Yeah, WWI precedents are canon.

Comment by tikiloungelizard — 5/13/2007 @ 1:26 pm

When it comes to talking about a police state, my hat is made out of tin-foil just like yours is. But hard as it is to believe, we do learn lessons from history, at least from time to time. When was the last time, since Kent, that the National Guard has been put into the position of drawing weapons on American citizens?

The Bush administration is the most corrupt in history… But even they haven’t crossed that line yet.

Aahh, not quite. The National Guard is the outgrowth of the individual militias each state had originally. Pure volunteer organizations, they were usually referred to as militias. (Please note the 2nd Amendment) They predate the formation of the Continental Army which is the precursor to our now standing Federal Army.

The standing army was pushed by Congress and the several Presidents as the state militias were undependable in personnel, equipment, and training. This was most notable during all the 19th century conflicts. It wasn’t until 1903, under Teddy Roosevelt, that the Guard was reformed into more of a support role to the regular army.

#15, Joe,

Aahh, in case you didn’t get the memo, Rush Limbaugh IS A BIG FAT LIAR. The only ones who take orders from Dean are the office staff of the DNC. But, accusations like this is why the right wing nuts have no credibility.

***

My own take is Gov. Sebelius spoke a little quick. She does have a point about equipment, but she should have called upon FEMA first. I’m guessing, but she might have had fears of another New Orleans.

See the little blue thing with my name? It’s called a hyperlink. It takes you to my page where you can see, in my sidebar, a nice big promo for Hillary Clinton whose campaign I contribute regularly to.

What you morons who think that because I corrected the dumbass from Kansas don’t realize is that you don’t have to support Bush to call someone who comes out against Bush wrong.

Imagine that.

Why is Bush running this war on the cheap — with borrowed money, “emergency” off budget funding bills, guards and reserves, private contractors, low troop levels, etc, etc. — when he claims this is an existential stuggle comparable WWII?

Can any Bush apologist explain this to me? I could see some of those measure during the initial months of invasion but why now, four years later?

Is that any way to fight the (supposedly) stuggle for our very existence? His actions clearly indicate that even he doesn’t believe his own rhetoric.

The Guard is trained as an Army for DOMESTIC SECURITY. The Guard is not inteded to be deployed overseas to reinforce the Regular Army in foreign wars, just ask Lt. Bush of the Texas Air National Guard. The irony would be humorous if this was some other country’s leader.

The governor’s office backing off makes me wonder what pressure was brought to bear on the governor. But the point is, the aide retreated from the position, so all the rest of the governors must be wrong. Or whining Democrats. Or something. Right?

Funny that Bush joined the National Guard and even bothered to show up for awhile in order to avoid service in a different foreign invasion. But let’s not dwell on that irony. Right.

And the wacko rightwing neocons continue to back bush no matter what the facts say otherwise.

Do any of the Bush League apologists honestly think the National Guard is in any shape to deal with any disaster affecting the American nation? Baloney.

You’re only interested in adding some plausible deniability to a crappy situation brought into existence by greedy grasping thugs – who you admire.

I’m not saying I don’t agree with his agenda in this case, but it’s good that you called attention to the rest of the story.

The states get to use them for this kind of stuff but their primary job is to act as a reserve for the standing military.

This is one reason why the anti-gun folks look so silly when they say the NG is what the founding fathers meant when they used the word militia in the constitution.

Which scenario is more accurate doesn’t lessen the effect the war has had on the Guard in her state and across the nation. What her comments did was bring to the forefront what other governors of other states have been saying for some time which is what the article is really about.