"...damaging storm surges in the coastal areas of Iran..." Will someone please ask bush how the 2 navel groups he sent to the coastal area of Iran weathered the storm????
Posted by jerri at June 6, 2007 07:18 AMwell Jeri, I guess warships that are supposed to travel about in big oceans should be capable of weathering storms such as these. Not the case however for fully loaded oil tankers. If one of these is out in the strait and splits...our two carrier groups would then be stuck. Sitting ducks. Then we can ask why they weren't ordered out of the Gulf before the storm hit.
Posted by T2 at June 6, 2007 08:02 AMIt is good to know that all our national guard will be there to help should it be needed.
Posted by j swift at June 6, 2007 08:05 AMThis is a very complex problem. On the one hand, it is vital our Bush/Cheney national interests so they will make resources available, it's not like some Democratic city or some Kansas town. On the other hand, cutting off the oil in the past has resulted in bumper profit opportunities for the Bush/Cheney oilmasters.
Posted by marc sobel at June 6, 2007 08:32 AMNot another reason to raise gas prices? How could they!
P.S. Scout your wasting a lot of energy. Makes me laugh though.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 6, 2007 10:50 AMRemember Kansas?
What aboput Kansas?
Please get your facts straight.
No name is right, Bushco was way quicker with the ineffectual and condescending photo op in Kasas. And the blaming of the locals and pretending that the deployment of the National Guard to Iraq didn't make a difference was almost instantaneous this time around. So they have gotten better at responding, haven't they?
Posted by iamcoyote at June 6, 2007 01:19 PMWait, I remember Kansas.
Tornados, not enough National Guard heavy equipment because it was damaged in Iraq. Something about the White House dissing another Dem governor in the press. This time because she requested the DoD to resupply the National Guard with the equipment that was lost in Iraq.
Yeah, that Kansas!
Sorry: Not true. Please get your facts straight.
Posted by at June 6, 2007 03:32 PMSorry: Not true. Please get your facts straight.
Yawn, we could go all day with these kind of arguments. Please, some of your facts.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 6, 2007 04:00 PMRemember Kansas, Greenberg that is. Sure, I remember a certain governor on vacation took her time to get back into the state. Had to borrow Governor Blanco's plane to get there. Now isn't that ironic? That certain governor makes some comment about the Guard and equipment then had to retract her mouth and admit her state was not having any trouble dealing with this natural disaster. Out of line comments when people want to help the people who were suddenly homeless.
What is it with Democrats always caving? Making statements then walking away from them? Can't seem to stand by anything they say?
Posted by peter at June 6, 2007 04:57 PMOK, he's not quite a General, but he is a Lt. Col.
National Guard troops are being forced to train with "Vietnam-era" equipment. "The brigade was forced to leave much of its equipment in Iraq at the end of its first deployment. Pryor said he was concerned that troops were training on Vietnam-era weapons systems as the Guard slowly received replacements." (Arkansas News Bureau, 2/28/07)
National Guard troops are forced to leave equipment in Iraq- shortchanging state governments. "Currently, about 16 percent of the Kansas National Guard's equipment, valued at over $117 million, will not return to Kansas. With the potential for the amount of equipment left overseas to double, [Governor Kathleen] Sebelius is concerned about the impact this will have on the Guard's primary mission back home." (Kansas City InfoZine, 2/13/07)
Sebelius has said that Kansas lacked about half the large equipment needed for recovery efforts and debris removal. She said more than 20 percent of the state's Humvees and 15 of 19 helicopters were sent to Iraq.
Sebelius is among a group of governors that has been asking for more than a year for the federal government to repair or replace millions of dollars worth of National Guard equipment sent to Iraq.
How's that peter?
Posted by Seven of Six at June 6, 2007 06:22 PMI just wonder SOS, the funding that our Congress just sent the president. Whether there's some replacement equipment included in it. Kansas was at 60% of specs for equipment in 2002. Now, I believe they're at 40%. Your first article referenced states the obvious...
"What is a governor to do when his or her state’s Guardsmen are deployed on federal service? The governor of each state is authorized to organize, train and equip a State Defense Force, not subject to federal service, to be used specifically when the National Guard is away. Kansas has such a force; I assume the governor has mobilized them.
When all is said and done, the United States needs a larger Army. Until we reestablish an adequate force level to meet the requirements levied on our active duty armed forces, we will continue to call up the National Guard and reserves." Lt. Col. Rick Francona
Has she or her predecessors funded such a force? Maybe it's time to do that.
