Jun 30 9:35 PM US/Eastern
Posted on 06/30/2006 7:15:57 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
| Only 483 Guard Working on Mexican Border Jun 30 9:35 PM US/Eastern
|
|
By AARON C. DAVIS
Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
On the deadline to have 2,500 troops along the Mexican border, the National Guard said Friday that only 483 were in position and working with the U.S. Border Patrol as the Bush administration had directed.
But Guard officials said more than 2,000 others were somewhere inside the four southwestern border states, training or helping plan the deployment. He and Bush administration officials argued Friday that the presence of troops in those states spelled success in the first stage of the mission.
Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, an arm of the Pentagon, had promised June 1 that by the end of the month 2,500 Guard troops would be working "on the border."
"As defined by the operation, the National Guard has met and exceeded its goal of deploying 2,500 soldiers and airmen to the four Southwest border states," said White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier. "Progress to date is real and the Guard's efforts are making a positive difference in this national effort."
As evidence, he said the early arrival of troops had allowed the Border Patrol to send 125 agents "back to the front lines," and helped the Border Patrol catch nearly 200 illegal immigrants, seize 123 pounds of marijuana, 18 pounds of cocaine and seven vehicles.
Through initial pay requests filed with the Air Guard and orders filed with the Army Guard, the Guard bureau verified 2,547 troops were in the four border states for the mission, said Daniel Donohue, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau.
Only 483 were physically on the border, he conceded.
The remaining forces _ 1,816 _ are in training somewhere in the four states; 248 are assigned to headquarters and planning roles, Donohue said.
Asked to clarify, Blum spokesman Mark Allen responded by e-mail that the general had never specifically promised to deliver troops to a "geographically defined latitude and longitude."
Still, there were signs the deployment was picking up speed.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said 1,000 Army and Air National Guardsmen were either on the border or "on their way," adding 500 to totals released Thursday. But his office said the additional troops didn't actually reach the border, but were considered deployed when they left Friday for two weeks of training.
Several states whose Guard leaders and governors had been contacted by the National Guard Bureau in the last 48 hours also made announcements Friday that they would send troops.
Gov. Mike Easley of North Carolina said he would reluctantly deploy 300 troops to the border in mid-July.
"I would prefer not to have any of the North Carolina National Guard deployed to other states at this time," he said. "However, the Guard units in the western states are spread thin as they battle raging wildfires. We must all step up and do our part to keep our country safe."
Kentucky announced it would send up to 650 National Guard troops. Arkansas also said it would send 200. New Jersey also said it would send up to 650 for three-week assignments.
Damon Foreman, senior patrol agent and spokesman for the Border Patrol in San Diego, said agents there eagerly await the Guard's help.
"We would welcome all the help we could get. We could absorb them as fast as we could give them instructions on what to do," Foreman said, adding that the delayed deployment, however, had not affected operations.
"We've been doing a considerably effective job for a long time now, we'll keep doing our job whether the whole number of Guard show up tomorrow, a week from tomorrow, or a month from now."
Bush's plan for stemming illegal immigration by using National Guardsmen in a support role called for 2,500 troops to be on the border by June 30, and 6,000 by the end of July.
Bush had said the mission would free up thousands of officers now on other duties to actively patrol the border. Guardsmen are expected to build fences, conduct routine surveillance and take care of other administrative duties for the border patrol.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
No National Guard on the CA border.
Truthmark bump!
I have always been a bit in awe of engineers. Especially those who mastered integral calculus. The formulas all looked the same to me in high school : )
I still have my slide rule from college. I take it out once in a while and wonder what in the heck I did with it.
Measure how thick to slice the cheese? : )
If this were a restaurant, I don't belive I'd be leaving a tip.
If the FBI's numbers are accurate, King should also apologize for misleading the public.
Not enough of them, apparently. If if one joins the guard, they will not be sent down to the border.
Conspiracy, huh? How much are you being paid by the NWO Bushbots to come onto these threads to create problems? You obviously only do it to try to interfere with legitimate discussion, since you never add anything substantive to the discussion. $10.00 per thread? Those NWO types have a lot of money, so I hope you are getting at least $100.00 per thread. If you are not, you should quit.
"Back it up with a quote, or STFU, freak."
How nice. How civil. As a Bush supporter, let's see, I'm an idiot, a freak, and a host of other things.
We're 12 hours past an arbitrary deadline and this is where we stand. Does anyone who shows even a modicum of restraint in this matter prove to be less than true blue Republican?
This issue has been neglected by administration after administration, and by Congress after Congress, and now that we're one day past a short term deadline, Bush is a lying good-for-nothing.
You all need to get a life. I am no less committed to securing our borders than most anyone else here. But I'm not so naive as to think it can be done in short order. This will take time to address, and a bit of civility would actually prove to be quite productive. If others are like me, they are not so much against your position as we are opposed to your methods and your temperament.
Oh, and why are you so folks so inclined to take what the Associated Press says verbatim when it feeds your anger, but not other times? The AP is not a credible source, on this or any other story.
I said that to Sinkschmuck, not to you.
Maybe you should follow the thread before passing judgment.
I'll weigh in one more time, and then will not engage further. So I give you the last word.
First, many of the invectives hurled here are directed at me, even if yours wasn't. Indeed, the thread opens with the statement that anyone who disagrees with the poster is an ... IDIOT. They are then peppered throughout the thread. But more to the point of your comment ...
When my 7-year old son watches basketball in the park directly across the street from our house, as he often does, he sees some truly remarkable players -- late teens and early twenties who come from all over the city where I live. He loves the game and learns a lot. Far too often, though, the games break down into disputes over one thing or another, and the profanities flow freely. I pass judgment on those players, and not only or even primarily because I don't want my child subjected to that sort of language. I figure that language is part of his education, as unfortunate as it may be. By behaving as they do, they hold up the game, they show extraordinary disrespect for their fellow players (and those waiting in the wings), and they demonstrate a contempt for the rules of the game. Moreover, and most important, they distract from and diminish the game itself, which is where the true learning comes. So, I do pass judgment on them even though none of their invectives are directed at my kid.
For these same reasons, I pass jugment on you. I see no difference whatsoever between this circumstance and those playground games across the street.
They're probably so friggin' big and smelly I'd have to pack a lunch and a gas mask.
Now, on to what I consider the substance of my views ...
Charles Krauthammer had a column a few weeks ago that I considered absolutely brilliant, and which I adopted as my own. He argued that the issues of securing the borders and offering amnesty are separable, and that the securing of the borders must come first, even before we have a real dialogue about amnesty. Not only do I think Krauthammer is right, but I think there is no real alternative to this approach. One way or another I think we will get there -- we can talk about amnesty if and only if the borders are truly secure.
I have opinions on amnesty, though within certain boundaries they are not set in stone. Whatever those may be -- and please, folks, don't assume that I favor amnesty just because I won't oppose it here -- I think this is how all of us here should view the issue. Because I don't think that our disagreements revolve around securing the borders. We all want that, as soon as possible and as securely as possible. There is much more to unite us than divide us.
I can get PAID to get under your very thin skin?
Where do I sign up?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.