Army Guard in "Dire Straits"

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready, mostly because of equipment shortages that will cost up to $21 billion to correct, the top National Guard general said Tuesday.

 

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum spoke to a group defense reporters after Army officials, analysts and members of Congress disclosed that two-thirds of the active Army's brigades are not ready for war.

 

The budget won't allow the military to complete the personnel training and equipment repairs and replacement that must be done when units return home after deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, they say.

 

"I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms, I just have a higher fever," Blum said.

 

One Army official acknowledged Tuesday that while all the active Army units serving in the war zone are "100 percent" ready, the situation is not the same for those at home.

 

"In the continental United States, there are plenty of units that are rated at significantly less than a C-1 rating," said Lt. Col. Carl S. Ey. "Backlogs at the depots, budget issues and the timeliness of receiving funds to conduct training are all critical to the Army's ability keep their force trained, ready and at the highest readiness level possible."

 

Once a taboo subject for the military, often buried deep in classified documents, readiness levels -- generally ranked from C-1 (the best) to C-4 (the worst) are now being used as weapons themselves to force money out of Congress and the administration.

 

And while Army officials still won't specify how many units are at which levels, they are being more open about the overall declining state of readiness.

 

A key element of the problem is that Army units returning from the war have either left tanks, trucks or other equipment behind or are bringing them home damaged. Once back, many soldiers either leave the Army or move to other posts, forcing leaders to train others to replace them. As a result, the unit's ratings drop, said Ey, an Army spokesman.

 

Last week several House Democrats said publicly that two-thirds of the Army brigades are rated not ready for combat, and Army officials have not disputed that figure. On Tuesday, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Connecticut, also declined to be specific, but said the Army is "very much worse off" that it was in late 1999 when the military said two of the 10 Army divisions were ranked at the lowest readiness level, C-4. At the time, two divisions equaled six brigades.

 

The issue gained political momentum when then-candidate George Bush, during his nominating convention, said the Clinton administration allowed the U.S. military might to erode. Now, as the 2006 elections approach, Democrats are saying the Bush administration is shortchanging the military.

 

GOP leaders have discussed adding $10 billion to the 2007 defense bill, and Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said lawmakers are talking with the Pentagon "to see if they really need that money."

 

Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said Tuesday he wants to add $10 billion to the defense bill, while Dodd said he would push for $17 billion.

 

In addition to the National Guard's needs, the active Army has said it needs $17 billion to repair or replace equipment and meet other readiness needs but the pending legislation falls far short of that.

 

The Army's readiness score is based on four factors: whether a unit has all the equipment needed; whether the equipment is working; whether it has the number and types of personnel needed; and whether they are properly trained.

 

Could never happen under a Republican Leadership

Could never happen under a Republican Leadership

 

 

Ya and under Clinton poverty disappeared :whistle . He is a miracle worker, but all of the sudden when Bush came into office poverty magically reappeared. :mischief2 At leat thats what I see on T.V. That's right I'm talkin Liberal media.........

Could never happen under a Republican Leadership

 

 

Ya and under Clinton poverty disappeared :whistle . He is a miracle worker, but all of the sudden when Bush came into office poverty magically reappeared. :mischief2 At leat thats what I see on T.V. That's right I'm talkin Liberal media.........

What in god's name are you talking about? Show your proof, and I want hard proof from a reliable source. Not something like, "Well, watch the news".

 

BTW, what does this have to do with the Army Guard's lack of funds?

Could never happen under a Republican Leadership

 

 

Ya and under Clinton poverty disappeared :whistle . He is a miracle worker, but all of the sudden when Bush came into office poverty magically reappeared. :mischief2 At leat thats what I see on T.V. That's right I'm talkin Liberal media.........

What in god's name are you talking about? Show your proof, and I want hard proof from a reliable source. Not something like, "Well, watch the news".

 

BTW, what does this have to do with the Army Guard's lack of funds?

 

Way to go disproving the myths that republicans are slow.

Could never happen under a Republican Leadership

 

 

Ya and under Clinton poverty disappeared :whistle . He is a miracle worker, but all of the sudden when Bush came into office poverty magically reappeared. :mischief2 At leat thats what I see on T.V. That's right I'm talkin Liberal media.........

What in god's name are you talking about? Show your proof, and I want hard proof from a reliable source. Not something like, "Well, watch the news".

 

BTW, what does this have to do with the Army Guard's lack of funds?

