Why does the press let them get away with this?
A Bush administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the delay in ordering active-duty forces occurred because the regular Army had to wait for Guard units to be in place before they could deploy [to New Orleans]. But Lt. Col. Pete Schneider, a spokesman for the Louisiana National Guard, said, "I don't know how that has anything to do with it."
Well, no duh! The Administration official is very obviously lying.
First, let's drive a stake into the big lie.
There WERE National Guardsmen in downtown New Orleans from the beginning (story is from 8/29).
I believe there were others outside Orleans Parish in metropolitan New Orleans. The problem was there were only 6,500 total Guardsmen in all of Louisiana.
Doubtless many of them are not of an age to be swimming through deep water to rescue elderly women from their attics.
We'll let the Times-Picayune pick it up from there
Sunday morning, Blanco: "I asked him to send me everything he's got,"
Wednesday: Blanco requested "40,000 troops to restore order and complete the search and rescue mission."
Friday, Sept. 2: Blanco and Bush discuss active duty troops
Saturday: Troops deployed.
The Times-Picayune is, I think, the very first to get to the nut of the matter: the issue of limitations placed by Posse Comitatus on federal troops used for law enforcement.
Federal troops can provide disaster relief. They can do search and rescue. They can provide a presence that deters lawlessness. They can provide assistance (including weapons, communications, observation, and logistics) to local law enforcement. But, for reasons obvious from Iraq, they are not supposed to "cuff the perp." The exception to Posse Comitatus is rebellion.
Evidently, Bush refused to deploy troops unless they were deployed against "a rebellion." That's what the troops told The Army Times they were doing: combat operations against the insurgency.
Why does the press continue to let the Bush Administration continue to lie about this point?