Bush's policies weakened Kansas' ability to respond adequately to disaster

[motivez]

It's not me who's misinformed, you should do some more reading on the subject before you go around making accusations and declarations that make you look foolish.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not me who's misinformed, you should do some more reading on the subject before you go around making accusations and declarations that make you look foolish.

The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933

The National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard of the United States a component of the Army at all times, which could be ordered into active federal service by the President whenever Congress declared a national emergency.



Which part did I get wrong? I see no examples. Show me where the National Guard is supposed to only take orders from the Governor of their state.

[Stylerod]

Here Motivez. This must be what you are getting confused with:

State Defense Forces (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government, although they are regulated by the National Guard Bureau of the United States Army.[1] State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor, as State Defense Forces are distinct from the National Guard in that they are not federal entities (all National Guard units were federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 (National Guard Mobilization Act) with the creation of the National Guard of the United States). The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 USC 109 which provides that State Defense Forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces" (of the United States), thus preserving their separation from the National Guard.

The only states that have a State Defense Force are:

* Alabama State Defense Force [1]
* Alaska State Defense Force [2]
* California State Military Reserve [3]
* Georgia State Defense Force [4]
* Indiana Guard Reserve [5]
* Maryland Defense Force [6]
* Massachusetts State Guard [7]
* Michigan Volunteer Defense Force [8]
* Mississippi State Guard [9]
* New Jersey Naval Militia [10]
* New Mexico State Defense Force
* New York Guard [11]
* Ohio Military Reserve [12]
* Oregon State Defense Force [13]
* Puerto Rico State Guard [14]
* South Carolina State Guard [15]
* Tennessee State Guard [16]
* Texas State Guard [17]
* Vermont State Guard [18]
* Virginia State Defense Force [19]
* Washington State Guard [20]

[Stylerod]

I went on a search to find how much money States budget for the National Guard. I found a few sites that show amounts but I thought I was reading them wrong. Now I'm not so sure. Here is California's National Guard budget.

8940 Military Department

The Military Department is responsible for the command, leadership and management of the California Army and Air National Guard and five other related programs. The purpose of the California National Guard is to provide military service supporting this state and the nation. The three missions of the California National Guard are to provide: (1)

mission ready forces to the federal government as directed by the President, (2) emergency public safety support to civil authorities as directed by the Governor, and (3) support to the community as approved by proper authority.


Total Dollars $131,762

Governor's Budget - 8940 Military Department

Here is a breakdown.
http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/pdf/Governo.../8000/8940.pdf

I thought maybe that amount was in millions, but it doesn't seem to be. Seems the states are getting a deal!

[motivez]

I never said anything about only taking orders from the Governor of their state (ie: I have no intention of defending your straw man argument), and I don't think I'm confused at all.

I said: Bush's policies have weakened state control over the national guard (through tweaking of the Insurrection Act), made it harder for them to respond adequately to disasters by not replacing equipment taken to Iraq, and so on and so forth.

I'm not wrong or misinformed about any of that.

[JaJae]

Just some more data and facts regarding the current state of Kansas National Guard...

Currently, the Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available, 60 percent of its Army Guard dual-use equipment on hand, and more than 85 percent of its Air Guard equipment on hand, said Randal Noller, public affairs officer for the National Guard Bureau.

Under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which is a national partnership agreement that allows state-to-state assistance during governor or federally declared emergencies, Kansas has more than 400,000 Guardsmen available to it, he pointed out. However, Kansas has not yet requested assistance from other states.

The National Guard Bureau has offered liaison, operational, communications, contracting, search-and-rescue, public affairs and community relations support, and is prepared to support the governor in any way possible, Noller said.
DefenseLink News Article: National Guard Responds to Kansas Tornado

Perhaps the situation isn't as critical as I thought.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

I never said anything about only taking orders from the Governor of their state (ie: I have no intention of defending your straw man argument), and I don't think I'm confused at all.

I said: Bush's policies have weakened state control over the national guard (through tweaking of the Insurrection Act), made it harder for them to respond adequately to disasters by not replacing equipment taken to Iraq, and so on and so forth.

I'm not wrong or misinformed about any of that.

Sure you are. Here are quotes where you are saying he is taking power away from the states and Governors.

Bush's power grab with the national guard and taking control away from the states

The states have no control of the NG. They may "borrow" them in times of need.

It's baffling to me that there hasn't been an effort to replace equipment used by the National Guard over there when it's left

The States do now own the equipment. The Army does. Again, why would they need to give the state back equipment that doesn't belong to them?

Bush needs to now make a serious effort to address the concerns of the Governors who have been left without the proper resources to sufficiently respond to disasters in their states..

Here we go again. The Federal Government has to bail States out of a jam.

but taking control of the National Guard (over the express disagreement of a Governor even)

Governors don't control the NG!!!! Governors have NO say in where the Government can send them!!!!


Each of these is an example of your wrong thinking on the subject.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Just some more data and facts regarding the current state of Kansas National Guard...



Perhaps the situation isn't as critical as I thought.

Imagine that This whole thread is a waste.

[motivez]

Once again, I'm not going to buy into your straw man and defend something you've made up for the sole purposes of knocking down.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

Once again, I'm not going to buy into your straw man and defend something you've made up for the sole purposes of knocking down.

Strawman? You said specifically that Bush was on a power grab, how is that a strawman? You said it...

