PDA

View Full Version : AP report corroborates Congressman Paul's assertion that we are less safe now




kotetu
02-01-2008, 01:50 PM
Ron has been right all along. Our military, national guard and border patrol are out securing other nation's safety, while our safety is in question here at home. Maybe this will be useful when canvassing?


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in -- you're either ready or you're not."

In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.

Follow the link for more: ht tp://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/guarding.america.ap/index.html

jasonuher
02-01-2008, 01:53 PM
quick question on this, I thought the National Guard was supposed to be a state thing; why does the federal government have any say what happens with it?


I guess I don't fully understand the reasons that the fed. govt. can assert itself over the states guards; I thought the only reason we could send them overseas was that the states were willfully pledging their guards to the conflicts?

Elle
02-01-2008, 01:59 PM
what is this about
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013102545.html

drain
02-01-2008, 02:09 PM
disgusting.