I think Greensburg is a place where Bush's brush-cutting skills could be put to good use clawing through masses of debris, looking for dead dogs and people.

At the least, it would keep him occupied and out of trouble.

Who gives a shit if the National Guard is no longer well equipped to handle natural disasters.

Do you want the Terrorists to follow us home ???

President George W. Bush

"All we have to fear is not enough fear"

The word "duh" springs to mind here.

War leaves guard Ill-Equipped for American Disasters. Especially when 10,000 people died.

------------------------------
-----

Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths

May 8 11:30 PM US/Eastern
By BOB LEWIS
Associated Press Writer


RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.
The death toll was 12.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died--an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

Obama mentioned the disaster in Greensburg, Kan., in saying he had been told by the office of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that the state's National Guard had been depleted by its commitment to the Iraq War.

"Turns out that the National Guard in Kansas only had 40 percent of its equipment and they are having to slow down the recovery process in Kansas," Obama said, his shirt sleeves rolled up and his head glistening with sweat.

As the Illinois senator concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.

"There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said later that the senator meant to say "at least 10," instead of 10,000.

During his speech, Obama stirred the crowd as he often does by skewering President Bush over the unpopular war and noting that he opposed it from the outset.

"How could we have been involved in a war that never should have been authorized, that has already cost us half a trillion dollars," Obama said.

It was Obama's third visit to Virginia's capital in eight months. It came as national polls show him trailing rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., by double digits.

Fighting them over there so we can get fucked in the pooper here.

Brilliant.

""Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths""

OMG!!! Obama accidentally says the wrong word. Jeeeezus we've had six years now of a president who regularly can't utter a sentence without mistating facts.
According to Dubya Queen Elizabeth is over 200 years old.

Sounds like the someone is uninformed.

Jamie McIntyre, CNN:
MCINTYRE: A January Government Accountability Office report found shortages of trucks, generators, radios, chemical protective gear, and engineering equipment. Before the war, National Guard units typically had 65 to 75 percent of their needed equipment on hand. Now it's between 30 and 40 percent, a shortfall that will take some $40 billion to make up.

BLUM: Can we do the job? Yes, we can. But the lack of equipment makes it take longer to do that job. And lost time translates into lost lives. And those lost lives are American lives.

SEBELIUS: Here in Kansas, about 50 percent of our trucks are gone. We need trucks. We're missing Humvees. We're missing all kinds of equipment that could help us respond to this kind of emergency.

MCINTYRE: But, as bad as it is, the Army insists the devastation in Kansas isn't overly straining the Guard's admittedly limited resources. There are still thousands of troops and hundreds of vehicles available. In fact, of the state's more than 7,600 Guard troops, only around 10 percent are deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. And Kansas has not asked for any reinforcements or extra equipment from neighboring states.

MAJOR GENERAL TOD BUNTING, ADJUTANT GENERAL, KANSAS NATIONAL GUARD: I think we got here in good shape. But we have limited resources. So, if we had another big storm right now, we would be hard-pressed to cover that.

MCINTYRE: In another sign that the Guard is not yet overtaxed, there's been no talk of canceling exercises, under way this week, in which thousands of Guard troops are practicing how to handle an even larger disaster, such as a massive storm, or even the detonation of a nuclear device by terrorists."

The Army says it has enough equipment for both the simulated drill and the real-life disaster, and argues, if the governor of Kansas has an urgent need for more bulldozers, backhoes, or Black Hawk helicopters, she only has to ask. Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.


The democrats added a new play to their play book after Katrina. And the media goes right in step.

but wasnt the ks gov on the tube sayin they had all they needed and FEMA and national govt had given them everything they asked for?....guess that didnt fit the agenda....

Danni sez...

"According to Dubya Queen Elizabeth is over 200 years old.

Yeah, Spud caught that.

1776 instead of 1976.

The last time the Queen was in town.

Afterwords Bush sed she "gave him a look only a mother could give a child"

Fer a two hundred year old Mummy she's still pretty spry.

At least we found out wot as in that purse.

Reading glasses and some notes.

Wonder if she was packing heat?

Does she have identification in there?

A solid gold card that just sez "The Queen" or sommat?

Maybe with a picture and a hologram so nobody else can forge it too easily.

You know... in order to try to get a seniors discount at the movies or sommat.

Did Spud notice her hat?

Yes, Spud did.

'Nuff sed.

Be Well.

And if ya wanna compare this gaffe to Dumbya's continually mangled attempts at english?
Bush deflection?

Who funds the National Guard? If the State pays for the Guard and all its equipment and it goes overseas, then the State just lost its investment.

But, if the State spends no money for the Guard, then what it has is a gift from the Country to that particular State.

If the State needs to take care of its own responsibilities, it needs to pay for them.

As Governor, it isn't a sign of weakness to ask your neighboring States for help. Damn the pride, suck up with humility, and do what is needed.

Right wing logic tells us that you can take 50% of the equipment and leave it in Iraq, don't replace it even when the Guard returns home and that there will still be plenty of equipment to deal with whatever disaster befalls a state.
They would say the exact same thing if 100% of the equipment was in Iraq.
No criticism of anything to do with the war for profit is ever considered.
It is unpatriotic to have your town blown away by a tornado and then expect help from your government.
Why does Kansas hate America so much?

The gov just couldn't wait to make political hay out of the tornado. Over 80% of the national guard is still here in the states.

There is construction equipment everywhere here in the states and the construction workers that run the stuff daily are much better at it than the guard that run the stuff once a year at summer camp. 50 to 60% if the equipment doesn't translate into over half of the construction equipment being gone.

Private owned construction companies could have had heavy equipment and operators there 8 to 10 hours after the twister hit. But as usual, not a single person in charge had a plan. I'll bet you are all shocked by that!

In the north western states, there is equipment out shortly after the first snow hits the ground to keep the streets and roads open. The difference, they had a plan and a budget for the snow. There is no plan and no budget for anything that happens in the spring and summer. Go figure.

Sniper...

Just how much taxpayer money was wasted paying private contractors during the Katrina debacle? Why do conservatives think the answer to every problem lies in the private sector when its track record with government contracts is spotty at best and criminal at worst?

