From: "Mark" 

How would the governors know? Hmm, well perhaps by asking their underlings
to report back on the state of the state? 

I mean sheesh, the telephone pole mounted electrical transformers had
barely stopped buzzing in the weeds where they landed when the Gov. of
Kansas was so sure that it was Bush's fault -- all the while ignoring that
there was no delay in help in the first place as anyone with two (or even
one, or a pair of ears, or even one) eyes could see right on TV behind her.
Despite her not having requested help from the very institution she claimed
failed at the time of her posturing; unbelievable.

Hell, lots of people still believe there were rampant murders and rapes in
New Orleans, thanks to the BS of the "reporters" on the scene,
most people don't know the Navy was active and saving lives even as the
"reporters" were tsk tsking about non-existent rapes, zero
response et. al.>

It's time, in the aftermath of our cut and run from Iraq, for us as average
citizens, to realize that we are the only thing stopping us from being
killed by the jihadists that are going to follow us home. We cannot rely
on, nor expect to be safe, in view of 18 month FBI investigations of
"5 guys" here and there, as there will be many hundreds of
"5 guy groups" in our near future and we do not have the manpower
to do the "investigate for 18 months, prosecute for 4 years routine on
the defensive" act and expect maintain our current lifestyles of going
where we want without being blown up. 


"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:46465d7d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> The administration has been downplaying the expected cost of the war from
> the beginning. Remember when Kerry was attacked for saying the cost of the
> war would be 200 billion.  No way would it ever cost that much we were
> told. Gee if only if did only cost 200 billion. Given the lowballing , how
> would the Governors and the people know they should make other plans ?
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:4646578b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> That's fair enough too Bob, I think the states should have been
>> implementing contingency plans for greater ability to respond to
>> disasters of all flavors starting on 9/12/01. I'm sure that the Bush
>> administration has been lax in addressing those needs; but wonder where
>> the pressure from the 50 governors has been for 7 years? Maybe it's been
>> there, if so then Bush deserves more of the blame, but regardless, if the
>> governors have done nothing to sidestep any lack of action on the Feds
>> part for 7 years, then it stands in stark hypocrisy for the governors
>> (and retired generals) to come out of the woodwork on the morn of the
>> disaster du jour and engage in a whine fest --  it's not becoming of
>> Americans > good people in that town in Kansas were embarrassed by her posturing as
>> well>
>>
>> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
>> news:4646514c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>I really don't think it has been twisted. The N.G. is not able to respond
>>>to local disasters anywhere near as well as it use to be.  The States
>>>have been raising this point for several years now.  I see a very real
>>>problem with the lack of equipment and the failure to replenish the
>>>equipment. At the very least this means units in the states will have
>>>less training with the equipment they will use in combat or training with
>>>different equipment than they would use in the Iraq Theatre.
>>>
>>> To me that is indicative of either poor planning or poor judgment by
>>> some in the administration. Personally I think the Administration has
>>> way under budgeted for the occupation and war. I recall one Official
>>> saying the occupation would pay for itself and he was very adamant that
>>> the US would not be paying for the occupation. As I recall even when
>>> asked about worst case scenarios he was still adamant that the
>>> occupation would pay for itself.
>>>
>>> I do think that the states need to plan on finding other resources than
>>> the Guard ( which they have historically been able to use) for
>>> emergences. I would hope that the states are looking to increase the
>>> resources of State Defense Forces, state militias not subject to
>>> federalization. That would be one way to keep resources available for
>>> local problems.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>> news:46464ae9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Fair enough Bob. My thoughts are the reduced availability of the
>>>> National Guard here at home is probably not anywhere near what it is
>>>> twisted into and/or the implied point of view of inability
to respond
>>>> (this was addressed early on the thread) and even if it were, their
>>>> deployment over there is more valuable to the future of our country
>>>> than if they weren't. IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Robert G Lewis" 
wrote in message
>>>> news:46464769{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> Or you could actually address the points raised and
reply with actual
>>>>> information.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5