:lol sorry...i just finished reading Bernard Goldbeg's book, Bias, which gave evidence showing that the news is slanted to the left ( I know TW im brainwashed)...i didnt read the article i just read your comment and maybe misunderstood...i thought it might mean you are republican.......but anyways Bernie gave stats showing that when regan was in office, the news showed "x-many stories about poverty" implying that it is regan's fault or a Republican's fault, but all of the sudden when Clinton got elected teh amount of stories about poverty decreased drastically, and anyone with half a brain knows that it would be a big coincidence that the liberal clinton cured poverty the day he got elected....and when Bush got elected stories about poverty increased again... if you wnat me to be stat boy ill give them to ya...but i dont want to hijack your thread anymore....sorry about that

:lol sorry...i just finished reading Bernard Goldbeg's book, Bias, which gave evidence showing that the news is slanted to the left ( I know TW im brainwashed)...i didnt read the article i just read your comment and maybe misunderstood...i thought it might mean you are republican.......but anyways Bernie gave stats showing that when regan was in office, the news showed "x-many stories about poverty" implying that it is regan's fault or a Republican's fault, but all of the sudden when Clinton got elected teh amount of stories about poverty decreased drastically, and anyone with half a brain knows that it would be a big coincidence that the liberal clinton cured poverty the day he got elected....and when Bush got elected stories about poverty increased again... if you wnat me to be stat boy ill give them to ya...but i dont want to hijack your thread anymore....sorry about that

 

whatever, I don't really mind.

 

About Bernard Goldberg, really begin to look at some of the quotes in that book, and then go get the actual transcripts of the actual broadcast. You'll find most of his "proven" quotes are clearly taken out of context, and follow ups to Goldberg about these, usually end up with him blustered, and a comment somewhere along the lines of "Well, I worked there, I would know". The fact is Bernard Goldberg, is a hardcore conservative, who like all of us, wants to make money. He knows that conservatives strongly believe in the Liberal Media, and given his former stature. Why is he not going to take advantage of that to make a quick buck.

 

Just because he has a book, doesn't make it true. A number of his sources contain faulty info, or are manipulated to skew the arguement to his side. People on both sides do this, Eric Alterman, has a book out proclaiming a Conservative Media. Does that make it true, because it's in print? Of course, not. Sources, and how they're used determine the meat of book, hearsay and misquotes, do not...

:lol sorry...i just finished reading Bernard Goldbeg's book, Bias, which gave evidence showing that the news is slanted to the left ( I know TW im brainwashed)...i didnt read the article i just read your comment and maybe misunderstood...i thought it might mean you are republican.......but anyways Bernie gave stats showing that when regan was in office, the news showed "x-many stories about poverty" implying that it is regan's fault or a Republican's fault, but all of the sudden when Clinton got elected teh amount of stories about poverty decreased drastically, and anyone with half a brain knows that it would be a big coincidence that the liberal clinton cured poverty the day he got elected....and when Bush got elected stories about poverty increased again... if you wnat me to be stat boy ill give them to ya...but i dont want to hijack your thread anymore....sorry about that

 

whatever, I don't really mind.

 

About Bernard Goldberg, really begin to look at some of the quotes in that book, and then go get the actual transcripts of the actual broadcast. You'll find most of his "proven" quotes are clearly taken out of context, and follow ups to Goldberg about these, usually end up with him blustered, and a comment somewhere along the lines of "Well, I worked there, I would know". The fact is Bernard Goldberg, is a hardcore conservative, who like all of us, wants to make money. He knows that conservatives strongly believe in the Liberal Media, and given his former stature. Why is he not going to take advantage of that to make a quick buck.

 

Just because he has a book, doesn't make it true. A number of his sources contain faulty info, or are manipulated to skew the arguement to his side. People on both sides do this, Eric Alterman, has a book out proclaiming a Conservative Media. Does that make it true, because it's in print? Of course, not. Sources, and how they're used determine the meat of book, hearsay and misquotes, do not...

oh i know not to believe everything i read or whatever....i'm not even into politics that much...idk what side bernie is on but in the book (and i kno not to believe everything) he says he's never voted for a republican president....im just going by what he said...and his poverty arguement isn't really quotes.... its numbers about as black and white as you can get...

:lol sorry...i just finished reading Bernard Goldbeg's book, Bias, which gave evidence showing that the news is slanted to the left ( I know TW im brainwashed)...i didnt read the article i just read your comment and maybe misunderstood...i thought it might mean you are republican.......but anyways Bernie gave stats showing that when regan was in office, the news showed "x-many stories about poverty" implying that it is regan's fault or a Republican's fault, but all of the sudden when Clinton got elected teh amount of stories about poverty decreased drastically, and anyone with half a brain knows that it would be a big coincidence that the liberal clinton cured poverty the day he got elected....and when Bush got elected stories about poverty increased again... if you wnat me to be stat boy ill give them to ya...but i dont want to hijack your thread anymore....sorry about that

 

whatever, I don't really mind.

