Plan would make Bush leader of entire government (not just executive) in an emergency

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=elucidator]
John, you should get over the idea that all of my remarks are directed to you.
[/quote]

Are you seriously going to tell us you didn’t direct that post at me? Puh-leeeze. You posted 20 minutes after I did and said “you”. Were you talking to someone 10 posts up? No, it was directed at me.

Funny, I thought this thread was about a specific directive. But I guess I forget that Bush is teh suxXor.

Well, that’s an absurd false dichotomy. But if that’s all you’ve got, then… I guess that’s all you’ve got.

62

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Not a bit of it! A tighty righty will fling bald insults, you always add a smiley at the end, so it is magically transformed into hearty jocularity.
[/QUOTE]

Calling your unsubstantiated assertion of Bush’s ultimate evil on something that you admit you haven’t even read ‘completely ridiculous’ is an insult now? :stuck_out_tongue:

Give over 'luci…even you have to realize by now you are making a stand on somewhat shakey ground, ehe?

-XT

63

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Are you seriously going to tell us you didn’t direct that post at me? Puh-leeeze. You posted 20 minutes after I did and said “you”. Were you talking to someone 10 posts up? No, it was directed at me…
[/quote]

All I can do is tell you, John. If your belief in your telepathy exceeds your belief in my candor, well, there you have it. Until the invention of the virtual polygraph, there it must remain.

Or how about what I tell you three times is true? Ah, well.

Funny, I had no idea that thread boundaries was your jursidiction.

At your peril.

You seem to demand some presumption of innocence here, as if this were all prejudicial and unfair. And that might be so, if we were not both witness to what six years of a thermonuclear pissant can do. You want to trust him, go right ahead, I’ll just have to content myself with praying I’m not proven right. Again.

That said, I am comforted by words of the relentlessly sensible Tomn, who assures us that it is no worse than it might be. Cold comfort farm.

64

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Calling your unsubstantiated assertion of Bush’s ultimate evil on something that you admit you haven’t even read ‘completely ridiculous’ is an insult now?..
[/QUOTE]

This sentence is a wonder for the ages, its as though Rube Goldberg were an essayist. It is stunning, all argument flees before it, one can only gape.

I’m sure your right, whatever you said. Wow.

65

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Story here.

Presidential Directives in question here.

Is this routine federal emergency planning, or an unprecedented power grab?

What’s this about “comity” between the three branches?! They’re not supposed to work in comity, they’re supposed to check each other!
[/QUOTE]

It’s routine federal emergency planning.

Note part (22),
“Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 (“Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations”), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.”

In regards to PDD 67, from here,
“Presidential Decision Directive 67 (PDD 67), issued 21 October 1998, relates to enduring constitutional government, continuity of operations (COOP) planning, and continuity of government (COG) operations. The purpose of Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG), Continuity of Government (COG), and Continuity of Operations (COOP) is to ensure survival of a constitutional form of government and the continuity of essential Federal functions. Presidential Decision Directive 67 replaced the Bush Administration’s NSD 69 “Enduring Constitutional Government” of 02 June 1992, which in turn succeeded NSD 37 “Enduring Constitutional Government” of 18 April 1990 and NSDD 55 “Enduring National Leadership” of 14 September 1982.”

Also note, “The text of PDD-67 has not been released, and there is no White House Factsheet summarizing its provisions.”

I’ll give the White House credit for at least releasing as much as it did. At face value, it appears to just update the previous plans to take account of the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies that did not exist in 1998 and previously. And I dont see any reason to take it at more than face value.

So for myself, the main question is why did it take them so long to update it, but then I remember what administration we are dealing with. (Clinton obviously took his own time as well, but he never added a such a vast new department that required an updated plan.)

As much as Bush may or may not want to be dictator (and I honestly dont believe that he does), I do not see any reason why that plan would succeed considering how well all of his other initiatives have worked out.

The man will be out of office in less than two years, get a few cushy seats on various corporate boards (I’d be surprised to not see him on Haliburton’s board after a year or two into his retirement) and go back to work on his golf handicap while avoiding extradition to various countries that would love to try him for crimes against humanity. If they could get Pinochet, they will certainly try for him. Whether it happens will depend on who succeeds him. And it may take a generation much as it did for Pinochet also.

And his immediate successor will issue his/her own directive revoking this one. And the next will do the same, ad infinitum…

66

[QUOTE=elucidator]
This sentence is a wonder for the ages, its as though Rube Goldberg were an essayist. It is stunning, all argument flees before it, one can only gape.

I’m sure your right, whatever you said. Wow.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m glad we cleared that up then! :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

67

Why would you ever want to coordinate that which is to remain separate by putting ONE person in the position as coordinator? At that point, those things which were once separate come together.

Further, if the President acts as the Coordinator, does that mean that the Speaker of the House has to officially abide by the President’s wishes regarding such things as scheduling and setting the legislative agenda?

The same is true of the Supreme Court. Will the President at any time be able to determine whether they will be in session? Whether an emergency appointment can be made? What cases will be heard?

