"What's happening now is that immigrants are showing up in many more communities all across the country than they have ever been in," said Audrey Singer, an immigration fellow at the Brookings Institution. "So it's easy for people to look around and not just see them, but feel the impact they're having in their communities. And a lot of these are communities that are not accustomed to seeing immigrants in their schools, at the workplace, in their hospitals."

By far the largest numbers of immigrants continue to live in the six states that have traditionally attracted them: California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey and Illinois.

Immigrants also continue to flow into a handful of states in the Southeast, like Georgia and North Carolina, a trend that was discerned in the 2000 census.

But it is in the less-expected immigrant destinations that demographers find the most of interest in the new data.

Indiana saw a 34 percent increase in the number of immigrants; South Dakota saw a 44 percent rise; Delaware 32 percent; Missouri 31 percent; Colorado 28 percent; and New Hampshire 26 percent.

"It's the continuation of a pattern that we first began to see 10 or 15 years ago," said Jeff Passel, senior research associate at the Pew Hispanic Center, who has examined the new census data. "But instead of being confined to areas like the Southeast, it's beginning to spill over into some Midwestern states, like Indiana and Ohio. It's even moving up into New England."

Over all, immigrants now make up 12.4 percent of the nation's population, up from 11.2 percent in 2000. That amounts to an estimated 4.9 million additional immigrants for a total of 35.7 million, a number larger than the population of California.

Unlike the full census, which measures all population, the American Community Survey covers only what census officials call "household" population - that is, people living in households, rather than in "group quarters" like universities, long-term care facilities and prisons.

Thus, the 16 percent increase in immigrants since 2000 refers only to the household population. (The nation's household population in 2005 was 288,378,137, up from 273,637,296 in 2000.)

From 1990 to 2000, the total population showed a 57 percent increase in the foreign-born population, to 31.1 million, from 19.8 million.

Still, the rise in the immigrant household population since 2000 seems to indicate that the blazing pace of immigration seen throughout the 1990's has continued into the first half of this decade.

And along with the increase in the overall number of immigrants, the survey found an increase in the numbers who are not United States citizens - an estimated 2.4 million more since 2000. The survey did not try to distinguish between noncitizens in the country legally, like students or guest workers, and those in the country illegally.

Georgia and North Carolina, states that had already seen significant increases in their immigrant population in the 1990's, continue to see rising numbers. In Georgia, for instance, foreign-born residents accounted for 7.2 percent of the state's population in 2000, and 9 percent in 2005.

"We've been getting very diverse down here," said Judy Hadley, statistical research analyst for the Georgia Office of Planning and Budget. "You name any country and we've got it."

Ms. Singer pointed out that much of the growth in immigrants was in "suburban areas and a lot of other places that really have no history of immigration."

Immigration was just one area covered by the first release of data from the American Community Survey, which also covered such demographic information as race, age, education and marital status.

The survey detected a significant increase in the number of Americans over age 25 who hold a bachelor's degree or higher - 27.2 percent of that population in 2005 compared with 24.4 percent in 2000.

This contributes to what has been a half-decade surge in Americans' educational attainment. In 1940, only 4.6 percent of Americans held a bachelor's degree.

The survey found that the percentage of Americans who are 65 or over is shrinking, from 12.6 percent of the population in 1990 to 12.4 percent in 2000 and 12.1 percent in 2005.

Partly, this is driven by the huge influx in immigrants, who tend to be of working age or younger. But demographers caution against seeing this as a long-term trend.

"It's more like the lull before the storm," said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. "Before long, the baby boomers are going to start getting into that age group in large numbers and the percentage will shoot up."

The survey is intended as an annual bolster to the bureau's constitutionally mandated census of the country's population every 10 years. It began as a test program in 1996 and has gradually expanded to where it can now provide detailed data for nearly 7,000 geographic areas, including all Congressional districts and counties or cities of 65,000 or more.

In coming months, more data from the survey will cover income, poverty and housing.

Besides getting larger, the survey found shifts in the composition of the nation's immigrant population.

"Essentially, it's a continuation of the Mexicanization of U.S. immigration," said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies. "You would expect Mexicans to be increasing their share in places like Georgia and North Carolina, which already saw some increases, but they've also increased their share of the population, and quite dramatically, in states like Michigan, Delaware and Montana."

