Quote:
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
So we arguably lost a day of response time from the National Guard (not from ALL sectors), and that supports Moore's tripe?
Um, okay.
2) The point that everybody seems to be missing in this thread is that Moore, the AP writer, and apparently Mavdog are trying to draw some logical connection between the decision to deploy the 155th and 256th Infantry Brigades and Katrina. There is none. The 256th was deployed in September 2004 and the 155th was deployed in January 2005 (link). I'm not sure how Bush should have known that the hurricane was coming when the 155th and 256th Infantry Brigades were deployed.
If I knew I was going to die in a car accident next week, I'd probably buy a huge life insurance policy (well, and try to avoid the accident) instead of spending my money on an evening out with my wife. That doesn't mean that I'm an idiot for taking my wife out tonight instead of paying a life insurance premium with that money, again, unless I have some reason or hint to know that's about to happen.
I'm just sayin'. Let's try to inject a little logic into the discussion, especially when we start trying to back up Michael Moore's ridiculous nonsense.
|
by using the word "arguably" the Lt Gen is saying that he can see merit in the position.
The position not being as you outline, but this: the national guard has been diminished in its ability to react to an event such as Katrina, caused by the national guards deployment in Iraq.
you make a great discussion on risk avoidance,but that's not the point.
without the burden of iraq the lt gen could argue that the national guard would have been in LA a day earlier.
it's that simple.