- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
SCHWARZENEGGER FOE WANTS CALIFORNIA GUARD OUT OF IRAQ
September 24, 2006 12:49 AM
ABC's Teddy Davis reports: Phil Angelides, the Democrat challenging Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), will pledge later this week that his first action as the state's chief executive would be to order all California National Guardsmen out of Iraq, according to a source familiar with the candidate's thinking.
Angelides will argue in a pair of speeches that California National Guardsmen are needed in the Golden State in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
In an effort to drive a wedge between Gov. Schwarzenegger and a California electorate that has soured on the Iraq war, Angelides will contend that the Republican incumbent could order the Guard out of Iraq but that he has not done so because of his support for the war and his closesness to President Bush.
If implemented, the Angelides proposal would almost certainly provoke a legal challenge.
Angelides plans to argue, however, that under Perpich v. Department of Defense, a 1990 Supreme Court case, a governor retains the right to refuse to deploy his or her state’s National Guard if deploying the troops “were to interfere with the State Guard’s capacity to respond to local emergencies.”
Federal officials would likely respond -- as they did to Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) last year when he wanted Montana National Guardsmen home for the summer fire season -- that they have a system in place that rotates members of the National Guard from nearby states when an emergency arises.
But Democrats are hoping, in the words of Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, that calling for California National Guardsmen to come out of Iraq would be "a classic example of the right policy translating into good politics."
In an on-line column written for the California Majority Report last month, Lehane wrote: "Ordering the troops out of Iraq would serve as the galvanizing issue for California voters in this election. It would shift the focus of the campaign on to Arnold and his lack of core values, define Phil as a man of courage, and nationalize the race by linking Bush -- whose poll numbers in the state rival Richard Nixon’s during the height of Watergate -- and Arnold."
"Most importantly," wrote the former spokesman to Vice President Gore, "it would give Californians the chance to vote up or down on the Republicans’ War in Iraq."
September 24, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (13)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Steps towards a more divisive nation. Let the new civil war begin. Some candidates will say anything to get elected.
And when the "Big One" strikes California, who will come to help?
We are either the "United" States or just a group of people living on the same continent.
Posted by: Ben Marbury | Sep 24, 2006 11:17:17 AM
The answer is; we are the "UNITED STATES and we are A GROUP OF PEOPLE LIVING ON THE SAME CONTINENT, in fact we are a group of people living on the same God given planet and that's ok. Another fact is that “some” of our “Group” led us into this war with Iraq, and that same group consistently keep trying to tie the war in Iraq with those who attacked us on 9-11; especially during “Election Times” - even though it's become so clear to just about every adult that we were lead into this war by choice and not of necessity; and certainly not against those who attacked us on 911. Talk about doing anything to get elected. Now we are in a war with no good “Choices” and no clear plan for “Success” and no one has been held accountable for this colossal mistakes. Just out today in the headlines of the Washington Post; Our National Intelligence Agency has concluded that the war in Iraq is hurting our fight against terrorism. I will admit there are no easy answers to this war; at this point – civil war is looming around the corner and I can’t help but wonder if that would be the case had we not attacked Iraq ; but how long do we stay without a plan for success, how many more lives should we loose, how many more hundreds of billions of dollars should we spend, How should we respond to such gross miscalculations such as “Mission Accomplished”, “Last Throes”, “We have a plan to win this war” etc – should we just put our head in the sand or let our leaders know that they need to get it right because we are paying dearly for their mistakes. I know most Americans are against this war but can we really know for certain what we should do to clear up this disaster. During the Vietnam war we were told that communism would spread and take over the globe if we did not prevail in that war, but those predictions were wrong – communism went into decline – it was contained in Vietnam, it failed in Afghanistan years later, the soviet union collapse from it’s own weight and from the “Diplomatic” efforts of our leaders, the Chinese are crying out loud these days for freedom – from peasants to students alike; and North Korea can’t even feed it’s people (very sad) in any event communism and it’s influence is all but gone thank God. We have a difficult task on our hands with this Iraq war – and it will take all of us working together to come up with the best solutions, as for me I’m certainly ready to work together – are you all ready as well ?
Posted by: T. HINES | Sep 24, 2006 5:13:43 PM
This is a smart move by the Dems. REpubs use it-its a wedge. It works. And it is true that Arnold is a REpub and bad for Cali.
Posted by: Franklin | Sep 24, 2006 10:55:06 PM
The fact is that the President of the United States has NO Constitutional authority to order state national grardsmen into a foreign war.
Only Congress has that authority.
The Governor of each state has authority over the state guardsmen,
but only for protecting the state
from invasion,NOT for hurricanes,or fires.
Congress can only order the state
guardsmen to serve overseas, after Congress,not the President or anyone else, declares war.
The Federal government has ignored this Constitution ruling
for far too long. It violates states rights, the 10th Amendment.
I emplore all state Governors to
take back their Constitutional States Rights.
