GREAT GREAT LETTER by Mr. Moore to the MORON!!!

[reeds]

Vacation is Over... an open letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush

Friday, September 2nd, 2005

Dear Mr. Bush:

Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and
thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on
earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help
finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.

Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use
them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with
national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?

Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of
Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was
pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without
power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans.
That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt
your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had
fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure
showed her!

I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to
Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let
people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the
heck could you do, put your finger in the dike?

And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you
specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer
for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut
the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to
fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for
them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!

On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved
by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew
over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know
you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a
commander in chief. Been there done that.

There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it
against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to
nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the
water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this
inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is
nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having
one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.

No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent
of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation
to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened
to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for
five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!

You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters
and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are
near Tikrit.

Yours,

Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com

[dude1394]

The maggot speaks. Sorry don't read text written by a maggot.

[LRB]

What a stinking pile of crap that was!!! And I thought that the letter that he wrote was pretty bad as well. And why doesn't Michael moore take his fat ass down to New Orleans? He has enough buoyancy to keep 30 to 40 people afloat with his fat and that's not even taking the hot air into consideration.

Seriously, I really feel sorry for anyone dumb enough to take anything Moore has to say with more than a grain of salt.

[Drbio]

When I saw the title of this thread I thought that Moore had sent reeds a letter.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Drbio
When I saw the title of this thread I thought that Moore had sent reeds a letter.

It probably included a cheescake shot of him as well.

UGH: Edit...can't stand to look at the maggot.

[Usually Lurkin]

I wonder what Moore's letter would've said if Bush had declared martial law on the Thursday that Moore was in Florida, and if he'd used the military to overthrow the local governments of New Orleans and Louisiana in order to evacuate all of the people in a safe, timely, and orderly manner, and if he'd also used that as an excuse to shoot the looters in order to keep the hospitals safe? I'm sure Moore would somehow blame Iraq.

I'm sure I could guess the title of reeds's post if that had happened.
It'd be something like:

GREAT GREAT LETTER by Mr. Moore to the MORON!!!

[mavsman55]

[Mavdog]

it seems that some of Moore's partisan rhetoric may have a semblence in reality.....
who wants to bet about if this Lt. Gen gets assigned to an outpost in north alaska soon?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials: Guard Deployment Hurt Response
By ROBERT BURNS, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 23 minutes ago

The deployment of thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana in Iraq when Hurricane Katrina struck hindered those states' initial storm response, military and civilian officials said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum.

Blum said that to replace those units' command and control equipment, he dispatched personnel from Guard division headquarters from Kansas and Minnesota shortly after the storm struck.

Rep. Gene Taylor (news, bio, voting record), D-Miss., whose waterfront home here was washed away in the storm, told reporters that the absence of the deployed Mississippi Guard units made it harder for local officials to coordinate their initial response.

"What you lost was a lot of local knowledge," Taylor said, as well as equipment that could have been used in recovery operations.

"The best equipment went with them, for obvious reasons," especially communications equipment, he added.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said this week that the Pentagon has the ability to cope with both Katrina and the Iraq war: "We can and will do both."

Asked on Tuesday about critics who said the commitment of large numbers of troops to the Iraq conflict hindered the military's response to Hurricane Katrina, Rumsfeld said, "Anyone who's saying that doesn't understand the situation."

Blum said that overall, the Iraq mission for Guard units across the nation is not limiting the military's ability to expand and continue the rescue and recovery operations in storm-battered states.

"Iraq and other overseas commitments do not inhibit our ability to sustain this effort here at home," Blum said in an interview with three reporters who flew here with him from Washington on Friday.

Blum and Taylor toured the heavily damaged areas around Bay St. Louis. They also met with Guardsmen and other troops who are helping clean up and provide emergency assistance to those displaced by the wall of water that wiped out many homes and flooded a widespread area miles north of the coastline.

[LRB]

it seems that some of Moore's partisan rhetoric may have a semblence in reality.....

only if they're doing acid.

[Mavdog]

folic acid maybe.
or are you saying that Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, abuses drugs?

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
folic acid maybe.
or are you saying that Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, abuses drugs?

