Riggins: Priorities not with U.S. citizens

President is taking away the country’s safety net

By Tasha Riggins

Thursday, May 10, 2007

The recent tragedy of a tornado leveling Greensburg, Kan., has cast this small Midwestern town into the nation’s spotlight. At first, media attention was drawn to the destruction and despair. Now a town without a city hall is receiving political attention as well.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius recently criticized the lack of supplies and National Guard units in what is now declared a national disaster site. While President Bush pledged assistance and prayers over the weekend to Greensburg, prayers far outweighed the assistance entering Greensburg borders. Resources are moving slower than the last drops of ketchup out of a bottle because a large part of our nation’s resources are in Iraq.

nutgraf

As a child we’re all taught not to put our eggs in one basket. Perhaps no one ever told that to our President.

Sebelius isn’t the only governor to criticize the lack of National Guard units. ABC news did a story in which it reported that the depletion of the nation’s resources was a problem in all states with National Guard units having only 40 percent of their equipment.

It’s nearly impossible to prepare for everything. However, overextending our country’s resources in one area and putting our homeland and its people on the backburner is poor decision-making. Hurricane Katrina is a perfect lesson of what happens when preparedness and resources for natural disasters is at the bottom of the priority list.

As a child we’re all taught not to put our eggs in one basket. Perhaps no one ever told that to our President.

This isn’t about whether the war in Iraq is wrong or right. This is about the President taking care of the people he made promises to first; the people of Kansas, the people of New Orleans and the people of Florida. American citizens at home.

We should all be able to trust that if something horrible happened to our homes, our country would take care of us. Unfortunately, President Bush has put that hope on the bottom of his priority list.

­— Tasha Riggins for the editorial board

Comments

linguo_the_grammar_robot (anonymous) says...

"Resources are moving slower than the last drops of ketchup out of a bottle because a large part of our nation’s resources are in Iraq."

This metaphor seems out of place in this article.

May 10, 2007 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KUCatholic08 (anonymous) says...

Let's make a few points here:

1. 88% of the Kansas National Gaurd are currently in the United States and are available to help the people of Greensburg Kansas. So much for saying they are in Iraq and unavilable.

2.Governor Sebelius has asked for aid on the federal level, and she has recieved what she has asked for. The National Gaurd has deemed the number of units helping to be sufficient, but others can be called in as necessary.

3. The resources of surrounding states are available if needed.

Governor Sebilius' criticism is a politcal move, nothing more. Whether she decided to do this on her own, or took commands from the Democratic party at large, is not known, but either way it just goes to show that they will lie through their teeth to try and make a point. There is no integrity left. Stop taking what these people say, soaking it up like a spunge, and dig deeper, ask questions.

Another point on an older issue, Katrina was really not the issue of not having enough resources available, it was more the ineptitude of those in charge of those resources on the state and national level.

To show this politicization on a national level, Obama mentioned that supposedly 10,000 had died in Kansas from the tornados in Kansas. This is only off by 1000 times. Now, it was reported as a mistatement due to being caught up in the fervor of his campaign speech, however, I would argue he made his gross overstatement simply to emphasize his points against the Iraq war. Should have heard the clapping in the crowd after the statement.....guess none of his supporters keep up with the news.

May 10, 2007 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KUCatholic08 (anonymous) says...

A few more stats. Available from Kansas Gaurd:
88% of Forces
60% Army Dual-Use Equipment
85% Air Guard Equipment

These stats are care of the National Guard Bureau.

May 10, 2007 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

kat (anonymous) says...

I wouldn't exactly say that Sebelius and other democrats were lying "through their teeth," though I don't doubt some anti-war advocates saw the disaster as a golden opportunity to push their agenda. Nonetheless, the National Guard functioning below its optimal level IS a serious concern that should be brought to our attention. It isn't just a load of hooey.

From The New York Times:
"In Congressional testimony, senior National Guard officials have said that since Sept. 11 units under their command had equipment shortages as forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]

An independent military assessment council, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, released a report in March that stated: 'In particular, the equipment readiness of the Army National Guard is unacceptable and has reduced the capability of the United States to respond to current and additional major contingencies, foreign and domestic.'"

From Fox News:
"The Pentagon acknowledged this week that Army National Guard units had only 56 percent of their required equipment, the lowest levels since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Bush administration is asking Congress for $22 billion for the Army National Guard over the next five years, which would take Guard equipment levels up to 76 percent."
(Seems to me, if the shortage is of no concern, the Bush administration wouldn't be asking for more money.)

Educate yourself by reading the rest of the articles at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/...
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May1...

Or, attempt to reveal how these stats have been twisted by a biased media.

May 10, 2007 at 8:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

linguo_the_grammar_robot (anonymous) says...

KuCatholic
Usually, when numbering, it goes 1, 2 and then 3.

"There is no integrity left. Stop taking what these people say, soaking it up like a spunge, and dig deeper, ask questions."

Do you ever take your own advice?

May 11, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KUCatholic08 (anonymous) says...

-You can accuse Republicans of using tragedy to political end. Fine. I guess its wrong to use 9/11 to follow the evil agenda of protecting the American people. You know, sense we've avoided a terrorist attack on our soil since then (see the arrests involving Fort Dix)...

-The fact is though National Guard resources in the country have been reduced due to overseas commitment, that is not the case here. There seems to be this attitude among the left that if they have an issue they wish to address (that may be legitimate, as there does need to be an increase in spending for the Guard) that it is ok to promote that cause through the perpetuation of a lie. Though there may be in general a need for more funding for Guard, there is not a lack of resources at Kansas' disposal as Sebilius claimed. Furthermore, this was not an underhanded way to ask for funding of the Guard, but it was a deceitful attack on Iraq War policy. If you don't like the war, thats fine, but to use a lie to promote your agenda is wrong and shows a lack of integrity on the part of the governor. I am also not saying that Republicans don't try the same thing from time to time (most politicians are pretty sleezy individuals), this is a criticism of all who would compromise their integrity for the sake of pursuing their personal agenda.

-Sponge definition: if you watch TV news, or read the paper, and take the articles or news stories there completely at face value without critically examining the perported "facts" that are given, you are a sponge. News today in all its forms is agenda driven and contains a slant to whatever cause the writer supports either intentional or unintentional. Facts become twisted and distorted for the sake of pushing a point of view. I would no sooner look for objectivity in the New York Times or CNN than I would look for a chaste man at a strip club.

May 12, 2007 at 1:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement