Vermont Lawmakers look to pull guard from Iraq War

Vermont Lawmakers look to pull guard from Iraq War

www.armytimes.com

The Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Fed up that Washington hasn’t done more to end the war, a group of Vermont lawmakers said Tuesday that the president no longer has the authority to use Guard troops in Iraq.

State Rep. Michael Fisher, D-Lincoln, said the authority to call up Guard members for Iraq duty has expired because that country no longer poses a threat to U.S. national security.

“The mission authorized in 2002 does not exist,” said Fisher, who plans to introduce a bill backed by 30 colleagues Wednesday that calls on Gov. Jim Douglas to join the effort. “Unless Congress grants a new authorization, the Vermont Guard should revert back to state control.”

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin said the Senate would take up similar legislation.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 2-2-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

It probably won't go anywhere, but it's a step in the right direction IMHO. Maybe if enough of the senate grows a spine and adopts similar stances, something will get done to bring our boys home from this catastrophe.

www.armytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The link to the full story doesn't work. I found it though: www.cbsnews.com...

Thanks for the heads up Raoul. It's working now. And you're link is great as well. Hopefully this grabs some attention and maybe starts a shift in policy...

reply to post by Raoul Duke


Another important post, DimensionalDetective. Thanks.

I'll e-mail my state reps today (including Harry Reid) and see if we can't get something like this started in Nevada. We need to do something to bring our men and women home where they belong. They're National Guard, after all.

Raoul, great avatar, HST, one of my personal heroes. And the sig is so true-- anti-fascism, like the Patriot Act... illustrates how he who controls the definition, controls the argument. Yes, call something the opposite of what it really is to make it palatable to the populace when it's spoonfed down their beaks on the six o'clock news. Simplistic, but unfortunately, effective.

Yeah, like I said, it probably won't go anywhere, as our dictator in chief is already installing his plans of near-indefinite occupation to whomever his successor is. But it's a step in the right direction in terms of the last year of our spinless congress kow-towing to the order of the 'Decider'.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


He makes and excellent point. IMO, our National Guard shouldn't ever be fighting over seas. That job is for the Marines, Navy, Army, ect. The National Guard is a militia group and should be kept at home for times of disaster.

reply to post by truthsetfree2009


That is what is so hilarious and farcical about this 'war on terror'. We are spread out all over every other continent, engaged in all these skirmishes, and yet OUR BORDERS ARE WIDE OPEN.

Something really amiss with that.

Excellent news and I find it impressive at a time when the USA isn't doin' so well. Be sure this will go far and wide in the media stream outside the USA. Cool VT! I wonder if the resolve will spread? Best news I've heard in a very long time. Super. Vermont plates get a "bye" from me and correct directions. I will tell my friends of this.

Vic.

The National Guard fighting overseas isn't new, sportsfans.

The can be mobilized in by presidential order to supplement Regular forces.

In World War One, the Guard made up something like 40% of the forces in combat.

In World War Two, they supplied about 19 divisions.

I know that a fair amount were mobilized for Korea and some for Vietnam.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective


It probably won't go anywhere, but it's a step in the right direction IMHO. Maybe if enough of the senate grows a spine and adopts similar stances, something will get done to bring our boys home from this catastrophe.

www.armytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Actually.. it should go somewhere. The Federal Government should never have been given express control of the guard to begin with. The Governors have control. If Vermont wants to leave the joint effort in Iraq.. by all means, they are legally in their bounds to do it.

No one cares about State rights, so no one know what protection a State has against the Fed... not even the Governors know their full rights.

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
That is what is so hilarious and farcical about this 'war on terror'. We are spread out all over every other continent, engaged in all these skirmishes, and yet OUR BORDERS ARE WIDE OPEN.

Something really amiss with that.

That's what we have the Border Patrol for. US military isn't responsible for that. Even tho I wish we were.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


That a way Vermont! You have it right.

AnaA

Dam !!!!
I'm beginning to like Vermont more and more all the time.
I think I just might move there ..... LOL

First they try to pass a law to arrest Bush and Cheney (I approve)

now they're pulling their troops out of Iraq (I approve)

I think Vermont just keeps slapping ole Bushkin
right in the face time after time (I approve).

More power to them .... that's one state that stands
up to the dick-tater. Anybody else !!!!

Great !!!! A state sponsored Bush boycott

next thing you know ole Bushkin will claim
that the state of Vermont is harboring terrorists
and he'll invade.

Bush is the biggest joke ever to sit in the Oval Office.

reply to post by SimonSays


I dont like Vermont because they wont get tough on sexual predators. Otherwise its a beautiful state and good step on the guard. The state does control the national guard. I think this could work if it goes to court. Start punished predators and Ill be a Vermont supporter

Isn't Warlord Bush commander in chief of the armed forces though? How does this work out?

Bush controls all Interstate Troops.. which is the Army, the Navy, the Airforce, the Coast Guard and Special Forces.

The States control the Guard units, as they are Intrastate forces.. Vermont troops are funded and armed by Vermont, not America..

Think of it as 50 different nations.. (Like the EU) .. and they all pull in to fund and supply troops (The Armed Services) .. but they also keep troops and supplies (funding) aside for their own protection (Guard units) .. which the collective whole of the country does not have control of.

I might stand corrected I just read in 2003 on this site
www.army.mil...

that a law was passed giving federal control off the National Guard am I reading this correct?

reply to post by mybigunit

I think that document is where Bush and Rumsfeld gives a new
tasking to the Guard, a restructuring to fit the needs (civil) in Iraq.
It does not change who commands them. Since the biggest force
needed in Iraq was dealing with populations and civil servants
then Bush & Rumsfeld thought the NG would be better suited
for that task and asked them to adjust for that purpose.
This document does not give Bush sole control over any
NG unit including Vermont's.

At least that's the way I read it

yup yup, good post, DD! s/f'd

If the individual states can't get all the boys home, then at least they can try to get the guard home. I am starting to like Vermont too. If it weren't so darn cold in the winter, I'd probably move there too.