'Badly worded' Presidential Directive could mean anything could start COG operations

[ck4829]

There's been a lot of talk about this recent directive that could allow Bush to remain in power after beyond January of 2009. Here's the first clue that something is up.

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

This means we could have a repeat of the Tunguska Event in the same place with even the same lack of casualties, and that could be enough to start continuity of government operations.

[acmavm]

1. And just in time for Pat Robertson's 'God told me there would

be a catastrophic event that will cause millions to die in late 2007'.

These bastards got it all sewn up. And God's the fall guy.

[originalpckelly]

2. Yeah, and remember Jerome Corsi found it.

Who knew that ass might well help us avert a Bush decidership for the rest of our lives?

[Richard Steele]

3. I'm sure B*sh will tell us what it means when the time comes.

I wish that was sarcasm or something...it isn't.

I'm certain he will.

[Kagemusha]

4. I'll say it again. Emergency actions during emergencies don't bother me.

It's using emergency powers when there is no emergency that bothers me!!! Like, suspending habeas corpus because the US is "under invasion" by Al-Qaeda terror wannabes. That's what bothers me.

If Bush had actually done something during Katrina, I really wouldn't have minded - but he doesn't seem to like acting decisively in an ACTUAL emergency.

[yy4me]

5. Can someone tell me from what law, edict, or whatever source

came the authority to put forth this directive? I cannot fathom that this fundamental change in government can come about just because our mentally challenged c-in-c decided it to be so.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. As far as I can tell, none

The Constitution does not allow the President to issue edicts, much less edicts which are in blatant violation of the Constitution.

And Congress sits idle, refusing to contemplate impeachment....

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. "Badly worded"

Seems to me it was worded just fine, if you are the Junta.

[Hubert Flottz]

8. It prolly don't really mean nothin'...

Like the thing about the Congress not having to approve the Federal Attorneys the GOPers sneaked into Specter's bill last year.

You can bet your ass, that Bush did this for an unholy, secret, underhanded, dastardly, reason too.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Where does the directive mention elections?

[Javaman]

10. "could mean anything"...

nope, only means one thing in my book, a hitler-esque grab of infinite power.