No, just that anything spewed from Moores mouth or pen or fingers is totally removed from reality.

And I don't know about Steve Burns he may or may not be on acid.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

No, just that anything spewed from Moores mouth or pen or fingers is totally removed from reality.

And I don't know about Steve Burns he may or may not be on acid.

I'm confident in saying that Lt Gen Burns might take exception to your suggestion.

very interesting that a high ranking currently involved military official suddenly lacks "reality" when they speak contrary to your view.

it likely means that your view is not reality.....

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I'm confident in saying that Lt Gen Burns might take exception to your suggestion.

very interesting that a high ranking currently involved military official suddenly lacks "reality" when they speak contrary to your view.

it likely means that your view is not reality.....

See this is why I don't give your article much credibility. I never said any such thing about Lt Gen Burns, I did comment on Steve Burns AP writer and with probably a liberal agenda which includes "organizing" the "facts" to try and make Bush look as bad as possible. Since we only have very small and out of context comments by Gen Blum along with a still short but relatively more lengthy "interpretation of what Burns thinks that Blum really meant. But you can go off into your own little reality of twisting what people said to try and make it something completely different.

BTW I don't really think that the article is really that damning if at all. It wouldn't have made a difference if local and state democratic leaders had done a competent job. Even with their screw ups if Blanco had seeed control to the feds when asked, things could have been greatly alieviated. But she'd rather gamble people's lives trying to make Bush look bad or she's just totally stupid. But that's by and large the democratic party with a few notable execptions. Sure hope the democratic party dies soom before more people do for their grabs at power. We could use a valid 2nd party.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

See this is why I don't give your article much credibility. I never said any such thing about Lt Gen Burns, I did comment on Steve Burns AP writer and with probably a liberal agenda which includes "organizing" the "facts" to try and make Bush look as bad as possible. Since we only have very small and out of context comments by Gen Blum along with a still short but relatively more lengthy "interpretation of what Burns thinks that Blum really meant. But you can go off into your own little reality of twisting what people said to try and make it something completely different.

BTW I don't really think that the article is really that damning if at all. It wouldn't have made a difference if local and state democratic leaders had done a competent job. Even with their screw ups if Blanco had seeed control to the feds when asked, things could have been greatly alieviated. But she'd rather gamble people's lives trying to make Bush look bad or she's just totally stupid. But that's by and large the democratic party with a few notable execptions. Sure hope the democratic party dies soom before more people do for their grabs at power. We could use a valid 2nd party.

first, i mixed up Lt Gen Blum's name with Burns. sorry

edit: wait, YOU mixed up Robert Burns (the writer) with Steven Blum (the Lt Gen)!

the quotes are what they are. to slam a writer for using them is quite a stretch. oh yeah, it MUST be the MSM!!!

ironic, you say that I am "twisting"? I just post the article. you twist in attempting to deflect.

the subject isn't blanco, or nagin. it was an interview and quote on the national guard and their ability to respond.

trying to change the subject to them doesn't alter what the quotes say.

[kg_veteran]

A couple of points:

1) What did Blum actually SAY? From the article:

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost...

BUT

Blum said that overall, the Iraq mission for Guard units across the nation is not limiting the military's ability to expand and continue the rescue and recovery operations in storm-battered states.

"Iraq and other overseas commitments do not inhibit our ability to sustain this effort here at home," Blum said in an interview with three reporters who flew here with him from Washington on Friday.

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.

[dalmations202]

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.

IMO:

KG you'd destroy the whole Democratic party if they had to debate/rule based on logic. If everything that is said/printed, had to be backed up by logic and truth, then the MSM wouldn't be here today, and the democratic party would have folded long before Clinton. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

oh yea, and the Republican party would be hanging on by a thread.... it's got it's share of spinning politics instead of truth/logic as well.

[Mavdog]

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.

[chumdawg]

The maggot wrote:

It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation
to get out of town. C'mon, they're black!

I'm here to tell you, there are/were a lot of poor white people in New Orleans. A whole lot. A shitpot full.

From watching the news coverage and listening to the likes of Kanye and the maggot, I can conclude only one of two things:

A) The MSM, Kanye, maggot, et al. don't care about the plight of poor white people.

or

B) The poor white people made it out of town in far greater proportion to the poor black people.

