From: "Mark" 

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 

"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