This document is not at all specific enough. It doesn’t matter if he is called a “Dictator.” What does it mean to be the “Coordinator”?

As it stands now, the three branches of government are balanced. Anything that adds to the power of any of the branches puts things out of balance. Under no circumstances should the President overstep her or his boundaries and be in the least bit in a position of oversight of the Judiciary or the Legislative Branches. Should there be a catastrophe, the surviving members of Congress should regroup and find their way. The same is true of the Judiciary.

This document is unnecessary. What is important is a President that isn’t so lacking in integrity and insight. Many of his own party are troubled by his choices.

Trust Bush? This has nothing to do with his being a Republican or a “conservative.” Look at what he has said and done. Do you really want to defend him? Can you really expect anyone in the opposing party not to be suspicious of anything he writes?

And he does use the poor for firewood. Most of the 3,442 Americans who have given their life times up in Iraq are from middle and lower income families. If you tell me that they volunteered to be firewood, you have missed the point. They were and are noble.

Bush is so over.

68

Just a short note for all those who think “Good little German” = “Totalitarian.” It doesn’t. Those of us with actual relatives in Germany know that already.

69

[QUOTE=xtisme]
:rolleyes:

Oh, for gods sake. Bush can’t just wave a magic wand and give himself ultimate power…

Sheesh people…get a grip.

-XT
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t alarm you that he would if he could give himself ultimate power? In his view, as I understand his view to be, he doesn’t see any reason at all why he should not.

70

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Um…he ain’t dictator. Abortion ain’t illegal. There is no prayer in school. Religions other than Christianity are still legal to practice in the US. Terri Schiavo is still dead.

Whats your point exactly?

-XT
[/QUOTE]
What is pathetic is that you still believe that any of these things are important to him! My goodness gracious…

He used these issues to do nothing more than grab power by throwing around platitudes on these topics, and you want to point to the fact that he didn’t really do anything about them as evidence of his lack of power?

Bless your heart.

71

[QUOTE=elucidator]
So, this little bit of Bushwah doesn’t mean anything, not really. Then why do it?
[/QUOTE]

Katrina.

FEMA, the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans were at constant loggerheads over who had authority over certain aspects of the rescue effort. This proved to be quite disastrous, since each of these political entities proved to be incompetent to various degrees.

A big part of this order involves coordination not only with the various federal agencies, but also with the state local, and tribal governments involved. The plans would also identify large concentrations of private property so that they can be involved in the disaster plans as well.

That makes intuitive sense on the face of it. There would be no better food, water and disaster supply distribution center than a Wal-Mart or Target parking lot. These are near road systems, people know where they are, they have a large area to use, and lots of supplies are already inside. Likewise gas stations and fuel depots ought to be identified and utilized. And in a disaster involving a coastal area, there is no reason private boat owners couldn’t be identified and asked to support anything from search and rescue operations to improvised patrol.

72

[QUOTE=LouisB]
It doesn’t alarm you that he would if he could give himself ultimate power?
[/QUOTE]

Well, to be honest…no. It doesn’t bother me at all. My baseline assumption is that ALL politicians WOULD give themselves ultimate power if they COULD.

No, what would bother me is, of course, that pesky ‘could’. If he COULD do it (realistically, and not in the fever dreams of the left)…THAT would bother me. Quite a bit.

Happily, he can’t. He can and has stretched the existing system just about as far as it could go…and that system is starting to fight itself back into its original shape.

-XT

73

Moto:
You are answering a different question. My point was meant as rebuttal to a silly inference, that we need not be concerned about what power it delivers to GeeDub because it doesn’t. But, it does, of course, otherwise it would not have happened. And, of course, those who present this for our approval are at pains to present it as an entirely sensible and benign prospect.

And, as well, your interpretation of the “Katrina” aspect of all this supports the Bushivik line, that mistakes were made by so many, many people, all up and down the line, if only they had more power, they might have done a better job of it, but alas! their hands were tied by regulations, etc. You may buy that if you like.

74

Bush issuing a directive with the word “comity” in it? Is that a joke by whoever really wrote it?

75

There is already a lot of power already there, in various forms. What there isn’t is a lot of coordination, which would be useful in a general emergency.

76

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
What is pathetic is that you still believe that any of these things are important to him! My goodness gracious…
[/QUOTE]

Well…if we are looking for whats pathetic here, my vote is for you lefty types who STILL are wringing your hands and awaiting the day Bush et al takes over the MULTIVERSE! DUMPDUMPDUUUUMMMM! Pretty pathetic, my goodness gracious me…

And since you asked, I never did believe Bush was going to (or even wanted too) outlaw abortion, force prayer in schools or any of that other dippy shit…THAT paranoia came from the handwringing left. I was merely pointing out that, despite said handwringing for (looks at watch) nearly 7 years now, he hasn’t done any of it.