A co-worker of mine seems to think it's the latter, and the explanation he suggests is that it's a cultural thing that has to do with respect for authority. Me, I think it's the former. I think there were white folk on rooftops, too, but they didn't make for as good a story.

It has nothing to do with this, but--seriously--I had a dream two nights ago that Michael Moore had died.

[Drbio]

The world would instantly be a better place if Maggot Moore dropped dead from fatassitis. Heart attack special for the lardass please.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

If everything he says is such a waste of time, why turn into an angry mob about it?

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: DevinHarriswillstart
If everything he says is such a waste of time, why turn into an angry mob about it?

Perhaps.... because there are actually people that take everything he says as Gospel.

[LRB]

Mavdog in response to a couple of your posts:

by using the word "arguably" the Lt Gen is saying that he can see merit in the position.

Well since Mr. Burns didn't include the context, we really don't know for sure what the good Gen is saying. We certainly don't know if the Gen was asked if Michael Moore's position had merit, nor is any mention in the article made of Moore.

But we do have the longer quote, but admited still not in full context, where ther general says "Iraq and other overseas commitments do not inhibit our ability to sustain this effort here at home". This could just as easily be argued to be saying that the ability to respond was not at all hindered by having national guard units out of state.

edit: wait, YOU mixed up Robert Burns (the writer) with Steven Blum (the Lt Gen)!

I did mix up their 1st name, but not their last names. Doesn't matter, I didn't say what you said I said.

the quotes are what they are. to slam a writer for using them is quite a stretch. oh yeah, it MUST be the MSM!!!

I'm not complaining about the quotes, I'm complaining about the intepretation that the MSM writer did without giving anywhere near defnitive quotes to back up his ascertion that Guard deployment hurt response to Katrania, which ascertion without substantial evidence was IMO extremely misleading and irresponsible journalist. His job is to report the facts, not interpret them according to his own personal political agenda or according to his employer's political agenda. Journalist are supposed to be impartial observers and reporters of the facts so that we can judge for ourselves. If the reporter had simply used the quotes that he had in full context, then I wouldn't be complaining. But taking quotes out of context and putting foremost his own interpretations, it appears clear to me that Burns is grinding a political axe and not impartially reporting the facts.

the subject isn't blanco, or nagin. it was an interview and quote on the national guard and their ability to respond.

No the subject was whether this article backe Michael Moores ascertion that commitments to Iraq was responsible for deaths and suffering in New Orleans. I mean you're the one who posted the following with the article :

it seems that some of Moore's partisan rhetoric may have a semblence in reality.....

without the burden of iraq the lt gen could argue that the national guard would have been in LA a day earlier.

The Lt. general could argue any number of things including that he was misquoted atrociously in this article by taking his response completely out of context and adding meanings that he neither said nor meant. Almost anything can be argued by almost anyone. Some would stand outside in broad daylight with a cloudless sky and argue that it was night. What would have been nice is having more than 1 word from the General's response about what he could or could not argue. But most assuredly Mr. Burns, the author of the article, could argue that the without the burden of iraq the national guard would have been in LA a day earlier. But I really don't give a damn what a left leaning liberal report argues.

Bottom line this article gives a clear picture of it's author's views, but only the most sketchy of what military officals who are part of the command tree of the troops deploying to the region have to say on the subject of whether or not Iraq hurt the ability to get national guard responders to New Orleans and most of that is interpreted by the author and not give in quotes.

[reeds]

All I can say is this..at times, under pressure, Bush could be compared to a "deer in headlights" with his response to things...like say for instance the Hurricane..the hurricane the whole world knew was coming-the hurrican the whole world knew was huge.. If you people wanna spin it and not point fingers, that is fine..more than typical actually.. A real leader would have done more, much more..

[dude1394]

Really...you mean like the mayor and governor who left the busses that were assigned in their own evacuation plan get flooded out while they whined about not having busses from the federal guvment. The same mayor that had an evacuation plan that said move to the superdome but then neglected to have food/water or toilets there for those people. Those guys on the ground you mean?

You are the person pointing fingers reeds and you've been doing it with every piece of bad news you can find.

