Monday, September 05, 2005
And now the rhetoric becomes even more dangerous
The New York Times, in a hysterical overreaction, is now arguing that the National Guard, a critical component of the total force, representing the majority of the total combat power of the Army, abdicate its federal mission: To fight and win our nations's wars.
Yep. There is no such thing as local first responders, no such thing as a strategic reserve, there are no threats to American interests anywhere in the globe, and in a time of constricted recruiting, we can add 40,000 troops of all ranks to the active Army with just a wiggle of our nose.
This is amazing. Don't these people think?
Splash, out
Jason
One lasting lesson that has to be drawn from the Gulf Coast's misery is that from now on, the National Guard must be treated as America's most essential homeland security force, not as some kind of military piggy bank for the Pentagon to raid for long-term overseas missions.
Yep. There is no such thing as local first responders, no such thing as a strategic reserve, there are no threats to American interests anywhere in the globe, and in a time of constricted recruiting, we can add 40,000 troops of all ranks to the active Army with just a wiggle of our nose.
This is amazing. Don't these people think?
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
You must have a brain to think. It's been evident for several years that no one that works at the NYT meets that requirement. Most of their news (sic) is a reprint of Pravda.
# posted by 
: 1:35 AM
: 1:35 AM
Does this mean that the NY Times is now glad that the young G.W. Bush's services in the Texas ANG weren't misappropriated overseas in service of the Vietnam War?
Post a Comment
# posted by : 1:47 PM
: 1:47 PM