I don't know too many businesses that have heavy equipment just sitting around waiting for natural disasters to occur. If businesses don't do work then they don't stay in business. The National Guard's job was to guard the nation particularly when extrodinary events occur. Their ability to respond has been cut in half if not further due to equipment needs in Iraq. And does anyone think any of it is ever coming back? Of course not, so why hasn't the federal government replaced it?

No one has complained about manpower, the complaints are about the lack of equipment, so why mention the numbers of Guard still in the states at all in this discussion?

As usual Lurchy can't find the forest for his idiocy! Nothing in your post refutes the facts! Kansas is missing 50-60% of its equipment, not its Guardsmen. You are the only one uninformed, and unable to comprehend simple sentences to boot!
So Kansas is missing 50-60% of its equipment and its because of the war in Iraq. Before the war they were 40% short of being fully equipped. So the fact is 10-20% of their equipment is not available because of the Iraq/Afgan war.


Now who are you going to believe, Jaime from CNN or the US Government Accountability Office and the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves?
I would believe the General in charge of the National Guard whom Jamie from CNN was talking to.

What facts do you not understand TonyRoma the liar?

""There is construction equipment everywhere here in the states and the construction workers that run the stuff daily are much better at it than the guard that run the stuff once a year at summer camp.""

Summer camp???
More right wing respect for our troops.
I wish you'd say that to a national guradsman in Iraq. Me thinks he would kick your cowardly, chickenhawk ass.

And just how many hours a day do thoes guardsmen spend on a front end loader while they are in Iraq? How many hours a day do they spend on one here in the states?

I guess you think the guard works for free and are extremely efficient. I guess you haven't been around much.

Sebelius was bitching about the lack of trucks and hummers. How long do you think it would take a D-8 to clear a path through town so the men could get in and pick up the injured?

You have to quit looking at everything through the eyes of the un-informed press and look at what you would do if you were in charge. Take a good look at the problem (nothing left standing and streets that you can't drive down) and then think of what you would do. It ain't stand out in the middle of the damn street and cuss Bush! That wouldn't get anything done, would it?

Think things through, don't just cry.

If businesses don't do work then they don't stay in business.

you bring up a good point regarding government contractors. my only criticism of your post is that you complain that conservatives always look to the private sector for solutions, then in the statement you make above, you prove their point for them. In general, the private sector is so much more efficient at getting things done. otherwise, as you say, they don't stay in business.

there is a problem with government contracting, which i've witnessed first-hand. my ex-wife is a government contractor working on a military base, which i will not specify. the culture on the base permeates throughout. everyone on the base, be they contractors, servicepeople, government officials, etc, have a relaxed "someone else will take care of it" attitude. dollars are wasted on things such as a huge digital timer mounted on the building, visible from the freeway, that counted down the time towards Y2K. nuts and bolts, screws, and other parts are "estimated" to cost more than i could spend at home depot on such items. is it because they can? i don't know the answer, but government contracting, in my estimation, has inherited an attitude, culture, managerial style, whatever you want to call it, that epitomizes bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. there's no way it can be lumped in the same category as the rest of the private sector, in which a company will go out of business if they behave in such a way.

I would believe the General in charge of the National Guard whom Jamie from CNN was talking to.

What facts do you not understand TonyRoma the liar?

Then again the idiocy of your stupidity shows like the big red nose on a clown's face! I guess reading comprehension taxes your feeble brain, doesn't it Lurchy? You don't even realize that Jaime is talking to the SAME PERSON I quoted from do you?

And the statement you reference is speculation (National Guard units typically had 65 to 75 percent of their needed equipment on hand), while mine ( the Guard would have about 660 Humvees and more than 30 large trucks to traverse difficult terrain and transport heavy equipment. When the tornado struck, the Guard had about 350 Humvees and 15 large trucks, said Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the state's adjutant general) is FACT!!!

But Jaime wasn't quoting from an official about the numbers, you just made that up! He was quoting a REPORT from the GAO. You are full of more shit than a Christmas goose!

Before you go and call someone a liar perhaps you should make sure that the basis for your erroneous assumption rests on more than your reading skills. Who taught you to read, Mr. Magoo?

""In general, the private sector is so much more efficient at getting things done. otherwise, as you say, they don't stay in business.""

HAHAHAHA!
Show me all their efficiency in Iraq where they have made billions on no-bid contracts constructing buildings that are now said to be unusable.
Privatization is simply code for cronyism.
Hell, private contractors in Iraq earn $150,000 to do virtually the same jobs our soldiers do for one tenth that amount.
To be quite honest, I think you would have a hard time actually finding any services that have been privatized and ended up saving taxpayers money while still providing the same services.
But the right repeats and repeats talking points regardless of the truth of them cuz talking points is all they got.

""Then again the idiocy of your stupidity shows like the big red nose on a clown's face!""

ff for Tony.

HR...

Good points. But the problem seems to lie not in the fact that government contracts private individuals, but in WHICH private individuals they seem to use. As with your complaint about government in general, there doesn't appear to be sufficient oversight nor accountability. This problem seems to exist regardless of whether we're talking about the public or private sectors and no one ever deals with it until the money is already gone and the problems still remain and often have been made worse than they started out.

danni,
did you even read my entire post, instead of cherry-picking one line? try again.

tony,
you make some good points as well. lack of oversight and accountability might indeed be one of the main, if not the main problem.

In general, the private sector is so much more efficient at getting things done. otherwise, as you say, they don't stay in business.

"The Mantra of Unexamined 'Truths'"
Part III, Section 2, Paragraph 6, Subparagraph f

Why do we expect the result to be any different since nothing has changed?

The needed change is called impeachment.

The RNC: Preserving the American Way of death.

The needed change is called impeachment.

The RNC: Preserving the American Way of death.

Posted by TurnLeftb42late

YA! Bush caused the twister so throw the SOB out. Hell, put him in front of a firing squad.

Get a life! The government gets bigger and slower every year. It doesn't matter who is president.

TonyRoma you continue to spread the lie that the Kansas National Guard cannot respond to the emergency because its equipment is allocated to the Iraq/Afgan war.

Post ONE Quote where I say that Lurchy! You are full of it today, aren't you?