I agree that resources need to be replaced as the feds use them up but the national guard is first and foremost at the disposal of the national government. And if those resources are federal resources the problem seems to point to the states relying too heavily on the federal government to bail them out. It's been no secret that the national guard has been deployed in the war on terror. States have had several years to adjust to that. It also seems to me that Kansas has done a pretty good job making that adjustment.

It is true that the war has forced the activation of the national guard but that is well within the right of the president. As mentioned by several people in this thread it's not a power grab its how it was setup decades ago.

JJ that seems to line up with what my friend in Greensburg said, he said the response has been good. I called him saturday morning to make sure he was ok and he said the state officials were already there and FEMA was due in late that night. Dunno when FEMA actually got there though.

[motivez]

He was (and has) through tweaking of the insurrection act, the other thread covers it sufficiently and the point of the post was about the current situation.

That's not what he's implying I said in his post, though, and I'm not going to defend something I didn't say.

Kansas has done as good of a job as one could expect in this situation, the effort here has been much better than it was after Katrina for sure.

However, that's not to say that all has gone as well as it could have. When the Governor of the state is saying they are lacking resources, I'm think that should be listened to and not simply dismissed.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

He was (and has) through tweaking of the insurrection act, the other thread covers it sufficiently and the point of the post was about the current situation.

That's not what he's implying I said in his post, though, and I'm not going to defend something I didn't say.

Kansas has done as good of a job as one could expect in this situation, the effort here has been much better than it was after Katrina for sure.

However, that's not to say that all has gone as well as it could have. When the Governor of the state is saying they are lacking resources, I'm think that should be listened to and not simply dismissed.

Well in these situations things can always go better. Just because they dont doesn't mean its Bush's fault as the NY times would allege. What about the states responsibility to managing their OWN resources? FEMA was there in a reasonable amount of time and the state afterall should be at least somewhat responsible for itself. Which I think if you look at the record KS as you already said has done a good job.

If we weren't at war could more resources be available? Sure, but I think finger pointing at Bush as the NY Times has done in this instance is absurd.

[motivez]

That NY Times article is over a year old (if you missed that, I bolded the date), it's not recent.. They're not even mentioning this situation, they're reporting on complaints and concerns that Governor's have across party lines, and Bush's policies making it harder for them to ensure their states have adequate response plans if something were to happen (terrorist attack, natural disaster, etc)

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

And are controlled by the Federal Government and the Pentagon, not the states.

Hence the term NATIONAL GUARD!


And although this is unfortunate we are talking about clean up equiptment and some personnel. I think the President has a right to make priorities and you have a right to complain about it. But I don't see the big emergency here?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

Once again, I'm not going to buy into your straw man and defend something you've made up for the sole purposes of knocking down.

Ok Mot, all I did was list your comments and directly respond to each one. I guess you are having an issue with that. Good God. What a joke.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

Kansas has done as good of a job as one could expect in this situation, the effort here has been much better than it was after Katrina for sure.

Well duh. This was a really bad tornado. Katrina was the worst natural disaster in the history of the US and it encompassed 90,000 square miles. I have no idea how you can even compare the two.

[JaJae]

It appears this story is breaking because the governor said they didn't have enough National Guard supplies...

Well now reports are showing the governor may have lied to reporters. A phone conversation between White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was released:

And Fran again said, 'Is there anything you need to respond effectively to this disaster?' The governor responded, 'No, we could not have asked for a faster response. [FEMA Administrator] Dave Paulison was terrific yesterday.' ... The governor said, 'We've got to get power and water running. I've got what I need. I've got your number. I won't be shy. We'll call if I need anything,'

Is there anything she needs? Her response was simply: No. And continues to say they've got their number if they need anything they'll call.

Much of this story was broke because for months Sebelius was complaining about NG resources being depleted and worried about a national disaster. When one happened she was more than satisfied with the government response. Yet she's telling the Democrats (Obama) and the media wild accusations blaming the Bush administration. Makes you wonder what her primary agenda is and why it isn't using the resources she has to help the people of Kansas. She has all the time in the world to slander Bush and the GOP, she should be focused on other things right now.

EDIT:
Some are wondering if she's really saying these things or if the media is making it up.

Later, the governor and the White House tried to defuse the situation. Corcoran said Sebelius had praised the White House’s immediate response and told administration officials that Kansas had what it needed “right now, today.”

“The administration is definitely reaching out,” Corcoran said. “They are paying attention to what’s going on in Greensburg, Kansas. The governor greatly appreciates that. There is no dispute.”

So is it really Sebelius saying these things or is it the media drumming up anti-Bush stories when there really isn't one to be found. I don't know, but it's getting interesting.

It seems the people of Kansas are more than happy with the response to this tornado. The only people who seem to be having a problem with it is the media and certain politicians.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It appears this story is breaking because the governor said they didn't have enough National Guard supplies...

Well now reports are showing the governor may have lied to reporters. A phone conversation between White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was released:



Is there anything she needs? Her response was simply: No. And continues to say they've got their number if they need anything they'll call.

Much of this story was broke because for months Sebelius was complaining about NG resources being depleted and worried about a national disaster. When one happened she was more than satisfied with the government response. Yet she's telling the Democrats and the media wild accusations blaming the Bush administration. Makes you wonder what her primary agenda is and why it isn't using the resources she has to help the people of Kansas. She has all the time in the world to slander Bush and the GOP, she should be focused on other things right now.

SAY IT AIN'T SO!!! A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR LYING TO TRY TO MAKE BUSH LOOK BAD!!!???

Of course she is. She's just following her marching orders.