[LRB]

Reeds the only deer in the headlights with Katrina, have the the Democrat mayor of New Orleans, the democrat govenor of Louisiana, and their staffs. If as you said the whole world knew this huge storm was coming, then why and in hell didn't the Mayor or the Govenor evacuate those people instead of placing them in the Superdome with inadequate food, water, medical facilities, crowd control, and a host of other necessities. Why was wasn't a mandatory evacuation order AND enforced? Why wasn't control of the guard ceded to the President so troops could have been brought in faster while still following the constitution?

Bush took appropriate response and did an admiral job of helping fix the disaster caused by nature and exacerbated by local Democrats. For example in the 1st 3 days after Katrina striking ground, the Coast Guard performed more than 4,000 rescues (more than they did in the entire calendar year of 2003). Had the proper evacuations taken place that would have accounted for the vast majority of those left behind and in need of rescuing.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Well since Mr. Burns didn't include the context, we really don't know for sure what the good Gen is saying. We certainly don't know if the Gen was asked if Michael Moore's position had merit, nor is any mention in the article made of Moore.

you can doubt what you wish, it’s pretty clear what the Lt Gen’s rsaying. And no, the lt gen isn’t saying anything about moore.
Blum and moore both made the point national guard resources have been stretched thin by iraq, and in this case delayed the unit’s response.

But we do have the longer quote, but admited still not in full context, where ther general says "Iraq and other overseas commitments do not inhibit our ability to sustain this effort here at home". This could just as easily be argued to be saying that the ability to respond was not at all hindered by having national guard units out of state.

The point was about response, nothing to do about “sustain”.

That’s a totally separate question.

his view on the delay in response is straighforward.

No the subject was whether this article backe Michael Moores ascertion that commitments to Iraq was responsible for deaths and suffering in New Orleans. I mean you're the one who posted the following with the article :

Bottom line this article gives a clear picture of it's author's views, but only the most sketchy of what military officals who are part of the command tree of the troops deploying to the region have to say on the subject of whether or not Iraq hurt the ability to get national guard responders to New Orleans and most of that is interpreted by the author and not give in quotes.

Moore made the following remark:

Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use
them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with
national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?

lt gen blum said:

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum.

case closed.

[LRB]

lt gen blum said:

Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said that "arguably" a day or so of response time was lost due to the absence of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Infantry Brigade and Louisiana's 256th Infantry Brigade, each with thousands of troops in Iraq.

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear," said Blum.

case closed.

Actually General Blum said "agruably" and

"Had that brigade been at home and not in Iraq, their expertise and capabilities could have been brought to bear,"

Robert Burns said the rest as his opinion of what General Blum had meant to say, which is a far cry from General blum saying it. The last sentence is a self evident truism (if they were here instead on not being hear then they could have acted here, duh!!!) that adds nothing to the argument since he is not quoted as saying their abscense delayed response of necessary resource to Katrina victims.

you can doubt what you wish, it’s pretty clear what the Lt Gen’s rsaying

No, it's only clear that you're taking one of several possible and probably things that the General could have been saying and extracting the one that matches your political view. Without more details into what he said and into what context it was said, we really don't know. But I seriously question why Burns inserted his own words around "aguably" instead of using General Blum's words. It certainly makes it far more difficult to see if Burns' interpretation is what General Blum really meant.

The point was about response, nothing to do about “sustain”.

No the argument is not about semantics and using the exact word that some poster on Dallas-Mavs.com named Mavdog is looking for, it is about the National Guard's abiltity to meant it's abilities at home in the US. Which it appears much more clearer what the General is referring to here versus the ambigious "aguably" quote. The general very much appears to be referring tot he fact that the Guard's ability to do it's job hasn't been hampered by the loss of units to Iraq and other overseas committments. Of course again if we had the full context of the question and answers, then we wouldn't have even the little bit of ambiguity that we do have on this particular statement.

his view on the delay in response is straighforward.

Again it's only robert burns view of General Blum's view of that we have, and even it isn't without some ambiguity. And while General Blum's views on the time to get Guard personnel to the disaster site may be very straightforward, it certainly is not presented to us in this article. We only get Mr. Burn's interpretation, and that only is an all too brief and ambigious manner.