I guess we are down to the last paranoid fantasy though at this point…the one where he uses his evil magic powers to simply make himself dictator of the country and RULER OF THE WORLD!!! MUAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA! Er, or something…

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
He used these issues to do nothing more than grab power by throwing around platitudes on these topics, and you want to point to the fact that he didn’t really do anything about them as evidence of his lack of power?
[/QUOTE]

I point to the fact merely to highlight that the OTHER paranoid lefty fantasy scenerios never materialized…just like this one won’t. I never said they showed Bush lacked power…he’s the freaking President of the US, arguably the most powerful man in the world. But that power is constrained by our system…and while he’s pushed that system, and pried that system, and even distorted that system, he hasn’t broken that system. And lately that system has been fighting back, has been reverting to its original shape…which is why our system works so well.

In order for Bush to simply grant himself the power to become ‘leader of the entire government (not just the executive)’, even in an emergency, would break the system…and its something he simply doesn’t have the power to do. Not unless he can get the other two branches of the government on board with gutting their own powers, oh yeah, and get the states on board, and :smack: don’t forget the military…better remember you will need to get the people on board too.

But it IS an amusing little fantasy you guys periodically spin here…its always good for a few pages of hand wringing, and some laughs (at ya’lls expense of course :stuck_out_tongue: ). Using my crystal ball, I’m thinking we’ll have…um, 4 more of these before Bush finally and thankfully exists stage left and someone else takes the helm. Probably the majority next year, as frantic lefties start worrying he’ll cancel THIS election and declare himself King…

-XT

77

Moto:

Alternatively, there was a sufficiency of power but a dearth of intelligent will. The Bushiviks are at great pains to spread the responsibility so that it is a mile wide and an inch deep. And so they respond to an imagined problem with a program that conforms to their agenda: give the President “coordinating” power that they would have us believe was previously absent. Further they would have us believe that had such powers not been absent, they would not have been handicapped and hamstrung.

Their failings were ignorance and passivity, there is no legislative solution.

78

Yeah, those crazy lefties! So hysterical and deranged. Why, some of them even suggest that we were bullshitted into a futile and destructive war! Those, wacky, crazy lefties! Happily, sensible men are at hand to pat them on the head and assure them there is nothing to see here, move along, move along…

79

[QUOTE=xtisme]
And since you asked, I never did believe Bush was going to (or even wanted too) outlaw abortion, force prayer in schools or any of that other dippy shit…THAT paranoia came from the handwringing left. I was merely pointing out that, despite said handwringing for (looks at watch) nearly 7 years now, he hasn’t done any of it.
[/QUOTE]
So, you seem confused, in that you both recognize that he didn’t really care about these issues, and that he didn’t actually do anything about it. If you understand that he simply used these issues for political purposes, it should logically follow that he would never do anything about them because 1) he doesn’t really care to, and 2) he would lose the ability to use them for political purposes in the future.

So, you can’t then point to them as evidence of restraint on his part, which you have done now twice. They can’t reflect restraint if inaction on the topics serves his purpose.

Either you don’t understand the first part or the second part. Either way, you’re not making much sense. What seems to be the case is that you are ignorant of the issues at hand, but are nevertheless keen to sound off on your opinions about the paranoia of the left.

80

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
So, you seem confused
[/QUOTE]

While not uncommon for me, it seems to be catching. :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
So, you can’t then point to them as evidence of restraint on his part, which you have done now twice. They can’t reflect restraint if inaction on the topics serves his purpose.
[/QUOTE]

Um…I didn’t point them out to show Bush’s restraint. As I said in the post you quoted, I pointed them out as other examples where lefty types were wringing their hands over an issue that never materialized. Sort of like this one we are discussing…and have discussed in various ways pretty much since we started talking about the 2004 election cycle (with further outbreaks during the 2006 cycle).

So, lets cut to the chase here…you, Hentor, are you saying that because Bush wants to become ultimate dictator (I’ll go along with the assumption he does), that this legislation puts him on the road to do so? That all those other things the lefties were worried about were things he didn’t care about…but that because he cares about THIS one (in theory), that makes it a real, serious threat? Simply because Bush wants it?

Assuming thats how you feel…is it just me or do some of you folks have an overly high opinion of what Bush et al is capable of doing? :stuck_out_tongue:

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Either you don’t understand the first part or the second part. Either way, you’re not making much sense. What seems to be the case is that you are ignorant of the issues at hand, but are nevertheless keen to sound off on your opinions about the paranoia of the left.
[/QUOTE]

Well…from my perspective, what SEEMS to be the case is that you need a remedial reading comprehension class. Either that or you are deliberately twisting what I write to fit some mental form you have. Since I think you are a smart guy, I’ll take door number two, Alex.

With a dollop of ‘Hentor, YOU don’t seem to actually understand the issues at hand…have you actually READ the document in the OP?’ Because like 'luci, you don’t SEEM to have bothered to carefully read through it before sounding off on your own. BTW, I have read the document…I think its a CYA move by Bush et al’s part to deflect the heat they are still feeling about Katrina … basically saying Bush et al needs wider powers in an emergency to coordinate things or their hands are tied and its all THEIR (i.e. the other guys) fault. How this could be used to take over the country…well, after you read it Hentor, come back and explain it to me, poor ignorate waif I am, couldja? Please cite the relevent sections that show how it could be done…

-XT