 

About Bernard Goldberg, really begin to look at some of the quotes in that book, and then go get the actual transcripts of the actual broadcast. You'll find most of his "proven" quotes are clearly taken out of context, and follow ups to Goldberg about these, usually end up with him blustered, and a comment somewhere along the lines of "Well, I worked there, I would know". The fact is Bernard Goldberg, is a hardcore conservative, who like all of us, wants to make money. He knows that conservatives strongly believe in the Liberal Media, and given his former stature. Why is he not going to take advantage of that to make a quick buck.

 

Just because he has a book, doesn't make it true. A number of his sources contain faulty info, or are manipulated to skew the arguement to his side. People on both sides do this, Eric Alterman, has a book out proclaiming a Conservative Media. Does that make it true, because it's in print? Of course, not. Sources, and how they're used determine the meat of book, hearsay and misquotes, do not...

oh i know not to believe everything i read or whatever....i'm not even into politics that much...idk what side bernie is on but in the book (and i kno not to believe everything) he says he's never voted for a republican president....im just going by what he said...and his poverty arguement isn't really quotes.... its numbers about as black and white as you can get...

First off, even if the basis were true, it doesnt necessarily prove the typically naive conclusion of a "liberal" media. It just as plausibly be a media love affair with the much more moderate Clinton likeable Clinton, which doesnt make it liberal. Im guessing the writer didnt really define what he meant by the term liberal.

 

Second, it seems like an extremely inaccurate methodology. Did he try other variables? Did he try to rule out other explanations like say the economic boom during Clinton's years making poverty a less likely story to cover?

 

Third, what poverty stories are out there? The American media pretty much ignores the problem with poverty in this country. Maybe its true if you buy into some conservative stretching of facts.

 

How can anyone sit there and say the media is liberal when the media pretty much refused to do its job in the run up to the Iraq war giving Bush a free pass. The right knows it can play the media when it needs to and thats why it perpetuates this liberal media myth.

I can't believe you're going to try to blame this on Bush, hell not even Clinton is to blame.

 

The National Guard has always been under equipped, funded, trained, and a number of things for several decades now. The blame cannot be placed on anyone, the root cause of this is that the purpose of the National Guard shifted after WW2 from their original mission of being a state militia so to speak, to being a disaster relief force and other things of that nature, then all of a sudden 9/11 hits and for the first time in decades the National Guard is being deployed to Afghanistan, and then later Iraq. If you've ever see the documentary "Citizen Soldier" on the Military Channel, you would be disgusted at the type of equipment they were sent over there with.... trucks, vehicles, etc. that are from the Vietnam era, and things of that sort. The National Guard from every state is a combined 3/4 of a million man size force.

 

The Marine Corps is still using AAV's from Vietnam, not the National Guard, not the reserves, but the actual Marine Corps is still using AAV's from Vietnam. The funding is there, and the replacement for the AAV (the EFV - Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) has been in development for about a decade now and the first units have rolled off the assembly line about a year ago, but to actually get them into the fleet and in use is just as difficult as developing and building them in the first place.

 

You cannot just give an assload of brand new equipment to a deploying unit, they need to be trained to use it, the instructors need to be trained to train those who will be using it, the mechanics need to be trained to fix it, the supply staff needs to receive countless millions of dollars worth of spare parts, etc. The list of preparing for a new piece of equipment like this is endless and takes years to actually get into service, and the fact of the matter is the National Guard has always played second fiddle to the active duty Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

 

The National Guard's purpose in this day and age up until 9/11 wasn't combat and to be an occupying security force, their purpose was local and statewide humanitarian relief then all of a sudden they're in the middle of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

To sit here and try and blame this on a president, be it Clinton or Bush, is downright absurd and shows nothing but ignorance and trying to politicize the issue. Democrats are always trying to blame things on Republicans and vice versa, but this isn't one of those times where it's warranted.

Clinton is awesome.

 

We should call him!