As usual Lurchy can't find the forest for his idiocy! Nothing in your post refutes the facts! Kansas is missing 50-60% of its equipment, not its Guardsmen. You are the only one uninformed, and unable to comprehend simple sentences to boot!

Just where have I said what you just made up?

I would believe the General in charge of the National Guard whom Jamie from CNN was talking to.

And so would I. I've never disputed what he said, only that until your last post, the Forbes article wasn't being refereneced by either of us, was it? And btw, just WHOM was Jaime quoting in your intial link?

By the way, what is 20% of 60% as a number? So the fact is 10-20% of their equipment is not available because of the Iraq/Afgan war, errr, NO, Einstein! It means that at least a THIRD of Kansas' equipment is in Iraq! Is there a single sentence in either report which states that the numbers quoted by Bunting are based upon 100% levels or do they translate to the 60% levels of what they should have if not for Iraq with the calculations being done based on 60% being the baseline in the first place?

Now we've established that neither math nor arithmetic are friends of yours, would you like to accuse me of anything else outside of being the one to point out just how disengenuous and stupid you truly are? Why don't you quit while you're hopelessly behind? How silly of me. You like Bush, so you'll continue to try and dig yourself out of the hole you created due to your inability to read and count instead of backing out gracefully.... But you can ARGUE!

"In general, the private sector is so much more efficient at getting things done. otherwise, as you say, they don't stay in business.

"The Mantra of Unexamined 'Truths'"
Part III, Section 2, Paragraph 6, Subparagraph f

When government is our choice, it is usually because we can clearly see that the government can produce a higher-quality product that the private sector simply cannot match. Quality the private sector cannot match? Is such a thing possible?

""Get a life! The government gets bigger and slower every year. It doesn't matter who is president.""

So Sniper admits that the Republican's claims that they will make government smaller is just a lie. Just like I thought.
Thanks Sniper. First honest thing I ever saw posted by you.

Let's see...

660 Humvees and more than 30 large trucks to traverse difficult terrain and transport heavy equipment. When the tornado struck, the Guard had about 350 Humvees and 15 large trucks, said Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the state's adjutant general. The Guard would also usually have 170 medium-scale tactical vehicles used to transport people and supplies -- but now it has fewer than 30, he said.

660 down to 350= 53%
30 down to 15= 50%
170 down to 30= 17.6%

SEBELIUS: Here in Kansas, about 50 percent of our trucks are gone. We need trucks. We're missing Humvees. We're missing all kinds of equipment that could help us respond to this kind of emergency.

Looks like Lurchy is incapable of discerning truth from all the bluster and acerbic gas he spews as regularly as Old Faithful. Let's call him Old Factless!

Sounds like the someone is uninformed.

Yep, and I just identified who that is...just ask your mirror Lurchy, if it doesn't break into pieces first....

"The Mantra of Unexamined 'Truths'"

oh, i've examined it alright.

did you notice the words "in general?"

the statement i made has indeed been my experience. does that make it fact? my sample size is relatively small, so, of course not. but it's my opinion, formed by experience with both sectors, and one which i will maintain until i see evidence to the contrary.

Crispee...

Don't start! Unless you go back and read every post you will not understand what I'm saying compared to what Lurchy said! The quotation about being "uninformed" came from HIM, not me!

What you're speaking about above has little to do with what we were talking about. The numbers we use come from Maj. General Bunting, the state's adjutant general of the Kansas Guard, not from a pr official in Washington.

""the statement i made has indeed been my experience. does that make it fact? my sample size is relatively small, so, of course not. but it's my opinion, formed by experience with both sectors, and one which i will maintain until i see evidence to the contrary.""

So, you readily admit that you state things as facts when you have no real basis for them simply because it is a tenet of conservative political thought.
Most conservative "truths" are only so because constant repitition of talking points causes many Americans to accept them without question.
Meanwhile crony capitalists rake in billions by getting services privatized and then either reducing the services or raising the price.
Remember when the right even wanted the airport security people to be privatized....they are even willing to sacrifice security for profit.
I gave you several examples of privatization costing more, way, way more yet you still pretend that your "experience" tells you different.
Baloney. You have no such experience but I do have concrete examples disproving your statement.

Crispee...

When you jump into the middle of a conversation without knowing what its about, seldom can you make sense.

Since you'd rather argue with me than read and comprehend the nature of my discourse with Lurchy, here goes.

Have you been able to find anything where Bunting is lacking the resources he needs?

NO, because that's not the issue we're discussing, buttinski! We've been discussing whether or not Kansas' immediate response has been compromised by its EQUIPMENT being in Iraq! Not one word has been mentioned about asking for assistance or agreements with other states because our point was a simple one: Whether or not the NUMBERS stated by Bunting match up to the statistics spouted by the Governor and other officials in regards to what Kansas has on the ground compared to what it should have had under normal circumstances. And they do match, btw.

Lurchy implied that the Governor was "uninformed" when she made her statement. The facts are she was exactly correct in assessing the percentage of available equipment remaining in Kansas as shown in my complete 12.15 post.

Tony,
You seem to argue a point which is baseless and misleading. You talk about not seeing the forest... The article was written implying the people of Kansas would lack services because of equipment and or manpower shortages. That is a lie. That is nothing but the author and or paper using their anti war stance, knowing it would gain legs. Why don't you argue the merits of the article? What was the purpose of publishing this outright bullshit?

Crispee...

Are you that dense? Only YOU are stating the article was the point of my discussion with Lurchy. Don't you think I know what we were talking about better than you? I haven't even READ the article of this thread, only the one Lurchy spoke of and the one I linked to.

You are entitled to think and argue whatever you want, but you criticised me for something you still don't grasp. MY POINT was a refutation of the point made by Lurchy. What did I tell you at the start?

Don't start! Unless you go back and read every post you will not understand what I'm saying compared to what Lurchy said! The quotation about being "uninformed" came from HIM, not me!

What you're speaking about above has little to do with what we were talking about.

I have no issue with the article, your critique of it, or anything not inclusive to the narrow point of my debate. One cannot be misleading when the follower refuses to even understand what is being discussed (and why) in the first place.

Crispee...

