[nascardaughter]

Could you please provide an example of an actual governor doing this in a way that you consider to be correct? Or perhaps guidelines showing that the way this letter is worded is incorrect, or that it limits the federal government's response in some way?

[Jeff Head]

As I said, the letter is very specific about very specifc areas of support. It does not specifically request fedrslized NG who would not be under the command of the governor for either anarchy supression or federally commanded missions in other areas outside of debris removal. And even the debris removal does not specifically cite the National Guard.

My expectation, given the specific language in the other areas would be to see that same specific languiage for the areas in question. There isn't any in the LA Governor's letters.

I would be interested in seeing what the Govenors of MIssissippi and Alabama requested.

My point remains, I believe without specific requests to the same, that the Federal Government cannot (and should not) take control of the National Guard within the state's specific invitation to do so, outside of incidnets that endanger the whole nation. Invasion, national insurrection, etc.

My evidence is simply the fact that this particular area has remained a point of contention with Louisiana. I do not view that as a failing of the Bush administration or the federal response...which I believe is the kernal of the discussion.

In fact, as I have stated, on the whole, given the extent of the damage and the magnitude, I believe the federal response to date has been very good indeed...outside I am sure of some very local and specific issues.