More of America's immigrants, legal or not, come from Mexico than any other country, an estimated 11 million in 2005, compared with nearly 1.8 million Chinese and 1.4 million Indians.

Conversely, the percentage of immigrants who were born in European countries has dropped sharply - 29.4 percent in the last five years, demographers say, because immigrants who came to the United States in the mid-20th century are now dying.

A study of this data by Mr. Passel for the Pew Hispanic Center showed that while 58 percent of the immigrants who arrived in the United States since 2000 settled in 5 of the traditional gateway states, 24 percent settled in 9 second-tier states (including Georgia, Massachusetts and Washington) and 11 percent found homes in 11 third-tier states, many of which have seen little immigration before (stretching from Connecticut to Minnesota to Nevada).

And while many of those first- and second-tier states saw the largest numbers of new arrivals from Mexico, Mr. Passel found, it was some of the third-tier states that saw the largest percentage increases: Alabama, South Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Two decades ago, demographers said, some 75 percent to 80 percent of new immigrants settled in one of the half-dozen gateway states and tended to stay there. Then, in the last 10 to 15 years, the pattern shifted and increasing numbers began to stay in the gateways briefly and then move. Now, they say, the pattern is that more immigrants are simply bypassing the gateways altogether.

"The biggest thing that drives immigration to specific destinations is that the immigrant already knows someone who is living there," Mr. Camarota said.

The common pattern, demographers said, is that a handful of immigrants move to a new region from one of the gateway states and put down roots. Then, once settled, they become a pipeline for others in their family or their home village to move directly into the same area.

"It's looking like what happens is that a person from a given community, say in Nicaragua, is getting established," said Bob Coats, the governor's census liaison in North Carolina. "And then they send word home that they have a good job and other people - neighbors, family members - come to join them and you have these enclaves of people from one country, one region, becoming established in the same area."

Lieberman's decision to run as an independent is causing angst within the ranks of Democratic donors, some of whom were unwilling to talk on the record about his campaign because his candidacy has so divided Democrats.

The three-term Democrat will turn to donors to his previous Senate campaigns and his 2004 presidential bid. He'll also get some money from Republican and independent donors, especially those who agree with Lieberman's support of Israel and continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq.

At a moment when Israel is at war with Hezbollah, Lieberman's candidacy has become a rallying point for those who think it would be a singularly bad time to end the Senate career of such a staunch champion of the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) said, "He can raise the money" to run a campaign. "There is a pro-Israel network of folks who are going to give to Lieberman because of his friendship to the Jewish community and because of who he is. Will he get all the money he'd have gotten as the Democratic nominee? Probably not, but I do think he can raise the money" to sustain a very credible campaign, Forman said.

Big donor base to draw on

In his presidential campaign in 2003-004, Lieberman got nearly 15,000 individual contributions; in his primary campaign this year he had received more than 5,700 individual contributions by July 19, according to the Federal Election Commission. (Lamont had gotten 1,100 individual contributions by July 19, according to the FEC.)

That's a base from which Lieberman can start. If even a third of those donors write his campaign a $1,000 check, he'd have nearly $7 million, enough to mount a robust campaign. That figure does not include new Republican donations which will soon begin to flow in.

Contributions from political action committees (PACs) will be somewhat crimped. A number of corporate PACs, such as the National Beer Wholesalers' PAC, have already given Lieberman the maximum amount permitted, $5,000 for the primary, and $5,000 for the general election

Democrat Mitchell Berger, a Florida lawyer who has given money to the campaigns of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry in the past and who was finance chairman for Lieberman's 2004 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, said he will donate money to Lieberman's independent run and help raise money by talking to other donors.

"It would be tragic for the country to lose a man of his ability if he's willing to serve," said Berger.

Berger said many donors in Lieberman's existing network will continue to back him because "usually that person has an independent relationship with Sen. Lieberman" that exists outside of their connection to the Democratic Party.

But he said Democrats are grateful for the work Lieberman has done in the past for the party. "He did a fundraiser for the Florida Democratic Party two years ago and raised a million dollars. People are going to remember him for things like that."

'He stood up to George Bush...'

Berger acknowledges that some Democrats have disagreements with Lieberman over Iraq. But, he added, "He stood up to George Bush to implement the reforms of the 9-11 Commission and to create the Department of Homeland Security. And he stood up to make sure we don't have drilling off the coast of Florida. It is hard to walk away from that."