Posted by: Jim Cast | Sep 25, 2006 1:46:14 AM
The gasbag Phil Angelides just got more gassy. He suffers from uncontrollable tremors, i.e.: his lips are still moving, so that means he's still lying.
Posted by: Samuel Stephens | Sep 25, 2006 1:49:53 AM
How typical of the Democrats to aid and abet our enemies by openly promising to sabotage the war if elected.
Democrats are the treason party.
Posted by: George | Sep 25, 2006 2:41:30 AM
I think Angelides may be as full of Democratic fecal matter as a Christmas goose. As governor he'd have no more authority to recall the state's National Guard from Iraq or anywhere else amymore than he would have the authority to send it to help build the Three Gorges Dam in China. Angelides is just another political hack who's been devoting so much time playing with himsel he's lost all sense of reality. Toss him a taco - maybe he'll go away . . .
Posted by: Swivelsticks | Sep 25, 2006 6:24:22 AM
What can you expect from a guy who looks like a vampire (moon)bat?
Posted by: pvtjoker | Sep 25, 2006 11:37:30 AM
He can talk all day about removing the Guard from any where he wishes. He needs to remember that most of the funding for the Guard comes from the Fed, so go ahead, pull the Guard, then start paying for all vehicle fuel, all Class I-IX, all retirement, all armories etc. It's simply BS on his part and he does not have the authority to pull Federally mobilized troops.
Posted by: Tom Jaycox | Sep 25, 2006 12:16:34 PM
The Blindness of the Dems is amazing.
They say we are not fighting the Islamic Jihad, sometimes called terrorists or insurgents in iraq.
Then they say Terrorism has increased in Iraq (and it has)
Dem’s say Islamic Jihadists are flocking to Iraq (and they are, where our trained, armed men fight, and kill them)
Dem’s want to leave Iraq. (This would give Islam Victory as it gave the Hezbollah wing of the Islamic Jihad Victory in Lebanon)
Dem’s act as if they have forgotten that the Islamic Jihad attacked us first in the 80’s and many times in the 90’s.
Dem’s seem to think that if we quit fighting, the Islamic jihad will give up its goal of destroying us.
Hezbollah, part of the Islamic Jihad, is using the Cease fire, even as their prophet used cease fires to rearm and gain power for the next attack. Read today’s news of the rockets being moved to Israel’s border.
Dem’s, acts if the Islamic Jihad would not attack us in the US if they just pulled their troops out.
Ca. especially is strange, as it is the closest and easiest to attack, and is the most evil state (not only in the eyes of Christians, but also in the much stricter eyes of Islam) and will probably be one of the first targets to be thanked for a Islamic victory in Iraq.
To the Dems I say be patient, with the swelling of the Democratic voters by alien lawbreakers, and your massive fraud machine, you will soon take back all power, and no one, will ever unseat you until the US no longer exists.
There is no need to accelerate the demise of the US in order for you to regain power. The Republicans will aid you by allowing the massive invasion to continue.
Posted by: Len | Sep 25, 2006 12:31:11 PM
The States National Guards,are basically the States Militia. I do
not believe that the founding fathers ever conceived that the states militias would be used as
regular army troops. The state national guardsmen are to protect the state,not the nation.
Placing the state guards,with
loaded weapons on the Mexican borders would be a good place for them to be utilized. Not overseas
protecting Halliburton's oil fields
and getting killed,by the foreign enemy and the depleted Uranimum they are exposed to.
The state Governors control the
state guards or militia,not the
Federal president.
Posted by: Jim Cast | Sep 25, 2006 5:25:58 PM
Idiots.....Let's give the Islamacists a victory, good idea. Let's lose a battle against people that want to see our country and our ideals fall hard and die. Fine, you disagree with war or our reason for going to war, but why in the hell would you want to see America fail? It makes no sense, except for the sole reason that Democrats want power back and are willing to do anything to wrestle it away. Even if it means damaging our nation in the process. America first, political parties second. How many can honestly answer that they follow that simple rule?
Posted by: Bill | Sep 25, 2006 10:15:46 PM
To all of you who back Bush on the war in Iraq. I have these questions for you:
1. We have about 137K troops;the "good" Iraq army & police have about 200K troops; the other coalition forces number 13K troops. This is around 350K troops. The bad guys are no more than 25K troops. Why cannot we defeat them?
2. Bush claims that Congress and the rest of the world saw the very same intl he did that justified the war. Congress, properly so, believed the President. The rest of the world did not. Remmember, we committed 95% of the troops, money and other resources. England, Australia, etc. contributed together about 5%. The rest of the world did not believe Bush. Why did they not believe Bush?
Remember also, there are only 13K troops from other nations in Iraq at present. England has announced a 50% cut in troops strentgh by years end. Other nations there are now pulling out. This will leave around 5000 troops from other nations in 1/2007. We are building up our troop strenght. Why does not the rest of the world believe us?
Posted by: Bob Ramos | Sep 26, 2006 5:09:38 PM
Post a comment