Are you that dense? Only YOU are stating the article was the point of my discussion with Lurchy

OK Tony lets play your silly game.WHO the fuck is Lurchy? Since I am dense and this Lurchy person is also a fool. Where is the so called LURCHY post you seemed to spend your morning ripping apart?

BTW What was the purpose of you pointing out the so called short falls of NG in other states? Was that part of the article you did not read?

Is there a single sentence in either report which states that the numbers quoted by Bunting are based upon 100% levels or do they translate to the 60% levels of what they should have if not for Iraq with the calculations being done based on 60% being the baseline in the first place?

Yes, here it is.
Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the state's adjutant general, said the Kansas National Guard was equipped at only about 40 percent of its required levels, down from the 60 percent that it had at the start of the war.
He base lined where they started at 60% of 'fully equipped'. Now they are at 40% of 'fully equipped'. So 20% of their equipment is is Iraq.

SEBELIUS: Here in Kansas, about 50 percent of our trucks are gone. We need trucks. We're missing Humvees. We're missing all kinds of equipment that could help us respond to this kind of emergency.
The liar implied the equipment was 'gone' to Iraq/Afgan. She intentionally misled which makes her a liar.

Why didn't Clinton give the National Guard the equipment they needed? The economy was so great, taxes flowed into the treasury. Seems like that would have been a great time to fully equip the guard. But along came Monica...

BTW What was the purpose of you pointing out the so called short falls of NG in other states?

The overarching subject in the title, War Leaves Guard Ill-Equipped for American Disasters is not confined to Kansas, its about all the states. And even if other states jump in and help Kansas or any other state, doesn't that make them less prepared to handle their own potential catastrophies? The point is that equipment taken from the states' National Guard units and sent to Iraq has not been replaced, and this nation's emergency response capability has been downgraded because of this. If you want to call these facts "anti-war" then thats your perogative, not mine.

Lurchy, is the "Lurchurian Candidate" or the first incarnation of who is now Slickersterwilly. He was also Stopthebox_itch and sundry other monikers before he was banned and started sneaking back under other aliases. He made a post at 9.34 to which my entire diatribe on this thread has been in response to, not the article of this thread. He then misused a quotation from his own post and failed to notice that he and I were both quoting the same person but from different sources. Finally he called me a liar for making an insinuation that I never made, much like what you're just done.

Bottom line is Kansas is short of vehicles and equipment it normally would have to assist in responding to tornadoes or other disaster situations because of them being in Iraq. He mistated the percentages and assumed the actual numbers were based on a metric and not physical reality. The entire US National Guard is lacking in equipment for the same reason and every state is vulnerable because of this. That is the macro picture in a nutshell. I have not made a single assertion of speculation on what the facts mean, nor have I blamed anyone over them.

I think the article's point is that resources Kansas normally could count on are not there, so even with outside entities jumping in to help, the response times will be greater than if Kansas could handle it like it normally does with its historical contingent of Guard and equipment.

-But along came Monica...

I've heard of One-Trick Ponies, but One-Trick Jackasses must be new.

Lurchy...

You OBVIOUSLY can't discern the difference between 60% and 40% can you? Let's go to basics:

If I have 60 of something and reduce it down to 40, what PERCENTAGE of those somethings have I removed from the 60 I started with?

Your mistake is in forgetting that 60% of fully equipted is 100% of what they have, so when they're left with 40% of fully equipted you've reduced their stores by 33%, not 20%, capice?

When Hillary is elected POTUS she's said she'd appoint Bill Clinton (who had an approval rating of 68% at this point in his presidency) an 'Ambassador at Large'.

Hopefully he'll also visit some Third World spots like Podunk, AL, where I suspect he'd find SlicksterWilly and some of the other broken records sitting on their barstools drunk and mumbling about 'them'.

They can't seem to get it through their heads that George W Bush has been president for OVER SIX YEARS. If the National Guard is still underfunded and underequipped after 9/11 and a new Dept. of HOMELAND SECURITY (you know...HERE in the U.S.), there's no one to blame but Bush. Pray we don't have an attack AT HOME. We're obviously not ready. First responders STILL don't have the equipment they need, but IRAQ DOES.

Geesh. Mix a case of Bud a night with a feeble mind and you get posters like SlicksterWilly who are evidently so wet brained they still think this is 1999. How they figured out using a computer is even more baffling.

Your mistake is in forgetting that 60% of fully equipted is 100% of what they have, so when they're left with 40% of fully equipted you've reduced their stores by 33%, not 20%, capice?
Funny Flag! Yeah, I bet thats what he meant to say. You Clintonian speach suffers from Kerriistic logic.


They can't seem to get it through their heads that George W Bush has been president for OVER SIX YEARS. If the National Guard is still underfunded and underequipped after 9/11.

The general said they were equipped at 60% before the war during a time of peace which Clinton was president for 8 of the 10 previous years. Why didn't Clinton fully equip the national guard when the nation could afford it? Instead, he opted for a blowjob. The truth hurts.

I never thought I would see the day when the right tried to make the case that "less is more."

The truth hurts.

Posted by slicksterWilly

Your VERSION of it does.....right in my belly from laughing.

I never thought I would see the day when the right tried to make the case that "less is more."
"Less is more": a description of the relationship between Danni using her brain and Danni talking.

Why didn't Clinton fully equip the national guard when the nation could afford it? Instead, he opted for a blowjob. The truth hurts.

funny flag! lol

Your VERSION of it does.....right in my belly from laughing.
It is funny.

BTW, why didn't Clinton fully equip the National Guard during his 8 years in office. He had no other major engagments that drained the equipment. He had surplus tax revenues. Why didn't he fully equip the national guard?

Lurchy...

Are you truly saying you don't understand that starting with 60% and reducing it to 40% is a 33% drop, not a 20% one? If this is the case I suggest you get some remedial math pronto! I was making fun of you, but now I feel sorry for your inferior education!

Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the state's adjutant general, said the Kansas National Guard was equipped at only about 40 percent of its required levels, down from the 60 percent that it had at the start of the war.

Praytell which party controlled Congress for those 10 years Lurchy? Remember who holds the pursestrings, and it ain't your namesake now was it? Wonder why impeachment and a $70 million witch hunt was more important than equipping the National Guard, since obviously the Republican Congress wouldn't expect a draft-dodging Democrat to take care of the troops you all worship each and everyday, would they? What? You mean all that political talk is nothing but hot air?

