On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 00:06:49 -0600, "Lowell C. Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Greetings again, Frank! > >You know, I should have gone back earlier and more carefully read the >different news items and press releases below. It looks to me like you've >basically confirmed the Newsmax story even though you called it "bogus." >The linked Newsmax story has been corrected so it no longer claims that the >governor did NOT declare a state of emergency. However, the SOE declaration >that you noted (as I pointed out in other posts) did not provide for the >necessary permission and authority for Bush to move troops in (either >Nationalized NG or active duty military). I have yet to see anything that says an emergency declaration is required to activate NG troops -or- to allow federal troops from operating in the state. >Then there is the press release you pointed to. It appears to still be >vague about exactly what military and NG assistance she is going to permit. I don't even think the NG or other military is even mentioned in the declaration, so I guess you could call that "vague". >Even though she agrees to a "single military commander" for federal forces, >she is clearly keeping state assets and personnel under state control and >then she wants to "co-locate" a "coordinating officer". Cool. Sounds like a plan to me. > So, now the >feds can get tied up "coordinating" with state officials who probably have >to run to "mommy Blanco" whenever they want to wipe their noses. Oh yes, >and I just noticed that "over 25 National Guard states currently being >commanded by the Lousiana Adjutant General." So Bush gets the blame while >Blanco keeps control of what is happening. Now you are sounding like Bill. Got an argument founded on something other than paranoid speculation? >The Newsmax story says that the feds wanted to take over the NO evacuation >and that it was refused by the Governor. It appears that the press release >you pointed to only confirmed that. Where? I didn't see anything of the sort. In fact, I went looking for the source of your info and couldn't find it. As far as I can tell it's just a rumor, probably started by some political propogandist. > Then, there's this other press release >from Sept. 3, "Yesterday, I personally briefed President Bush on our >requirement for additional federal assistance. In response to this request, >this morning President Bush announced more than 7,000 additional troops are >on the way to help with hurricane recovery." > >http://gov.louisiana.gov/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=1004 > >In other words, there isn't a thing that Bush can do until "mommy Blanco" >tells him he can. Now hold on there a sec..... if you look at that quote a little more closely it says, "In response to this request...", meaning that Blanco -requested- those troops. It doesn't say that Bush offered to send the entire remaining US military and Blanco only allowed him to send 7000 troops, which is the way -you- are making it sound. If you have proof that Blanco is refusing to let Bush send in troops then by all means post it. Otherwise, set aside whatever is fueling your hatred for this person and deal with the facts that are available. > Like I said, it's a neat political trick: make yourself >the bottleneck, grandstand, and blame the other guy for what you are doing. Just a suggestion: If you are going to listen to Rush then at least hold him to the same standards of criticism that you are holding to everyone else. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