:lol sorry...i just finished reading Bernard Goldbeg's book, Bias, which gave evidence showing that the news is slanted to the left ( I know TW im brainwashed)...i didnt read the article i just read your comment and maybe misunderstood...i thought it might mean you are republican.......but anyways Bernie gave stats showing that when regan was in office, the news showed "x-many stories about poverty" implying that it is regan's fault or a Republican's fault, but all of the sudden when Clinton got elected teh amount of stories about poverty decreased drastically, and anyone with half a brain knows that it would be a big coincidence that the liberal clinton cured poverty the day he got elected....and when Bush got elected stories about poverty increased again... if you wnat me to be stat boy ill give them to ya...but i dont want to hijack your thread anymore....sorry about that

 

whatever, I don't really mind.

 

About Bernard Goldberg, really begin to look at some of the quotes in that book, and then go get the actual transcripts of the actual broadcast. You'll find most of his "proven" quotes are clearly taken out of context, and follow ups to Goldberg about these, usually end up with him blustered, and a comment somewhere along the lines of "Well, I worked there, I would know". The fact is Bernard Goldberg, is a hardcore conservative, who like all of us, wants to make money. He knows that conservatives strongly believe in the Liberal Media, and given his former stature. Why is he not going to take advantage of that to make a quick buck.

 

Just because he has a book, doesn't make it true. A number of his sources contain faulty info, or are manipulated to skew the arguement to his side. People on both sides do this, Eric Alterman, has a book out proclaiming a Conservative Media. Does that make it true, because it's in print? Of course, not. Sources, and how they're used determine the meat of book, hearsay and misquotes, do not...

oh i know not to believe everything i read or whatever....i'm not even into politics that much...idk what side bernie is on but in the book (and i kno not to believe everything) he says he's never voted for a republican president....im just going by what he said...and his poverty arguement isn't really quotes.... its numbers about as black and white as you can get...

 

Ladies and Gentlen, Children of all ages, and to all of you watching around the world... LETS GET READY TO RANT!

 

Ro, you CAN'T make it look like the auther of that novel is a straight shooting centrist who doesnt take sides. You just can't do it. They dont get any farther to one side without being called Fascist or Communist. Everyone is against me! EVEN THE NEWS!

 

I told you before you read the book not to believe in this kind of thing, no matter what side, right or left, you are on. Even when you were only 15 pages into it and already saoking it in, I told you to read articles arguing the other side to get a little more of an unbiased opinion! I CAN NOT believe how easily you fell in this guys trap. Common!

 

idk what side bernie is on but in the book...

 

 

Yes you do. It says on the back cover: The truth about the liberal media conspiracy. So he would be on the..... right!

 

 

its numbers about as black and white as you can get

 

Any numbers can be skewed. If I took a poll of 100 people and submitted results concluding that 100% of people agreed with Israel's actions, I can say that America is for it, go ahead and put it in MY BOOK! Oh, and no, I won't include fact that the poll was taken at an orthodox temple.

 

he says he's never voted for a republican president.

 

Your gonna tell me that the guy who wrote about the 'liberal media' voted for Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore, and John Kerry, not to mention voting against RONALD REAGAN?

 

Look... When you said "HE WAS #1 ON THE TIMES BEST SELLERS..." it seemed to have a powerful effect on you. "If it was #1, there HAS to be some truth to it, it just can't be untrue," Something along those lines.

 

Guess who else shared the same honor?

 

ANN COULTER WAS #1 ON THE TIMES BEST SELLERS. She says that the wives of 9/11 victims are happy their loved ones died because they got to be on TV, Bill clinton, the president who cheated on his WIFE with a younger WOMAN is gay, and "liberals" by which I think she means Democrats, are 'Godless'. So if you're on the best sellers, does it ahve to be true? Not even if its labeled Non-Fiction. But hey, Coulter believes everything she says, and so does the author of "bias".

 

To end this rant which we could have argued over while making the FB, (I just figured I'd forget what I was going to say), let me just say that there is probably something to be argued over on every page, if not every paragraph in that book, which is P R O P A G A N A, and you should keep a skeptical eye open when reading that kind of thing.

 

[RANT. OVER.]

well said

Why are we talking about liberal bias instead of the original topic at hand?

Why are we talking about liberal bias instead of the original topic at hand?

 

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

The topics on this board frequently go off-topic by about post 6.

YO TW chill whatever to never argue politics amongst friends.

 

I told you to read articles arguing the other side to get a little more of an unbiased opinion! I CAN NOT believe how easily you fell in this guys trap. Common!

 

Thats exactly the problem, liberals think that they are middle of the road and everyone who does not agree with their values are "Commies and Facists."

idk what side bernie is on but in the book...

 

 

Yes you do. It says on the back cover: The truth about the liberal media conspiracy. So he would be on the..... right!Look bernie just wants to get rid of the bias in th enews from either side. So the news is about straight facts and no ones influnce put in. He says that the networks don't intentionmally slant the news it is just that they think that LIBERAL is STRAIGHT and the middle of the road.