Again, no responsibility, no accountability, no foresight, and nothing but excuses and blameshifting. You're a sorry excuse for an American Lurchy, but you already know that, don't you?

""Why didn't Clinton fully equip the national guard when the nation could afford it?""

Well, we know that at least $70,000,000.00 was wasted investigating a blow job. You tell me, who's worse, the guy getting the blow job for free or the one who uses taxpayer money to hear the details???
One's a cad perhaps but the other is a pervert.

BTW, why didn't Clinton fully equip the National Guard during his 8 years in office. He had no other major engagments that drained the equipment. He had surplus tax revenues. Why didn't he fully equip the national guard?

Because the REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IN CONGRESS didn't want to and didn't propose to! Cutting taxes for the wealthy was a MUCH better way to protect America! Just ask W....

Both sides need to take a step back here.

Before the war Kansas was at 60% capacity for guard equipment. They currently sit at around 40% now.

Both Clinton and Bush are to blame here. Both had money available to them at a time of peace to get the nation back on track with several key issues, one of them being Guard and military equipment. Clinton let it pass as he left and Bush decided to give everyone a pointless check to boost his ratings.

Asking for help is not free. People on this thread are making it appear that other states and the private sector are handing over resources for free. There is a cost and it will be paid by the tax payers of Kansas.

The simple truth is that the war caused a reduction in response time for the initial hours of the disaster. People have exaggerated this delay for political reasons. Kansas now has the resourced available to help it's people in need. The resources are not free.

Those who do not tend the fields of life reap death.

Mix a case of Bud a night with a feeble mind and you get posters like SlicksterWilly who are evidently so wet brained they still think this is 1999. How they figured out using a computer is even more baffling.

Maybe thats why he can't figure out that 60% to 40% is a 33% drop, not a 20% one....

Oh, and the drawdown of American forces was part of a plan drawn up during Bush 41's term.

As to the Natl. Guard - BUSH HAS BEEN PRESIDENT FOR OVER 6 YEARS !! If the Natl. Guard is undermanned or underequipped, the blame rests firmly with the Republican Congress and Bush the Little.

Are you truly saying you don't understand that starting with 60% and reducing it to 40% is a 33% drop, not a 20% one?
Where did the general mention a 33% drop or shortfall. He didn't. He said before the war they had 60% of the equipment they needed. Now they have 40% of the equipment they need. That is a difference of 20%.

The lie you continue to push is the national guard in Kansas cannot effectivly respond to the diaster because required equipment is in Iraq/Afgan. The general statements prove you and the governer's statements to be lies.

As to the Natl. Guard - BUSH HAS BEEN PRESIDENT FOR OVER 6 YEARS !! If the Natl. Guard is undermanned or underequipped, the blame rests firmly with the Republican Congress and Bush the Little.
So next year when the guard is still at 40-50% of fully equipped, will it be the fault of the democrats in congress? You shouldn't bother with an answer...because we know what it will be.

Both Clinton and Bush are to blame here. Both had money available to them at a time of peace to get the nation back on track with several key issues, one of them being Guard and military equipment. Clinton let it pass as he left and Bush decided to give everyone a pointless check to boost his ratings.

Maybe the operative question here is has the National Guard EVER been equipted at 100% since its inception? What are the historic levels throughout the years?

All of us are assuming facts not yet in evidence, but one fact remains inviolate: Clinton's and the GOP-led Congresses in the 90s used revenues to bring down the deficit, while Bush RAN in 2000 on cutting taxes, not on shoring up domestic needs! Bush is the first American President to fight a war and cut taxes at the same time, so its clear that domestic needs were not at the top of his agenda, nor do they continue to be.

We have been in Iraq for more than 4 years, and in Afghanastan for over 5. If there are unmet needs in this nation, they've been the responsibility of those who've controlled the spending mechanisms of government for the last 6+ years, not the man who's been out of office since 2001. Blame him, no problem. But we've had 6 years to address the shortfall, and look at where we are.

Where did the general mention a 33% drop or shortfall. He didn't. He said before the war they had 60% of the equipment they needed. Now they have 40% of the equipment they need. That is a difference of 20%.

You sir, are an imbecile of the highest proportions! Would anyone else like to take a crack at basic math and explain this to him?

The general didn't mention squat because he didn't have to. Its not his fault that you can't do simple math, its yours.

...
Do you want the Terrorists to follow us home ???

President George W. Bush

"All we have to fear is not enough fear"

Posted by USATrueandBlue7 at 2007-05-09 08:57 AM

Well, 6 of the terrorists did make it all the way to New Jersey.

"He said before the war they had 60% of the equipment they needed. Now they have 40% of the equipment they need. That is a difference of 20%. "

No dummy, that's a 33% reduction. Arithmetic is fundamental.

AA...

I'm well aware, and I'm having so much fun today on this thread watching heads spin furiously, trying to blame each and every contemporary problem on someone that left government over a half-decade ago!

Is there not one single conservative willing to stand up and say that the Republicans have been more talk than substantive action ever since Bush stepped into the White House? Has a Republican ever asked Bush to take care of domestic problems and to appoint competent people to government positions instead of partisan hacks and college-graduate ideologues?

We've been telling you the driver doesn't know what he's been doing for years, yet you find it constructive to blame the passengers for his sins of ommission? Priceless....

The governer of KS said she could not effectivly respond to the disaster because of the Iraq war. She told an outright lie.

According to the her general, there is plenty of equipment in the state for this job. According to the Army, there are stockpiles of equipment that are shared between guard units/states. If the governer needs equipment, why hasn't she asked for it. She knew if she told the same lie which the gov of LA told, the media would 'run the play' for her. After all she is chairwomen of the Democratic Governors Association. Now you know the rest of the story.

So next year when the guard is still at 40-50% of fully equipped, will it be the fault of the democrats in congress?

LICKERWILLY

Record defense spending is taking place. Where that money is allocated is not up to Congress.

Well, 6 of the terrorists did make it all the way to New Jersey.

And did you see what they're plan was, and how they concocted it? This is more like Miami than it is 9/11. Olbermann had me in stitches talking about these fools last night.

