[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Agan, what's the point? Sure, he said arguably (which means maybe, maybe not) response time was delayed by a day. That's it. So what? What does that have to do with Iraq? If it's just a factual observation (that perhaps not having all the National Guardsmen stateside slowed response time), great, but Moore (and perhaps you, I don't know) is trying to use that as ammunition to suggest the Guardsmen shouldn't be in Iraq, which is ridiculous.

"what does that have to do with Iraq"??? you're a smart guy, you can connect the dots.

It isn't merely personnel, just this morning I read about a GAO report that detailed the lack of materials- specifically medical supplies- at the disposal of the Natl Guard due to....the diminished level of supplies due to the supply inventory depleted by Iraq.

Is this an argument that "the Guardsmen shouldn't be in Iraq"? not that I am making such an argument, but it is a good one.

All I am doing is showing that the much vilified (on this board) Michael Moore made a comment that was validated by a high ranking member of the National Guard.

you make a great discussion on risk avoidance,but that's not the point.

Sure it is, if you're trying to cast blame, as Moore is.[/quote]

Try to stay in comtext, this has nothing to do with LRB's "car accident" scenario, it has to do with allocation of resources.

Right. He's saying that it's possible that response time was delayed by a day. Otherwise, the National Guard has been able to respond just as they always would.

Again, so what?

in the case of first response there is a direct correlation between quickness of response and the maximum number of lives that are saved, It may be one life, it may be that the delay didn't cause any life, yet it cannot be argued that in an emergency response time is irrelevant. it is.

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.

The "burden of Iraq"? Okay, so what you're saying is that Bush shouldn't have sent those Guardsmen to aid our cause (and the soldiers already there) in Iraq because he should have kept them stateside based upon the future possibility of a hurricane the likes of which we've never seen striking New Orleans? That's what Moore is suggesting, and if you're doing the same, you're being ridiculous.[/quote]

Moore might as you claim argue that point, I am merely showing that his assertion has been validated by the Lt Gen, which I knew would cause much consternation among the "Moore should die" crowd. guess what? it did...

I do believe that our leaders should not expend an amount of resources (in a campaign such as Iraq) that our ability to respond to a domestic crisis is hampered. Unless you can argue that Iraq was and is an immediate threat to our national security, which clearly it was and is not, the security and ability of our National Guard to respond to a crisis shouldn't be compromised. If Bush wished to wage war, get prepared and do what is necessary to accomplish the goal withour compromising our ability to respond to a domestic crisis.