands may not have the best interests of the American people on their minds.
Bekkk's understanding of the constitution probably exceeds his understanding of strategy in military tactics. He has already demonstrated an abysmal lack of knowledge of the constitution. His understanding of military strategy and tactics is probably less than that of Ambrose Burnside. Like in many other areas of political life, Bekkk's actual understanding of the issues involved here is far less than his perception of his understanding. Out of many words from him, there is little worth attention.