The governer of KS said she could not effectivly respond to the disaster because of the Iraq war. She told an outright lie.---SW



SEBELIUS: Here in Kansas, about 50 percent of our trucks are gone. We need trucks. We're missing Humvees. We're missing all kinds of equipment that could help us respond to this kind of emergency.

Errrrr...no she didn't, at least not in the post YOU made this morning. She stated the facts....You know facts, don't you? Those are the little things that no one from inside the Bush Administration ever talks about without their heads exploding like the Fembots from Austin Powers.

30 trucks normally-----15 trucks now, per Bunting.

Gov---"...50 percent of our trucks are gone."

Unless you're using Vernon's Calculator (TM), I believe that is completely accurate, unlike your math skills....

this math business is kind of a side issue, but i cannot stop thinking about it. here's the statement:

before the war they had 60% of the equipment they needed. Now they have 40% of the equipment they need.

let's dissect this:

say they need 100 devices/vehicles/whatever.

before the war, they had 60% of what they need. so they had 60 devices.

now they have 40% of what they need (which is 100 devices).

seems to me, they now have 40 devices.

that's a drop of 20 devices out of the needed 100.

am i missing something?

No dummy, that's a 33% reduction. Arithmetic is fundamental.
You stupid sob, its a 20% reduction from a basline of 100%.

Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting, the state's adjutant general, said the Kansas National Guard was equipped to about 40 percent of its necessary levels, down from the 60 percent it had at the start of the war.

The necessary levels is the baseline, or 100%.

They started with 10 parking spaces for trucks. Before the war, six of the 10 parking spaces had a truck in it. 4 parking spaces were empty. Now 4 of the 10 parking spaces have trucks in them, 6 are empty. The two trucks that were there before the war are now in Irag/Afgan. The percent of reduction from 60% to 40% is not relevant to the generals statement.

The only thing that matters is the governer was telling a lie, she attempted to mislead by stateing 50% of her equipment was in Iraq/Afgan. The general statement proves this to be a lie.

am i missing something?

Yes you are.

The percent of reduction from 60% to 40% is not relevant to the generals statement.

Of course it isn't...TO YOU!!!!

You keep insisting that a reduction of 60% to 40% is a 20% drop when its a 33% drop! Thats all I've ever said. Math is not subjective. 33% of Kansas' equipment is in Iraq, not 20%.

am i missing something?
Two things.
1) A government funded education.
2) A course in Clintonian logic to use with Kerristic logic, but only when it is useful for your argument. Sometimes people mean what they say. Sometimes they mean things they don't say. This is part of the intellectual nuance. Find the meaning that suits your argument and claim everyone who disagrees is stupid. Just like Gore and Kerry did.

Other than those two things, your assesment is accurate.

They started with 10 parking spaces for trucks. Before the war, six of the 10 parking spaces had a truck in it. 4 parking spaces were empty. Now 4 of the 10 parking spaces have trucks in them, 6 are empty. The two trucks that were there before the war are now in Irag/Afgan.

RIGHT...and 2 is precisely what percentage of 6 (not 10, because we're only talking about what they HAVE, not what they don't have)? 33% numbnutz, not 20%!

"You stupid sob, its a 20% reduction from a basline of 100%."

No, dummy. Let's try again. You have 6 apples. Somebody steals 2 of them. Now you have 4. You have 1/3 less, not 1/5 less. Idiot.

You keep insisting that a reduction of 60% to 40% is a 20% drop when its a 33% drop! Thats all I've ever said. Math is not subjective. 33% of Kansas' equipment is in Iraq, not 20%.

You keep ignoring the generals statment in which he said "the Kansas National Guard was equipped to about 40 percent of its necessary levels, down from the 60 percent it had at the start of the war".
Before the war I needed 10, had 6. Now I need 10, but have 4. That is all he said. The gov lied and said 50% of the equipment was in Iraq/Afgan. Where did she get that number?

"The percent of reduction from 60% to 40% is not relevant to the generals statement."

You would a math final for that answer. Calling it a 20% "baseline" reduction means we could mitigate the problem merely by changing the "baseline". For example, if only the requirement would have been 100 trucks, the reduction would only have been 2%. See? Hardly a blip!

The "baseline" here is meaningless. Spin the numbers any way you want, one fact remains: they've lost a third of their equipment and supplies compared to what they had before Iraq.

"RIGHT...and 2 is precisely what percentage of 6 (not 10, because we're only talking about what they HAVE, not what they don't have)? 33% numbnutz, not 20%!"

Keep in mind, Tony, you're arguing with Box itch, the idiot that denies there is such a thing as "corporate welfare", because of course, you don't see CEOs at welfare offices receiving checks.

You keep insisting that a reduction of 60% to 40% is a 20% drop when its a 33% drop!

i see where the confusion is.

a drop from 60 to 40 is a 33% drop. but i don't think that was the statement you quoted. the percentage he's referring to is a percentage of equipment needed, which for our purposes is 100. so, a drop from 60 out of 100 to 40 out of 100 is a drop of 20 out of 100.

yes, it's a 33% reduction of what they have, but they need 100.

one of you is talking about 20/100 while the other is talking about 20/60.

they've lost a third of their equipment and supplies compared to what they had before Iraq.
That is a true statment. But it is not relavant to what the governer or general said. No where did he mention 33%. No where did the liar(governer) mention 33%.

The only thing that matters is the governer was telling a lie, she attempted to mislead by stating 50% of her equipment was in Iraq/Afgan. The general statement proves this to be a lie.

No, it only proves that you have a terrible problem with reading comprehension and simple math skills! Here is her quote yet again:

SEBELIUS: Here in Kansas, about 50 percent of our trucks are gone. We need trucks. We're missing Humvees. We're missing all kinds of equipment that could help us respond to this kind of emergency.

Bunting: "...30 large trucks...."

"When the tornado struck, the Guard had about 350 Humvees and 15 large trucks...."

The governor said "trucks" not equipment, and 15 trucks from 30 trucks is exactly 50% gone to Iraq. Are you incapable of understanding direct quotations or do you always make up your own interpretations?

LICKASSWILLY

Just so you know.....

