Who Will Be in Control If Another 9/11 Were to Happen

[LongTimePCUser]

The fact that Democrats believed the Bush lies based on falsified CIA reports does not bean that the lies were true.
In fact, your statement shows how the Bush people suceeded in seizing power to pursue their policies based on lies.
The only current evidence at the time was from the U.N. inspectors who were not finding any WMD in Iraq.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
Remember the "weapons of mass destruction" that were created out of thin air that allowed Bush to seize control of the government for several years and to invade Irag even though all the evidence from the U.N. weapons inspectors said that there was no evidence for their existence?

It may not even take a real 9-11 event to generate the invocation of NSPD-51.

Congress and the Supreme Court need to be very vigilant over the next year to preserve what is left of constitutional elections in 2008.

This is a president who created the concept of "signing statements" so that he could refuse to execute laws passed by Congress without having to veto them. Congress simply can't over ride a signing statement.

If I were to guess what sort of events would lead to the invocation of NSPD-51 next year I would guess that it might be related to the invasion of Iran.

I hope that this will not happen.

I remember those WMDs. The Democrats, and even Hillary herself, swore they were real long before Bush even came into office. Incredible plan.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Did you bother to read the article? Yes? Then respond to the points brought up in the article dealing with the vague language of the directive rather than just say here's the directive, I think it's OK. Oh wait, no you didn't read the article did you? Simply glancing over a directive that in short turns all governing power over to the executive for an undetermined period of time with a classified chain of command that isn't reviewable by people with normal access to classified information doesn't really address the potential problems now does it? But hey, it's easier to ignore the direction things are heading and pretend everything is "A OK" than to face the fact that inaction at this very moment will likely lead to the "tin foil hat" theories coming to fruition.

You must have missed me saying read it and be your own judge. Why the fear of actually reading the directive and making ones own decision? Why the need to have somebody else tell me what we should be afraid of?

In these cases getting to the point is often the best course of action vs reading what some other persons opinion is on the matter.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

OK, so I've proven that I'm a nut who believes that the current administration has no intentions of giving up their offices, but here's an article from someone who would call me a nut and they point out the fatal flaws of the current directive. My point is, what would prevent the "nightmare scenario" from occurring? What could we do to circumvent the new "rule of law" should this type of scenario come to pass? Someone please put my paranoid fears to rest so maybe I can go back to sleeping at night. :laugh:

Firstly, it's gonna take more than the President, or even everybody in the WH helping, to pull off something like you fear.

I really don't expect many Repub Congresspersons, and exactly zero Dems, to act like neutered drones and acquies all their power. Never step betwen a politition and his power (or a TV camera).

How could it be done? It would take the military to pull it off, and I really really don't see that happening at all. H3ll, many are out-of-country.

Notwithstanding this Directive, if some big deal (Katrina or 9/11 etc) were to occur at election time it would be a problem. You can't just disenfranchise a bunch of voters because they have to flee their city or are stuck in a flood.

It would end up causing a delay in the election and likely a lot of SCOTUS litigation.

Even so, I can't see it pushing back the new inauguration by much, if at all.

The BIG problem would be if a significant portion of our polititions and Judiciary were killed or wounded. That would cause a longer dysfunctional period while awaiting their replacements (particularly those not even up for re-election). And if you fear that GWB and some co-horts are gonna do that (kill everybody in DC), there just ain't enough tin foil for you.

There's just too many actual real things to worry about instead focusing on such Hollywood-type fictional plots.
Fern

My thoughts exactly!! Yet to be fair to the OP I believe he already has stock in companies that make tin foil hats!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The fact that Democrats believed the Bush lies based on falsified CIA reports does not bean that the lies were true.
In fact, your statement shows how the Bush people suceeded in seizing power to pursue their policies based on lies.
The only current evidence at the time was from the U.N. inspectors who were not finding any WMD in Iraq.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
Remember the "weapons of mass destruction" that were created out of thin air that allowed Bush to seize control of the government for several years and to invade Irag even though all the evidence from the U.N. weapons inspectors said that there was no evidence for their existence?

It may not even take a real 9-11 event to generate the invocation of NSPD-51.

Congress and the Supreme Court need to be very vigilant over the next year to preserve what is left of constitutional elections in 2008.

This is a president who created the concept of "signing statements" so that he could refuse to execute laws passed by Congress without having to veto them. Congress simply can't over ride a signing statement.

If I were to guess what sort of events would lead to the invocation of NSPD-51 next year I would guess that it might be related to the invasion of Iran.

I hope that this will not happen.

I remember those WMDs. The Democrats, and even Hillary herself, swore they were real long before Bush even came into office. Incredible plan.

Research back to the late 90s, during the Clinton administration, and see what the Dems were chanting in regards to Saddam's WMDs.

Or are you actually trying to claim that as far back as 97 and 98 that Bush knew he'd be elected and his dastardly plan was already in motion? If so I'll have to break out another roll of tin-foil because the current one doesn't have enough to fashion a hat thick enough to believe that.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

OK, so I've proven that I'm a nut who believes that the current administration has no intentions of giving up their offices, but here's an article from someone who would call me a nut and they point out the fatal flaws of the current directive. My point is, what would prevent the "nightmare scenario" from occurring? What could we do to circumvent the new "rule of law" should this type of scenario come to pass? Someone please put my paranoid fears to rest so maybe I can go back to sleeping at night. :laugh:

Firstly, it's gonna take more than the President, or even everybody in the WH helping, to pull off something like you fear.

I really don't expect many Repub Congresspersons, and exactly zero Dems, to act like neutered drones and acquies all their power. Never step betwen a politition and his power (or a TV camera).