Berger said Lieberman loyalists know he's still a Democrat. "If Sen. Lieberman had said he's not going to caucus with the Senate Democrats, that would be a problem, but he has said he will caucus with them," Berger pointed out.

One Democrat who gave $1,000 to Lieberman's primary campaign, Washington attorney Heather Podesta, said Monday, when asked whether she'd chip in for his independent bid, "I'd rather not talk abut my political giving and what my plans are."

But quite willing to speak was Bruce Bialosky, a leading Republican donor in California, who said he will raise more than $10,000 for Lieberman.

On Tuesday night, once Lamont had defeated Lieberman, Bialosky sent an e-mail to the 2,000 people on his political list "expressing my despair over Lieberman's loss in the primary" and making it clear he'd raise money for Lieberman's independent bid. "I've never seen such a tremendous response" from his list, Bialosky said.

"This is not an issue of partisanship. This is a great American," he said. "There are certain times when we have to cross party lines. Sen. Lieberman has clarity on the most important issue of our time. His opponent doesn't have a clue."

Fort Sill, Okla., had 27 dismissals last year, up from 8 in 2004. Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., had 60 dismissals, up from 40 in 2004, and the Marine base at Parris Island, S.C., discharged 22, up from 12.

The Army, by far the largest branch of the military, discharged more gay personnel last year than the other branches with 386, the figures show, followed by the Navy with 177, the Air Force with 88 and the Marines, the smallest force, with 75.

The overall number of men and women dismissed because they were found to be gay or because they disclosed their sexuality fell in the three years from 2002 to 2004. From Sept. 11, 2001, through last year, the discharge rate dropped 40 percent.

The total of such discharges in 2004 was 653. That compares with 770 in 2003, 885 in 2002 and 1,227 in 2001.

Under a policy introduced by the Clinton administration known as "don't ask, don't tell," the military cannot inquire into service members' sex lives unless there is evidence of homosexual conduct.

Those who volunteer the information have to be discharged. More than 11,000 members have been discharged for that reason, the legal group said.

In a review by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, the Pentagon said last year that more service members had been discharged for drug offenses, pregnancy and weight problems than for being gay.

Colonel Krenke said: "The Department of Defense policy on homosexual conduct in the military implements a federal law enacted in 1993 following extensive hearings and debate. The law would need to be changed to affect the department's policy."

The military has argued that allowing openly gay troops would disrupt unit cohesion and undermine the services' missions. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that the Bush administration will not revisit the policy.

Representative Martin T. Meehan of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, introduced a bill last year to repeal the policy on gay service members.

In an interview on Monday, Mr. Meehan pointed to "the seamless integration of openly gay service members into the militaries of many of our closest allies, namely the United Kingdom, Australia and Israel." His bill has 118 supporters, including 5 Republicans.

A spokesman for the legal group, Steve Ralls, said it had detected no increased effort to oust members under the policy last year. Mr. Ralls said that some bases reporting increases in discharges had few, if any, reports of unchecked harassment. It often boils down to the tolerance of individual commanders, he said.

"In the end," Mr. Ralls said, "we just don't know what exactly led to these dismissals."

Some service members have used the policy to escape their military obligations as morale has dipped and multiple overseas deployments have caused strain, Mr. Ralls added.

The legal group has also seen an increase in the malicious use of the Internet and e-mail to disclose the sexual orientation of service members, Mr. Ralls said. Sites like MySpace.com are routinely visited by service members and military officials, and service members who identify themselves as gay or lesbian on the Internet risk expulsion.

In one case, the orientation of a gay sergeant was disclosed to his superiors by anonymous e-mail messages. The sergeant was honorably discharged this year from the Army.

Just over 60 percent of respondents were able to name Bart as Homer's son on the television show "The Simpsons," while only 20.5 percent were able to name one of the ancient Greek poet Homer's epic poems, "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey."

Asked what planet Superman was from, 60 percent named the fictional planet Krypton, while only 37 percent knew that Mercury is the planet closest to the sun.

Respondents were far more familiar with the Three Stooges -- Larry, Curly and Moe -- than the three branches of the U.S. government -- judicial, executive and legislative. Seventy-four percent identified the former, 42 percent the latter.