Sure, he's not a general. Maybe someone in the senate will help him make it to general. Come on folks, get your Congressmen and women to build up our military to 1990 levels. We still need it at that level, cold war or not. We never should have lowered our guard and placed our volunteers in such a state.
Posted by peter at June 6, 2007 06:50 PMAll the articles I link too, except the first one, are pre-tornado. The governors saw the urgency, said something to bu$h, and nothing was done.
Most of these states are already operating on a shoe string budget.
It's kind of like the Immigration Issue here in AZ. Oh yeah, take care of the problem with your state funds, crap, we'd be broke in a few minutes.
The Feds have to come through with some help to the states.
Hey you live there. Shouldn't they come from where you live? Where do you think the money will come from...the fed. That's us too. What do you want to cut to make this happen? Balanced budgets, paygo, remember that one from Speaker of the whole House Pelosi? Deficit's down under 150 bil. Might be close to balanced next year if tax revenues continue as they have the last several years. The next president will probably have the virtually the same revenus conditions as W did coming in. And with tax cuts too. Just wait for those to expire in 2010 or 2012. If they're allowed to expire, what a tax increase it will be. If your Democrats are still in charge. They will feel the rath of the people for what they failed to do.
Posted by peter at June 6, 2007 08:31 PMRemember after Katrina hit and some Gulf Coast oil refineries were damaged and down for several months for repairs? Gasoline prices jumped, but settled down to pre-Katrina levels in a short while.
Now, we hear excuses being bandied around that more and more oil refineries are down for repairs (after equipment breakage or a fire) or they are converting to summertime fuel from wintertime fuel...so that's the reason for gas prices being over $3.00 a gallon.
Anyway, I have a question. We have a publicly-owned Strategic Petroleum Reserve expressly created to stockpile crude oil in case of an emergency (i.e. if overseas crude oil supplies are disrupted), so why don't we have a publicly-owned Strategic Oil Refinery Reserve to cover any real (or fabricated) disruption in domestic oil refining capabilities?
Makes sense to me.
And if the federal government (i.e. Bush and Cheney) don't want to build publicly-owned "backup" oil refineries that can step in in case of an emergency, then maybe states (4 or 8 states maybe) can establish an oil refining cooperative, pooling their resources, to build an oil refining facility to provide gasoline to their citizens during times when the privately-owned oil refining facilities are down for whatever reason.
I know, I know. The oil companies will scream bloody murder, but I get the impression that they are driving up gasoline prices, in an attempt to rake in as much windfall profits as possible while Bush and Cheney are still in the White House.
Besides, I still suspect that one hidden pressure on gasoline prices is the secret "depositing" program that Bush is still pursuing (after a temporary suspension last year before the election) which involves Bush pumping crude oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The DOE's SPR website still makes no mention of this program and how much is being pumped daily into the SPR. Why?
Posted by The Oracle at June 7, 2007 03:50 AMHey you live there. Shouldn't they come from where you live? Where do you think the money will come from...the fed. That's us too. What do you want to cut to make this happen?
peter, after I prove you wrong on Kansas National Guard equipment being depleted and the Governor requesting more assistance from the fed, you're being an asshole.
Cut the fucking Iraq war and we will be able to handle every issue that is hurting the US right now.
Hey, I'm not worried about the immigration problem. A lot of people are, don't ask AZ to pay by itself for the country's problem. I thought we were the the United States.
Oh yeah, it will solve that problem you're whining about, the Army needing to be rebuilt.
In the final analysis, the National Guard is a reserve component of the United States Army –- about half of the Army’s combat units are in the National Guard. While the governor is correct that 20 percent of the Kansas Army National Guard is deployed to Iraq, its primary mission is to provide forces for the United States Army. It is the federal government that funds the National Guard, not the governor.
The governor of each state is authorized to organize, train and equip a State Defense Force, not subject to federal service, to be used specifically when the National Guard is away.
Lt. Col. Rick Francona
No need to leave Iraq to handle every issue regarding the homeland. What are you Democrats becoming isolationist now? The governor can ask all she wants. She has the authority to fund
So tell me what you want to cut to get those funds for immigration. The war isn't the answer. What other area's do you want to take funds from?
Sorry, cutting the funding to the Iraq war is the answer, accept it. It might happen one day, hopefully you won't have lost a child to it or me lose a son.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 7, 2007 01:14 PM