Bill Clinton's APPROVALl rating was 68% at this stage of his presidency - after the Ken Starr BS

George W Bush's DISAPPROVAL rating is 68%

You do the math

""Obama Overstates Kansas Tornado Deaths""

OMG!!! Obama accidentally says the wrong word. Jeeeezus we've had six years now of a president who regularly can't utter a sentence without mistating facts.
According to Dubya Queen Elizabeth is over 200 years old.

Posted by danni
------------------------

I guess I can start to call him idiot, stupid etc....just like you all do when Bush says something. Thanks for making my point.

one of you is talking about 20/100 while the other is talking about 20/60.

Exactly HR, now you get it. The facts are that Kansas had what it had, not what it was supposed to have. So the General's statement is factual on its face, but he doesn't state that Kansas had a "20% drop" as Lurchy does. He says the percentages went from 60% to 40%. This is a defacto, cannot be argued, 33% drop, not a 20% drop like Lurchy keeps insinuating. The General doesn't have to state anything for this to be the ONLY WAY to factually account for the difference between what they HAD and what they HAVE LEFT!

If you start with 60% and drop to 40%, your decline is 33% of what you had!

Are you incapable of understanding direct quotations or do you always make up your own interpretations?

"Uh huh...and ditto
SickSisterWilly"

If you start with 60% and drop to 40%, your decline is 33% of what you had!

that is a true statement.

what does it matter anyway? 85% of all statistics are bunk.

*ducks*
ok ok, i'm going away now.

No where did he mention 33%.

He did so by stating equipment levels dropped from 60% to 40%. That is all this part of the discussion has ever been about. The governor is a separate issue by herself.

So Kansas is missing 50-60% of its equipment and its because of the war in Iraq. Before the war they were 40% short of being fully equipped. So the fact is 10-20% of their equipment is not available because of the Iraq/Afgan war....Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-05-09 10:39 AM

Now do you see where this started, or do you forget what you say yourself? That's forgivable. I wouldn't listen to myself either if I were you....

If you start with 60% and drop to 40%, your decline is 33% of what you had!
From 60% to 40% is a decline of 33%. But you know that is not what the general said. No where did he mention 33%. What did he mean when he said "required levels"?
They are equipped at 20% less of their "required levels" now as a result of the Iraq/Afgan war.

tonyroma
you can't blame clintons failures on the house and senate rep without givin them some credit for his successes
jasman

lol!

Little Lurchy is still a semantics Queen, no matter what handle he posts under.

slickster and tony, you are both right.

in my example above, it's a 33% reduction in equipment they had, and what they have now has been reduced from what they used to have by 20% of what they need.

LOL
and this is important because....?

Has anyone told Obama that there were only 12 people killed in the tornados, not TEN THOUSAND! lol

So, in other words, Bush has let the National Guard go underequipped the last 6 years. Even when 'Homeland Security' has never been a more pressing issue.

Oh, and Halliburton's move to Dubai makes the attempted sale of U.S. ports to Dubai even the more suspicious, doesn't it? Hmmm. Wonder who Dubai would have outsourced the management to? Hmmm

in my example above, it's a 33% reduction in equipment they had, and what they have now has been reduced from what they used to have by 20% of what they need.
That is correct. And the general specifically mentions the "required levels" in his statement. Which is "fully equipped", not what he had before the war.

They are equipped at 20% less of their "required levels" now as a result of the Iraq/Afgan war.

The differrence between you and I is that I live and calculate in the reality-based community of things that actually, physically exist where they're supposed to be. You, on the other hand, have a difficult time moving away from the fantasy of what should be, but never is because desire exceeds reach.

What conceivable good does it do to calculate the percentages of equipment that Kansas SHOULD HAVE if the world were Bush's oyster, instead of calculating the ACTUAL PERCENTAGE OF EQUIPMENT that Kansas DOES HAVE in Iraq, based on what it truly, provably HAS?

The answer equates to the amount of logic you've used in trying to weasel out of being proved irredeemably wrong and laughingly so to boot....

LOL
and this is important because....?

Because someone made the erroneous statement that got this started and only now sees that it was wrong. See my 3.57 post above....

And the general specifically mentions the "required levels" in his statement. Which is "fully equipped", not what he had before the war.

Go back through this entire thread. Move the goalposts all you want, you still didn't score. The general made a statement that equates to a 33% drop in actual equipment that Kansas possesses, because it was sent to Iraq.

Your bablings have been about imaginary equipment that they never had at all, while using Vernon's Calculator (TM) to figure out what they would have lost had they had it to begin with. The rest is butterflies creating breezes throughout the vast expanse known as your mind....

What conceivable good does it do to calculate the percentages of equipment that Kansas SHOULD HAVE if the world were Bush's oyster, instead of calculating the ACTUAL PERCENTAGE OF EQUIPMENT that Kansas DOES HAVE in Iraq, based on what it truly, provably HAS?
Ask the general. He is the one that said they were currently at 40% of 'required levels' and before the war they were at 60% of 'required levels'.

I noticed all of the insults and attacks in your responses. Can't your logic or reasoning stand on its own, or does it need to be supported by petty name calling.

The general made a statement that equates to a 33% drop in actual equipment that Kansas possesses, because it was sent to Iraq.
Yes, but he never mentioned 33% did he. He simply compared the equipment they have now to the equipment they had before the war in relation to their 'required levels'. From 60% to 40%.

100!

YYYYYEEEEHHHHAAAAWWW!!!

SlicksterWilly sure sounds like Boxxxy. If thats the case, welcome back!

"The Mantra of Unexamined 'Truths'"

"oh, i've examined it alright. did you notice the words "in general?" the statement i made has indeed been my experience. does that make it fact? my sample size is relatively small, so, of course not. but it's my opinion, formed by experience with both sectors, and one which i will maintain until i see evidence to the contrary.
Posted by handsome_rob"

So, what you're really saying is, "In general, and in my experience, the private sector is so much more efficient at getting things done"?

Bill O', thanks for link. Interesting.

I noticed all of the insults and attacks in your responses. Can't your logic or reasoning stand on its own, or does it need to be supported by petty name calling.

What facts do you not understand TonyRoma the liar?

