That's not an order. That's a description and a threat, like when my wife tells the kids: "I'm going to speak to daddy." Assuming a gaurdsman kills one of those things, will she protect him or her against civil or legal action in the liberal court-orgy that's to follow?
Has anyone issued an order that would assume responsibility?
That is an excellent point!
I remember a few years back when those fires were raging out of control in the West, Australia offered to lend a whole flock of their own firefighter to assist....ONLY after they got a U.S. government guarantee that neither the Aussie government or any of its firefighters could be sued in any way, shape, or form.
Exactly right. How about she says, "I am ordering the National Guard to establish order in the city. I authorize and encourage the use of deadly force to accomplish this mission."
She's hoping that they will make the decision for her. It has two benefits for her. One, she gets to continue to be incompetent and useless; she doesn't have to make a decision. Two, it is potential fuel for her political fires. She would get to point at the federal government, Bush in effect, as the killer of her citizens.
She has yet to assume command. She goes on tv, blubbers, tells people the water in NO is fine, demands apologies; she just doesn't lead.