You are saying that without taking control of the National Guard,
President Bush does not have enough resources to commit to any rescue and
relief effort.


NOYB wrote:
Correct.

Incorrect.

How come, a week later, suddenly there are all kinds of
resources to commit?

Still no Presidential control of the Nat'l Guard.

In other words, bzzztt WRONG

again.

thanks for playing this round of Bush-Bot Excuse-Makers,
good bye until next week.



In one breath, you oppose executive branch control of first-reponders,

Correct.


in the next breath, you're criticizing the President for not sending the
U.S. military in sooner.


Correct.
Since he CAN send the military for rescue & relief efforts,
why wait a week while having a tantrum over the National Guard?

That was playing politics, pure & simple.


That was a problem, yes. Was Bush's control of the National Guard
necessary to solve it?



Not if the governor was competent and sent the Guard to control it sooner.


Considering that the National Guard *was* sent, then that
makes Presidential control pretty much irrelevant doesn't it?

The whole argument falls apart. It is merely a partisan
power-grab which you of course support.





I suggest you take a look at the number of agencies under the umbrella of
Homeland Security.



I've seen the list. So which agency has the people and equipment necessary?


Considering that pretty much all federal law enforcement can
be directed, under appropriate circumstances, by the
Inspector General's office, that would be a pretty good
start *if* the problem is ensuring law & order & protection
of relief workers. How about U.S. Marshals? How about the
Treasury and Secret Service and Border Patrol? All that
would be necessary to put a *vast* array of law enforcement
manpower into play would be a brief memo from the President.

Didn't happen, did it? Wonder why?




Perhaps the answer is to NOT have a President and an executive administration
that thinks it's fine & dandy to have large numbers of Democrats drowned &
their homes & cities blasted.


This is where your argument falls apart. By making this a Republican v.
Democrat issue, you've exposed yourself as not a problem-solver, but a
partisan hack.

And you say this after repeatedly calling Democrats
incompetent even though they did pretty much the exact same
thing any Republican would have done in the circumstances,
only sooner.

In other words, because I show up your feeble excuses for
the hypocritical double-dealing that they are, you call me a
partisan hack while indulging yourself in partisan hackery
with all your might (feeble though it apparently is).

Nice going, comrade NOYB! This thread is another triumph for
the socialist cause! My work here is done. Besides, I don't
want Chuck to yell at me any more.