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-05-09 10:39 AM

The general statements prove you and the governer's statements to be lies.

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-05-09 02:57 PM

Excuse me? You and I both know the only reason you're being civil is because you know you're wrong. If not, you'd have been more vitriolic than myself.

I've been consistent since my first post. You haven't understood what been quoted and you've mistated my position and that of the governor based upon your own postings. No matter if its the general or Mother Teresa, when you start with 60% of anything, and you reduce it to 40%, its a 33% drop, not a 20% drop. By stating 60%, its an admission that you don't have 100%, therefore when you drop any percentage, it has to be weighted against what you HAD, not what you wanted to have.

The governor stated that 50% of her trucks were gone, and by Buntings admission, this is correct. In the only quote I've been speaking to, she never said anything about Kansas being unable to respond because of equipment being in Iraq. She lamented that said equipment wasn't available for immediate use, but her words didn't assess blame, they stated fact in the quote I've consistently referred to. Neither she, nor I have "lied" about anything other than the witty bonmots that you and I have shared for years.

If you know anything about me, its that I'm a firm believer in the Golden Rule. Stay on topic, I don't get personal. Get personal, and maybe I'll give some back. It is what it is. And being the good progressive that I am, I never wish anyone harm regardless of how much I disagree with their sentiments. That's what makes America great in my estimation. It would be boring if we all agreed about everything....

SlicksterWilly sure sounds like Boxxxy. If thats the case, welcome back!

Lee...

Lurchy's hardly ever left. He bounces around until RCade boots him again, usually for antagonizing Lisa. He even spoofed me for a short while.

yes, doc, that is what i'm saying. most events in my experience have supported the theory that, in general, the private sector is more efficient. realizing, however, that my sample size is small, i'm aware that the theory may be incorrect. but i'm going with that theory until i see evidence to the contrary, because it's all i have at the moment.

if you'd like to help increase my sample size by sharing your experience, you're more than welcome too.

Nobody can inanely rant like Boxxxy.

Tony, sorry for calling you a liar. What I should have said is you are supporting a lie.

therefore when you drop any percentage, it has to be weighted against what you HAD, not what you wanted to have.
Not true. The general was very clear in his statement. Both percentages he gave were in relation to his 'required levels'.

If I start with $100, invest it and one year later it is worth $110, that is a 10% return on my original investment. If the next year it earns another 10%. I have made 21% on my original investment, but 10% for the year. So what did I earn? The answer depends on the baselined amount. Is the baseline the original amount or the what I started the year with. In the generals case, he was very clear he was speaking of the 'required levels'. His fully equipped levels.

Tony, sorry for calling you a liar.

Then I apologize for my sleights toward you as well.

The general was very clear in his statement. Both percentages he gave were in relation to his 'required levels'.

Okay, I'll give it one last try. I have no quibble with how you interpret the general's statements, and you've been correct as you repeat them. HOWEVER, that still doesn't invalidate a mathematical fact.

You are confusing yourself with the verbage instead of understanding what is being calculated. The problem with your example above is that you use 100. The general started with a baseline of "60%" of what he wanted, so 60% becomes 100% of what he has.

Now, of the 100 percent of what he has (which is 60% of what he wants), ONE_THIRD is shipped to Iraq (20+20+20=60). Now he's left with 40% of what he wants to have, but in REALITY and mathematically, he's lost 33% (20%+20%=40%/Kansas +20% in Iraq=60%) to Iraq of the 60% (100% in reality) that he should have.

Kansas NEVER HAD 100% so when you base the discussion off the 100% wish, this is where you're losing sight of the simple math.

It doesn't matter how the general states these numbers, they still add up the same way in the same percentages based on what Kansas actually has. 60% - 40% is ALWAYS a 33% drop! Its not a subtraction, which is what you're doing, its a division based on the numbers you start with and the numbers you finish with, not on how anyone presents them verbally out or in a different context.

good article, tony. i suppose, given the choice of the two schools of thought in the white house the article mentions, i would be more in line with the "pragmatists" of colin powell and gen. garner. no "shock treatment."

i'm among the majority in this country that don't like the way this has gone. the bottom line for me is that neither sector is perfect, and i'm not at all denying the necessity of government to keep corporations "honest", so to speak. to curb corporate greed, prevent monopolies, etc.

but....

In December 2003, KBR was caught charging the US army $1.59 per gallon for oil imported from Kuwait, Iraq's neighbour, for which it paid only 70 cents per gallon.

why do things like this happen?

because they can. the army is a prime example. like the naval base on which my ex-wife works, which i posted about at 11:12 above. yes, there is corruption in corporations. there is greed in the private sector. and there is pork, red-tape, bureacracy and "pass the buck-ism" in the government.

oh i could go on and on...but i gotta go. i have to earn a living, you know?

"They are equipped at 20% less of their "required levels" now as a result of the Iraq/Afgan war."

Using your logic, if the requirement was a million, the one-third drop in equipment would've been infinitesimal. See, the requirement can change all it wants, they still lost a third of their stuff.

Once again Boxy clings to word symantics and cockamamie econonic theory which would get anyone else flunked out of Math 101.

6 years later and the National Guard is short on equipment? After attacks on U.S. soil? While our regular forces are bogged down in Iraq and the National Guard our primary line of defense here?

So much for the Republicans being the 'pro military' party

but wasnt the ks gov on the tube sayin they had all they needed and FEMA and national govt had given them everything they asked for?....guess that didnt fit the agenda....

Posted by cheka at 2007-05-09 09:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

She said exactly the opposite when it comes to the NG equipment.

I don't know why everybody's so worked up about this. It's not like there's going to be another natural disaster in the next year. Surely there aren't going to any more tornadoes or hurricanes in the next while and California is completely done having earthquakes.

Just relax.

For all of you that keep talking about what the General said....I would view with suspicion anything that comes out of the mouth of someone whom ultimately reports to George Bush. No General while in uniform is going to state anything that's indifferent with the administration unless they are looking to retire immediately. Just check the record....

Just curious but how much of that equipment did they end up using? Seems like an engineer battalion's equipment is what they needed...and they do have one along with transportation,medical, aviation and MP assets.

If anyone really knows...and btw I will bet you many of the guys in the engineer battalion work construction trades.