Bottom line is we only get one reporters interpretation of what the reporter thinks that the General thinks about the situation based upon a conversation or conversations which the vast majority of the context we are not privy to. We need far more and compelling evidence to verify if Burns interpretion is correct or not. But from the evidence we do have, it could just as easily if not more so be argued that the good General Blum felt that deployments to Iraq did not in any significant way affect the Guards ability to timely respond to a crisis and in particular to the Katrina crisis. It all comes down to how you want to interpret an incredibly ambigious representation of the General's opinion at best in the article that you posted.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dalmations202
oh yea, and the Republican party would be hanging on by a thread.... it's got it's share of spinning politics instead of truth/logic as well.

I agree completely.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
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.

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.

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.

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.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

you can doubt what you wish, it’s pretty clear what the Lt Gen’s rsaying.

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?

[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.

[madape]

Moore isn't interested in fixing the situation, or even fairly assessing what happened. The only thing Moore interested in is attacking the president. The man hates the president so much, that nothing else even exists. You can't expect a well thought out opinion He's not able to make them any more. Everything revolves around Bush. Everything. Moore has turned himself into a one-dimensional political attack weapon, nothing more. It's a lame act. It's getting old. It's boring. It's transparent. Why do people pay attention to him at all any more?

[LRB]

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

The car accident scenario was KG's and a good one at that.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: madape
Moore isn't interested in fixing the situation, or even fairly assessing what happened. The only thing Moore interested in is attacking the president. The man hates the president so much, that nothing else even exists. You can't expect a well thought out opinion He's not able to make them any more. Everything revolves around Bush. Everything. Moore has turned himself into a one-dimensional political attack weapon, nothing more. It's a lame act. It's getting old. It's boring. It's transparent. Why do people pay attention to him at all any more?

Well-said.

I bet he's still sore from the re-election. I mean, the man made an entire movie for nothing. I'd be pissed off too.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: madape
Moore isn't interested in fixing the situation, or even fairly assessing what happened. The only thing Moore interested in is attacking the president. The man hates the president so much, that nothing else even exists. You can't expect a well thought out opinion He's not able to make them any more. Everything revolves around Bush. Everything. Moore has turned himself into a one-dimensional political attack weapon, nothing more. It's a lame act. It's getting old. It's boring. It's transparent. Why do people pay attention to him at all any more?

The same could be said for most of the democratic party. It seems more and more of their agenda is gather together in a single item: "Oppose Bush".

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
"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.

Do you just read the portions of my posts that you want to read? I'll try again.

If you're just interested in making the factual observation that perhaps the National Guard's response time (not the local government's response time, the state of Louisiana's response time, any other federal agency's response time, or the response time of any private relief organizations) to Katrina was slowed by one day, then that's fine. I'll concede that. It is a possibility. It's equally possible that it wasn't slowed down at all. Either way, if you're trying to take that factual observation and turn it into a reason to blame Bush for having National Guard troops (and supplies) in Iraq, you have to be able to show how Bush could have known or suspected or believed that something like Katrina was going to occur and ALSO show that he realized that by sending troops and supplies to Iraq he would thereby be possibly delaying the National Guard response time. Otherwise, you're expecting the President to be clairvoyant.

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.

Um, no it's not.

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.

Michael Moore placed blame on the President for sending National Guardsmen to Iraq. Nothing the chief of the National Guard Bureau said validates that.

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

That was my scenario, and it has everything to do with it. But, I'll give you another scenario, since you now want to shift your semantics to "allocation of resources."

Would it be wise for a person to save half his paycheck for a few months to rebuild his privacy fence when he needs that money to pay bills that are coming due next week?

Of course not, unless he has some reason to believe that his fence will be demolished, and even then you'd have to think about it since those current bills still have to be paid.

The point is, there was an existing need to which National Guard resources were allocated, and no indication that the remaining resources would be insufficient (assuming they actually WERE). Blaming the President for that makes no sense.

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.

Again, it's not relevant unless Bush knew or should have known that the "resources" would be needed to respond to Katrina. As it stands, we don't know if they would have helped or not, but we do know that Bush had no way of knowing or any indication that such a disaster was coming.