 

its numbers about as black and white as you can get

 

Any numbers can be skewed. If I took a poll of 100 people and submitted results concluding that 100% of people agreed with Israel's actions, I can say that America is for it, go ahead and put it in MY BOOK! Oh, and no, I won't include fact that the poll was taken at an orthodox temple.

 

 

UMMmmm....."AND THE SURVEY SAYS"!.......... [X]

 

ERRRRR wrong answer....no dood he went back and counted the news stories about poverty during each of the era's.....doesn't get any more black and white and foolproof than that....all he did was count news stories....and i m preety sure that fact was cooroborated by some independent.

 

he says he's never voted for a republican president.

 

Your gonna tell me that the guy who wrote about the 'liberal media' voted for Bill Clinton twice, Al Gore, and John Kerry, not to mention voting against RONALD REAGAN?

 

 

Im going by what he said....again just because he wants the news to be UNBIASED which does not mena LIBERAL, he cant vote for the president that he thinks best fit to run the country...if you think he is lying so much go ask him to tell you the truth he lives in miami.....

Look... When you said "HE WAS #1 ON THE TIMES BEST SELLERS..." it seemed to have a powerful effect on you. "If it was #1, there HAS to be some truth to it, it just can't be untrue," Something along those lines.

 

Guess who else shared the same honor?

 

ANN COULTER WAS #1 ON THE TIMES BEST SELLERS. She says that the wives of 9/11 victims are happy their loved ones died because they got to be on TV, Bill clinton, the president who cheated on his WIFE with a younger WOMAN is gay, and "liberals" by which I think she means Democrats, are 'Godless'. So if you're on the best sellers, does it ahve to be true? Not even if its labeled Non-Fiction. But hey, Coulter believes everything she says, and so does the author of "bias".

 

To end this rant which we could have argued over while making the FB, (I just figured I'd forget what I was going to say), let me just say that there is probably something to be argued over on every page, if not every paragraph in that book, which is P R O P A G A N A, and you should keep a skeptical eye open when reading that kind of thing.

Why do you keep pulling this outta ur ass.....What a generalization!!! And you talk about not skewing something to favor your agrguemnet.... IM sorry joe but ill never read a book on the newyork times best seller because they are all wrong but your always right

So because it sells well it's true?

 

Crazy.

Ann Coulter is on the best sellers list, does this then confirm that 9/11 widow's are attention grabbing, money hungry fiends?

 

*Checks with CNN*

 

Yep, it's been confirmed

ROFL.. Ro.. you've got me all wrong. Your entir response was written because you thought i said "Reading the left makes you unbias..." ROFL!. I was saying that you even it out by reading the far right, which youve gone, and something that says there isnt a bias. One, AND the other. I wasn't saying anything like if your not left your a communist.. ROFL! now THAT would be crazy.

To the 'liberals' on the board. I understand many of you feel there is no left wing media bias. So does that mean you feel media coverage is fair and balanced? Do you feel it has a right wing slant? Or what?

Could never happen under a Republican Leadership

 

 

Defense spending declined (in real dollars) throughout the term of both Bush 41 and Clinton, and has increased throughout GWB's term. Training takes time to take effect, equipment takes time to buy. The body armor "scandal" is a prime example. The Bush Administration has drastically increased equipment purchases, but it takes a while to get millions of sets of equipment built, delivered, and the troops trained to use them. The force inhereted from Clinton only held at 65% force readiness, about the same as now. That '65%' force that was so successful in Afghanistan and Iraq was clearly quite capable and the current '67%' force should be as well.

Clinton is awesome.

 

We should call him!

 

 

Wow it's scary to know assh0les like you are registered to vote!!! :o :o :o

To the 'liberals' on the board. I understand many of you feel there is no left wing media bias. So does that mean you feel media coverage is fair and balanced? Do you feel it has a right wing slant? Or what?

No it doesn't. There are, however commentators who lean both ways. And the news gets skewed into what these commentators think or write. The fact that this happens is what gets the bias.

 

 

All news looks for are bigtime stories that are negative for the most part. That is really it. There is no bias to getting a good story.

 

 

That doesn't mean CNN isn't the modern American left, and FOXNews is Republican National Headquarters, though.

Clinton is awesome.

 

We should call him!

 

 

Wow it's scary to know assh0les like you are registered to vote!!! :o :o :o

It was a joke.

 

Jesus.

 

Quit taking live sp seriously. And yesm, I am rdrunk.