| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on 12/01/2008 12:15:34 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason: |
Posted on 12/01/2008 11:42:57 AM PST by TexasCajun
I don’t like it.
This is what the National Guard if for. Even the Romans wouldn’t allow the Legions inside the city limits. That’s what the Praetorian Guard was for.....like our National Guard. One reason we, previously, did not allow our military to get involved in civil disputes is because they are under the command of the Commander in Chief. National Guard is under the governors of each State.
Yep, not a good thing.
Zero at his finest.
He’s doing it this way because he can’t stand them down and put them all in the unemployment line at once!
But that's about it.
I have often wondered what Obama is going to do with our troops when he brings them all home. They need to keep them on the government payroll until they get jobs.
“or other domestic catastrophe”
The Democrats will view this as them loosing the White House in 2012 ...
You said — “Zero at his finest.”
While he may continue in these plans, I don’t see how it is — as you seem to say — that this is something that came from Obama??
The article says —
The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.
It sounds more like a response to 9/11 (and coming future terrorists attacks) and part of the Bush Administration...
From what I’ve heard from everyone in government that speaks about the issue of future terrorists attacks, they all seem to say that it *is certain* that we will have a future and major terrorist attack (on the level of 9/11 and/or bigger). Many have said (over the years) that it’s not a question of “if” — but merely a question of *when*.
So, this seems to be a continuation of reorganization of all facets of our government and military and law enforcement and all concerned about these coming attacks — and *not* something to do with Obama.
Boy, that leaves it wide open, don't it?
I was wondering why this wasn't posted already.
4 times should be enought coverage for now.
-sorry-
Well, this a&^ clown blustered so long and so hard about getting the troops home...now it is the ONE demonstrable and VERY obvious campaign mantra he CANNOT blow off.
I am sure he will bungle it, too. AND he’ll send a definate withdrawal date to the al Qiada so they can be sure to capitalize on the absence of coalition troops ... immediately upon our leaving. The guy is a disaster waiting to happen.
He doesn’t care about his promises......he got elected and he’ll do anything he wants and blame it on everyone else. I’d bet that he blames Hawaii for loosing his Birth Certificate.
“There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians”
Why not just have the military train local swat teams how to handle situations like the Mumbai attacks? They would be on the scene in minutes anyway, and more familiar with the area they are working in. Having a military do it opens us up to all kinds of constitutional issues.
I for one, welcome our new Camo’d Overlords.
National Guard ... and if the concern is that a state’s Guard is incapacitated by the calamity, then let it be mutual support agreements that come into play, much as Bobby Jindal had happening in Louisiana.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.