Twice as many people (23 percent) were able to identify the most recent winner of the television talent show "American Idol," Taylor Hicks, as were able to name the Supreme Court Justice confirmed in January 2006,
Samuel Alito (11 percent).

"Allegations and service-identified incidents of recruiter wrongdoing increased from almost 4,400 to about 6,600 cases," the report said.

"Substantiated irregularities increased from just over 400 to almost 630 cases; and criminal violations more than doubled from just over 30 to almost 70 cases," it said.

The number of criminal violations reported by the army doubled during the period from 19 to 38, according to the report.

The GAO did not detail the types of irregularities that are being reported.

Of all the services, the army annually recruits the most new personnel each year, and has had the most trouble meeting its recruitment goals.

Last year, it fell 8.3 percent short of its goal of signing 80,000 new recruits.

Army officials have said the service is on track to meet the same goal this year.

The improved recruiting performance has come only after big increases in signing bonuses and moves to broaden the pool of those eligible by admitting more lower-scoring candidates and raising the maximum age from 35 to 42.

The GAO report cited an internal Defense Department survey in 2005 in which two thirds of military recruiters said the war in Iraq had made it difficult for them to achieve their goals.

The survey also found that over half of military recruiters, and two thirds of army recruiters, said they were dissatisfied with their jobs, which may have contributed to the increase in irregularities.

The federal lawsuit had asked judges to reinstate the district lines drafted by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The lawsuit argued that the court-imposed map violates the constitutional right of citizens to vote for congressional candidates in districts created by the Legislature.

In dismissing the lawsuit on Friday, the federal judges asserted that the case has already been decided by Colorado's Supreme Court.

Brett Lilly, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the federal suit, said Monday the judge's redistricting map and the state Supreme Court ruling violated the U.S. Constitution, which says redistricting must be handled by the Legislature. Lilly also objected to the state justices' conclusion that the Colorado Constitution prohibits mid-decade redistricting.

Lilly said he plans to appeal the ruling to the
U.S. Supreme Court.

It is important to recognize that what we call "health insurance" has little to do with health and nothing to do with insurance. We do not face a "health insurance crisis." We face the consequences of a set of economic and social problems rooted in a futile effort to make the distribution of health care-unlike the distribution of virtually every other good and service in our society-egalitarian.

The typical contractor of homeowner's insurance is the homeowner. He buys insurance to protect himself from costly loss caused by events outside his control, such as fire, not to defray the recurring expense of maintaining it. The ideal outcome for both the buyer and the seller of home and automobile insurance is for the policyholder to never make use of his policy.

The typical contractor of health insurance is not the insured person but his employer. Neither party is free to negotiate the terms of the policy. The employee cannot bargain for a lower premium in exchange for a high deductible or for choosing to be not covered for alcoholism or schizophrenia. The employer is not free to decline coverage for state-mandated medical services. In New York State, for example, the Women's Wellness Act mandates group health-insurance plans to cover contraceptives including abortifacients, and the Infertility Coverage Act mandates that they cover infertility treatments, including selective fetal reduction (abortion of multiple fetuses conceived by artificial means).

The economic survival of an insurance company depends in large part on collecting more in premiums than it pays out in claims. To bring about that outcome the insurer employs certain methods, some complicated, some very simple. Although embarrassingly obvious, some of these simple measures need to be mentioned because they are absent from what we mislabel "health insurance." For example, a person cannot buy a policy to protect himself from a loss caused by his own actions, such as burning down his own home. But so-called health insurance protects the individual from the medical consequences of his own actions, for example, injuring himself by smashing his car while drunk. Not surprisingly, all the participants in the complex scheme we call "health insurance" are unhappy with the result.

In the case of genuine insurance, there is a direct relationship between the dollar value of the protection purchased and its cost to the insured. The premium for a life-insurance policy with a face value of $100,000 is less than for a policy for a multiple of that amount. In health insurance no such relationship exists between premium paid and compensation received. Moreover, the health-insurance company, acting on its own behalf, can write a contract with a "cap" on claims, that is, for the maximum amount it will pay the insured, regardless of the health-care cost he incurs. The insured person, who typically does not act on his own behalf but is "provided" insurance as an important part of his job benefit, has no reciprocal options.

The sole rational purpose of true insurance is to protect the insured from an unanticipated economic loss so large as to jeopardize his economic well-being. No one sells or buys insurance to cover the cost of maintaining his property. Home insurance does not pay for plumbing repairs; automobile insurance does not pay for replacing worn-out windshield wipers. Yet people demand precisely this kind of reimbursement from so-called health insurance.