How could it be done? It would take the military to pull it off, and I really really don't see that happening at all. H3ll, many are out-of-country.

Notwithstanding this Directive, if some big deal (Katrina or 9/11 etc) were to occur at election time it would be a problem. You can't just disenfranchise a bunch of voters because they have to flee their city or are stuck in a flood.

It would end up causing a delay in the election and likely a lot of SCOTUS litigation.

Even so, I can't see it pushing back the new inauguration by much, if at all.

The BIG problem would be if a significant portion of our polititions and Judiciary were killed or wounded. That would cause a longer dysfunctional period while awaiting their replacements (particularly those not even up for re-election). And if you fear that GWB and some co-horts are gonna do that (kill everybody in DC), there just ain't enough tin foil for you.

There's just too many actual real things to worry about instead focusing on such Hollywood-type fictional plots.

Fern

Great post. It sounded like fantasy time to begin with but then when you remind us that politicians don't like to lose power I can only imagine the democrats going crazy if bush decided to stay on. After a big attack everyone would rally around but then very quickly remember that it's election time votes need to be taken so any continuity of office would last for a very short period.

Also very hard to pull off if they mean to create a terror attack on their own country. There would be too many people after the fact looking for every single detail and a coverup of that magnitude could not be pulled off.

Pretty sure he doesn't want Bush to stay in office. It's likely the terrorists will support the Dems in the upcoming election to see if they can make some headway again with little consequences, like they did under Bill.

Al Queda is no weaker now than before 2001, by the government's own admission, but ok...

 

[LongTimePCUser]

Your comment is irrelevant to the points being made.

In any case, in the late 90s, UN inspectors had been thrown out of Irag. In the absence of inspectors people worried that wmd were being developed and hidden. There was no evidence in 1998 that there were wmd in Iraq. There were worries and fears. The 1998 worries were meaningless in 2002 when the inspectors were back and hadn't been able to find evidence of wmds.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The fact that Democrats believed the Bush lies based on falsified CIA reports does not bean that the lies were true.
In fact, your statement shows how the Bush people suceeded in seizing power to pursue their policies based on lies.
The only current evidence at the time was from the U.N. inspectors who were not finding any WMD in Iraq.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
Remember the "weapons of mass destruction" that were created out of thin air that allowed Bush to seize control of the government for several years and to invade Irag even though all the evidence from the U.N. weapons inspectors said that there was no evidence for their existence?

It may not even take a real 9-11 event to generate the invocation of NSPD-51.

Congress and the Supreme Court need to be very vigilant over the next year to preserve what is left of constitutional elections in 2008.

This is a president who created the concept of "signing statements" so that he could refuse to execute laws passed by Congress without having to veto them. Congress simply can't over ride a signing statement.

If I were to guess what sort of events would lead to the invocation of NSPD-51 next year I would guess that it might be related to the invasion of Iran.

I hope that this will not happen.

I remember those WMDs. The Democrats, and even Hillary herself, swore they were real long before Bush even came into office. Incredible plan.

Research back to the late 90s, during the Clinton administration, and see what the Dems were chanting in regards to Saddam's WMDs.

Or are you actually trying to claim that as far back as 97 and 98 that Bush knew he'd be elected and his dastardly plan was already in motion? If so I'll have to break out another roll of tin-foil because the current one doesn't have enough to fashion a hat thick enough to believe that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
Your comment is irrelevant to the points being made.

In any case, in the late 90s, UN inspectors had been thrown out of Irag. In the absence of inspectors people worried that wmd were being developed and hidden. There was no evidence in 1998 that there were wmd in Iraq. There were worries and fears. The 1998 worries were meaningless in 2002 when the inspectors were back and hadn't been able to find evidence of wmds.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The fact that Democrats believed the Bush lies based on falsified CIA reports does not bean that the lies were true.
In fact, your statement shows how the Bush people suceeded in seizing power to pursue their policies based on lies.
The only current evidence at the time was from the U.N. inspectors who were not finding any WMD in Iraq.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
Remember the "weapons of mass destruction" that were created out of thin air that allowed Bush to seize control of the government for several years and to invade Irag even though all the evidence from the U.N. weapons inspectors said that there was no evidence for their existence?

It may not even take a real 9-11 event to generate the invocation of NSPD-51.

Congress and the Supreme Court need to be very vigilant over the next year to preserve what is left of constitutional elections in 2008.

This is a president who created the concept of "signing statements" so that he could refuse to execute laws passed by Congress without having to veto them. Congress simply can't over ride a signing statement.

If I were to guess what sort of events would lead to the invocation of NSPD-51 next year I would guess that it might be related to the invasion of Iran.

I hope that this will not happen.

I remember those WMDs. The Democrats, and even Hillary herself, swore they were real long before Bush even came into office. Incredible plan.

Research back to the late 90s, during the Clinton administration, and see what the Dems were chanting in regards to Saddam's WMDs.

Or are you actually trying to claim that as far back as 97 and 98 that Bush knew he'd be elected and his dastardly plan was already in motion? If so I'll have to break out another roll of tin-foil because the current one doesn't have enough to fashion a hat thick enough to believe that.

Please don't bother reciting history to me.

First of all - I'm already very familiar with it.

Second - you keep dodging the entire point. Bush didn't invent the story on WMDs. It's long been accepted truth that Saddam had them going back before Bush coming into office. Considering that Saddam had already lied previously about having WMDs what was to prevent him from lying yet again, particularly considering his history of interference in the inspection process and his continued failure to properly disclose the requested information?

Third - the Bush people didn't sieze power. Bush was elected into office, twice.

 

[FoBoT]

i don't get it , how does this apply with Hillary Clinton as our next president?