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.

If they have some way of knowing that our ability to respond would be hampered, then I might agree with you.

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.

Now you're mixing arguments. I know you were against the invasion of Iraq, but now that our troops are there, that's kind of a moot point. We can't just leave our troops without adequate aid and support to continue the effort in Iraq because you were philosophically opposed to the invasion in the first place.

Also, I'll say it one more time. It's not even a certainty that our ability to respond to a crisis was compromised. It's just arguable.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

If you're just interested in making the factual observation that perhaps the National Guard's response time (not the local government's response time, the state of Louisiana's response time, any other federal agency's response time, or the response time of any private relief organizations) to Katrina was slowed by one day, then that's fine. I'll concede that. It is a possibility.

I'll go one further and say it is not a possibility, it's been proven and admitted to by multiple people involved. Clearly the procedures that were put into place when the Homeland Security dept. was established need to be examined and altered. it's a good time to mention that without the exposure our failures in LA received we wouldn't be focusing on the solutions.
you and I agree that the burden of this delay needn't be placed at the feet of Bush, who has put people into place who are getting the job done.

It's equally possible that it wasn't slowed down at all.

no, at this point it's a fact. even today in the WSJ they treat it as a fact.

Either way, if you're trying to take that factual observation and turn it into a reason to blame Bush for having National Guard troops (and supplies) in Iraq, you have to be able to show how Bush could have known or suspected or believed that something like Katrina was going to occur and ALSO show that he realized that by sending troops and supplies to Iraq he would thereby be possibly delaying the National Guard response time. Otherwise, you're expecting the President to be clairvoyant.

ok, ok, I'll take a side on moore's letter.
It's not a question merely of the troops, it's also the issue of supplies. stockpiles that typically are around. if the decision was to use those in iraq (and yes, they should use them there) replenish what you took. don't leave the reserves low.
it also tells me that the administration is not being open on the costs of the war, burying some of the material costs in previously budgeted/procured supplies.
The characterzation of bush needing to be "clairvoyant" in order to expect a hurricane is pretty lame. we have how many cat 4 or 5 hurricanes a year that come on land? I'll wager it's more than one.
no, I don't agree with moore, he's just got that iraq axe to grind and won't let go. it'll end up hurting him.(did you read he wants to do one on katrina?). my disappointment is the bureaucrats who couldn't get their act together.

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.

Michael Moore placed blame on the President for sending National Guardsmen to Iraq. Nothing the chief of the National Guard Bureau said validates that.[/quote]
there are many things moore slams bush for, that's just one.

That was my scenario, and it has everything to do with it. But, I'll give you another scenario, since you now want to shift your semantics to "allocation of resources."

Would it be wise for a person to save half his paycheck for a few months to rebuild his privacy fence when he needs that money to pay bills that are coming due next week?

Of course not, unless he has some reason to believe that his fence will be demolished, and even then you'd have to think about it since those current bills still have to be paid.

The point is, there was an existing need to which National Guard resources were allocated, and no indication that the remaining resources would be insufficient (assuming they actually WERE). Blaming the President for that makes no sense.

hey, pay those bills or they take it all away. but at the same time you make sure your privacy fence (?) is, to the best of your ability, able to stand until later.

as I said, don't shortchange the soldier, they obviously need the supplies and support. but you don't leave the cupboard low either.

[Drbio]

So tell me again how the title of this thread is in compliance with the new rules?

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: Drbio
So tell me again how the title of this thread is in compliance with the new rules?

This thread existed prior to the rules being in place.

Don't expect us to go clean up old threads/existing threads. It's from today moving forward that the rule(s) will apply.

[Hitman]

Originally posted by: madape
Moore isn't interested in fixing the situation, or even fairly assessing what happened. The only thing Moore interested in is attacking the president. The man hates the president so much, that nothing else even exists. You can't expect a well thought out opinion He's not able to make them any more. Everything revolves around Bush. Everything. Moore has turned himself into a one-dimensional political attack weapon, nothing more. It's a lame act. It's getting old. It's boring. It's transparent. Why do people pay attention to him at all any more?

Well....why are you paying attention to him?