"Health Insurance": The Illusion of Equality

If health insurance is not insurance, what is it? It is a modern version of the illusion that all men are equal-or, when ill, ought to be treated as if they were equal. When religion was the dominant ideology, death was (supposed to be) the great equalizer: once they departed the living, prince and pauper were equal. Today, when medicine is the dominant ideology, health care is (supposed to be) the great equalizer: everyone's life is "infinitely precious" and hence deserves the same protection from disease. Of course, prince and pauper did not receive the same burial services, and rich and poor do not receive the same medical services. But people prefer the illusion of equality to the recognition of inequality.

Actually, the ruled have always longed for "universal health care," and the rulers have always supplied them with a policy that the masses accepted as such a service. In the Middle Ages, universal health care was called Catholicism. In the twentieth century, it was called Communism. In the 21st century, it is called Universal Health Insurance. What we choose to call "health insurance" is, in fact, a system of cost-shifting masquerading as a system of insurance. We treat a public, statist political system of health care as if it were a system of private health insurance purchased for the purpose of obtaining private medical care.

Everyone knows but no one admits that health insurance is not really insurance. In fact, Americans now view their health insurance as an open-ended entitlement for reimbursement for virtually any expense that may be categorized as "health care," such as the cost of birth-control pills or Viagra. The cost of these services is covered on the same basis as the cost of medical catastrophes, such as treatment for the consequences of a brain tumor. Such distorted incentives produce the perverted outcomes with which we are all too familiar.

From a public-health point of view, the state of our health is partly, and often largely, in our own hands and is our own responsibility, even if we have a chronic illness, such as arthritis or diabetes. It is an immoral and impractical endeavor to try to reject that responsibility and place the burden for the consequences on others.

Thomas Szasz is professor of psychiatry emeritus at SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse. His latest book is Liberation by Oppression: A Comparative Study of Slavery and Psychiatry (Transaction, 2002).

So, once again in the run-up to a national election, we are visited with alarming news. A monstrous plot, red alert, high drama playing on all channels and extreme measures taken to tighten security.

The White House men wear grave faces, but they cannot hide their delight. It's another chance for Bush to protect us from those aliens with funny names, another opportunity to accuse Democrats of aiding and abetting the enemy.

This has worked twice before. It could work again this fall unless gullible Americans snap out of it. Wake up, folks, and recognize how stupid and wimpish you look. I wrote the following two years ago during a similar episode of red alerts: "Bush's 'war on terrorism' is a political slogan -- not a coherent strategy for national defense -- and it succeeds brillantly only as politics. For everything else, it is quite illogical."

Where is the famous American skepticism? The loose-jointed ability to laugh at ourselves in anxious moments? Can't people see the campy joke in this docudrama called "Terror in the Sky"? The joke is on them. I have a suspicion that a lot of Americans actually enjoy the occasional fright since they know the alarm bell does actually not toll for them. It's a good, scary movie, but it's a slapstick war.

The other day at the airport in Burlington, Vermont, security guards confiscated liquid containers from two adolescent sisters returning home from vacation. The substance was labeled "Pure Maple Syrup." I am reminded of the Amish pretzel factory that was put on Pennsylvania's list of targets. Mothers with babes in arms are now told they must take a swiq of their baby formula before they can board the plane. I already feel safer.

The latest plot uncovered by British authorities may be real. Or maybe not. We do not yet know enough to be certain. The early reporting does not reassure or settle anything (though the Brits do sound more convincing than former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who gave "terror alerts" such a bad reputation). Tony Blair is no more trustworthy on these matters than Bush and Cheney. British investigators are as anxious as their American counterparts to prove their vigilance (and support their leaders). The close collaboration with Pakistani authorities doesn't exactly add credibility.

One question to ask is: Why now? The police have had a "mole" inside this operation since late 2005, but have yet to explain why they felt the need to swoop down and arest alleged plotters at this moment (two days after the Connecticut primary produced a triumph for anti-war politics).

The early claim that a massive takedown of a dozen airliners was set for August 16 is "rubbish," according to London authorities. So who decided this case was ripe for its public rollout? Blair consulted Cheney: What did they decide? American economist Jamie Galbraith was on a ten-hour flight from Manchester, England, to Boston on the day the story broke, and has wittily reflected on other weak points in the official story line.

