From: "Mark" 

Yes, he'll be there on Wednesday "for the *progressively derided*
photo op." If he was there yesterday it would be played as a
progressively derided: "moron visits, disrupts rescue efforts." 
And if he goes there next year and ceremoniously hands out a check for any
amount of dollars less than one trillion, it'll be banner headlines:
"Chimp is Cheap, fucks over the red states royally, while wearing a
white tie."

Subheading in newspaper: Obama helps Kansas farmers sow seeds, promises
more cash for 50 years and will bring NG home by spring."

"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:463fefef$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Well we know Bush will be there soon for the Photo Op
>
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:463fec87{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Hmm, because she waited until there was an emergency, then immediately
>> "blamed Bush," instead of taking preemptive action on
behalf of her
>> state's readiness years (as in over 4) ago?
>>
>> Nah, that'll never fly, it's always all "Bush's fault."
Although at least
>> Gov. Blanco realized she was too totally incompetent to pull off that
>> canard > if...>
>>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>> news:463fe929{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> The National Guard is a dual state-Federal force. Notice the 'state'
>>> word? The Governor of Kansas has every right to question what happened
>>> to those resources. Why does her doing what's whithin her right upset
>>> you so?
>>>
>>> http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx
>>>
>>> Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.
>>>
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>> news:463fe74e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>I know it's not valid, as the National Guard hasn't been
protecting our
>>>>borders since, forever, through no fault of their own.
>>>>
>>>> But my point was that the argument against the decimation of their
>>>> readiness here on our land is just so much BS, as they've never been
>>>> employed to that end anyway.
>>>>
>>>> If we're willing to allow illegal aliens to walk on over at their
>>>> leisure, and obviously we have been, and continue to be
willing to let
>>>> them do so, why do we need a National Guard?  To do
internal, far from
>>>> our borders, emergency recovery that governors can't handle on their
>>>> own?
>>>>
>>>> Where does that end? with a governor in North Dakota screaming for
>>>> National Guard help when a sink-hole sucks down a cabin, or worse a
>>>> bear, somewhere in the wilderness? >>> "progressives" (socialists in reality) and the
rest of us>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>> news:463fe2d5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> The problem of the war with the National Guard is Bush
tried to do it
>>>>> on the cheap and depleted the resources of the State's
National Guard
>>>>> units in another attempt to hide the true cost of this
war. War ain't
>>>>> cheap - nor should it be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bringing up illegal aliens in an attempt to justify
that depletion of
>>>>> resources isn't valid
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:463fe138{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Randy"  wrote in
message: It gets worse-to restock the
>>>>>> Guard will take 5 years, even if the money is
ready to be spent
>>>>>> yesterday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's probably true. How many years will it take
to stop illegal
>>>>>> aliens from walking/swimming across our border?
How many American
>>>>>> lives? Jobs? Hospital Beds? Children? Will be lost?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess, if only we weren't engaging in the wrong
war, in the wrong
>>>>>> place, at the wrong time, that our National Guard
could actually
>>>>>> protect our borders... >>>>> to "Bush's War" did it?>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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