The point is, Americans are not entirely defenseless pawns. They can keep their wits and reserve judgment. They can voice loudly the skepticism that Bush and company have earned by politicizing of the so-called "war" from the very start. Leading Democrats are toughening up. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid uses plain English to explain what the Republicans up to -- using genuine concerns of national security "as a political wedge issue. It is disgusting, but not surprising."

Instead of cowering in silence, the opposition party should start explaining this sick joke. Political confusion starts with the ill-conceived definition of a "war" that's best fought by police work, not heavy brigades on a battlefield. Forget the hype, call for common sense and stout hearts.

All we know, for sure, is that Bush and his handlers are not going to back off the fear-and-smear strategy until it loses an election for them. Maybe this will be the year.

William Greider is the author of, most recently, "The Soul of Capitalism" (Simon & Schuster).

"This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors as Commanders and Chief of the Guard to the federal government," states the Aug. 6 letter to the leaders of the House and the Senate.

"We take very seriously our constitutional duty to protect our citizens and lead our Guard. We are responsible for the safety and welfare of our citizens and are in the best position to coordinate all resources to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters. The current process by which we use our National Guard in emergencies and request federal assistance when necessary works well and should not be changed," the letter states.

National Guard troops under governor control occupy a special legal status under Title 32 of U.S. Code that is particularly suited to civil unrest or natural disaster: among their powers is the power to act as a police force and arrest and detain citizens, useful in a riot or a looting scenario.

When under federal control - that is, activated by the president under Title 10 of U.S. Code -- they are considered the "ready reserve" and are limited to the same powers as active-duty troops. That means they cannot arrest and detain U.S. citizens, unless there is an insurrection and martial law is declared.

The House language does not address those different powers and roles, said Nolan Jones, deputy director for federal relations at the National Governor's Association in Washington. Under this language, if the president activated the Guard to use in a domestic crisis, it would not have the power to arrest, and would therefore be less effective.

More worrisome, however, is the White House usurping state powers, said Jones.

"It's frightening because it's not insurrection. This gives him blanket power to do this at any time," said Jones. "The president can call the Guard at any point in time and take over."

The White House said last year it would be seeking special powers over the Guard which would allow the president to act in a crisis even if a governor does not request federal help.

"It wouldn't be necessary to get a request from the governor or take other action," then White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in September.

When McClellan made his comment, the White House was still reeling from its poor showing in New Orleans after the levies were breeched and flooded the city, and was blaming Gov. Blanco for failing to request federal aid and troops.

In fact, Blanco had declared Louisiana a disaster area on Aug. 26 in anticipation of Hurricane Katrina which hit on Aug. 29.

In the week that followed Blanco, on the advice of National Guard commander Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, resisted White House pressure to "dual-hat" National Guard troops, putting them under the command of an active duty military general while at the same time keeping her own command.

On Thursday, Sept. 1, Blum met with Blanco in Louisiana to discuss the National Guard response to the disaster. Blum agreed to an accelerated schedule for the influx of 20,000 more National Guard troops, and told Blanco there would not be a material benefit to Louisiana in terms of additional personnel or materiel if she gave up command of the Guard to the federal government.

On Friday, Sept. 2, however, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told Blanco if she signed a memorandum of agreement dual-hatting the troops in Louisiana -- putting them all under the command of active duty Army Lt. Gen. Russ Honore as well as the governor's office -- the recovery operation would move more quickly, Blanco's chief of staff told congressional investigators last year.

Card told Lt. Gen. Blum, then back in Washington, to make the offer.

"I was asked to deliver an option, which I did, and the option was to federalize this," Blum told the Senate Governmental Affairs investigation committee Jan. 19 during an interview. "It wasn't my option. I was delivering an option that was put together by someone else and they said call and see if she'll like this. So I called them, and she didn't like it."

Blum told the Governmental Affairs Committee in February Blanco "absolutely" made the right decision in resisting the pressure to dual-hat the National Guard commander.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security Paul McHale, a former Marine, agreed. He told the committee in February such an arrangement would have been untenable, as it would have placed officers in the cross-fire between the White House and a governor if there were conflicting priorities or orders for the troops.

According to the NGA, the House language would create the very same problem.