BTW, does a presidential directive continue in force from one administration to the next?
Hypothetically speaking, if cites from mainstream news sources were given for any/some/all of these claims, would you then think that Mr. Bush might not be worthy of being president?
o/ The wheels on the bus come off, off, off! Off, off, off! Off, off, off! The wheels on the bus come off, off, off! Late on Dubya's wa-atch! o/
I find it interesting the discussion has moved on from the actual directive to condemnation of the Iraq war, assertions that Cheney actually runs the government, claims about Christian bias in the Air Force and et cetera.
It’s pretty profound that when the left start frothing at the mouth they lose the ability to actually discuss the subject at hand. Or maybe the fact that the concept of this directive being an “enabling act” has been so thoroughly debunked even in the crazed stupor some of the posters here have fallen into it was realized this wasn’t a particularly ripe target.
Your English Comp 101 teacher is standing on a ledge, threatening suicide.
Um…no. There aren’t enough cites in the world to make me think that fool is worthy of being president.
Why?
-XT
IANACL, but my understanding is that presidential directives are just a form of executive orders, so they would remain in effect until superceded or revoked by another EO or act of Congress or overruled by the Supreme Court (as happened with Truman’s order to nationalize the steel mills.)
Reading the text of this one again, I dont see where the executive branch is claiming any powers beyond its authority. I have not read all of the previous ones, but considering all the acronyms that have been carried forward, I bet most of the boilerplate is the same. The only major difference seems be taking into account the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and other post 9/11 agencies, which I stated earlier.
I remember hearing the same hoopla regarding the creation of FEMA and how that it would allow the Executive Branch to declare martial law in cases of emergency. Considering how well that agency was managed by this administration, I wonder just how effective the actual contigency plans are.
I have no love for this administration, but I also have no fear of it beyond further incompetence. I am sure some neo-cons (and neo-coms, and neo-dems, et al.,) would love to see a strong authoritarian president.
We had one with FDR. And we passed the 22nd amendment to prevent another one. I seriously doubt it will be repealed anytime soon, and certainly not for the current incumbent.
On a side note, I am currently disgusted with the previous Congresses for allowing the incumbent to trample on the Constitution as much as he has, knowing they would have never tolerated such abuses from a Democrat. I firmly believe that Bush should be impeached, but this is much ado about nothing.
AP
Just curious as to why you are so quick to label claims critical of this administration “hysterical bullshit”?
I have heard this same thing over and over again for the last five or six years. “He won’t be able to do this, Congress won’t allow it.” “He won’t be able to do that, the courts won’t allow it.” Every time something new and slimy is revealed, the supposedly left-wing mainstream media covers it until a new scandal or crisis arrives like magic to knock it off the front page. There is no limit to what this administration can get away with if they proceed at a deliberate pace. People will get used to anything if they are prepared for it. Our country is no different than any other country in history when it comes to corruption.
I used to think that a reasonable person who was a true believer in a cause could eventually be persuaded to change her/his mind if enough evidence came in. I was wrong, and I freely admit it. If Bush had a different scandal every day of the week for the next twenty weeks, the true believers would dismiss every damning bit of evidence with their common mantra-"It’s just another Bush-bashing thread :rolleyes: ". There could countless scandals, but to them there is no last straw that breaks the camel’s back.
I think to get a better idea of what this new directive means, we need to do a side by side comparison with Directive 67 . What was in the old directive thats not in the new one, and vice versa.
And would someone in the know please tell me what a “classified Continuity Annex” is?
That’s classified. I could tell you, but then I’d have to coordinate you.
Oh, come on, XT, read a newspaper now and then. How deep in the bush do you have to be to not know this stuff? :dubious:
Might I assume that no cites will be forthcoming? 
-XT
If you choose to stay in your cave and pretend that no assaults on the First Amendment are happening, no cites will convince you. Peace be upon you. I wish you well.
xtisme, I can’t believe that you are asking people to cite major news stories. Try googling “Air Force Academy” and Fundamentalist and see how many pages of references you come up with. Here’s just one quote from about.com:
I looked over the Clinton years version of the emergency planning directive. The difference in the two just made me shake my head. The one from the Clinton Administration is a detailed plan for agencies on what specifically to do before, during and after a crisis or emergency. It takes into consideration such things as care for vital information such as Social Security records. It requires that agencies prioritize needs. These plans are extremely detailed. They shouldn’t leave anyone wondering “who’s responsible?” It appears to me that the most important work is down beforehand.
Since Clinton is responsible only for the Executive Branch, his directive does not address the Legislature or the SCOTUS. He kept himself separate.
Bush’s directive I have already addressed. It was worded in such a way that it could be construed to mean just about anything. And it certainly says that he would be the coordinator of the Legislative Branch and the Supreme Court. He can say that that is Constitutional, Mr. Moto, but that just doesn’t make it so. His reputation for integrity has just bottomed out. Don’t you find it interesting that he even felt the need to reassure us?
I don’t honestly think that Bush can take over the government either. But ten years ago I never dreamed that we would openly torture people or hold prisoners without due process. I did not think that I would ever see us fight a war of aggression. I didn’t think that Vice Presidents could be so corrupt and without class and continue in office. This is just not the country that I have been familiar with since WWII. As Dorothy Parker said, “What fresh hell is this?”
One thing that the current Republicans have exposed is the fact that so much of the way our government has worked has been based not on explicit prohibitions, but on a common understanding of how things are supposed to work, and what sort of things would be wrong to do.
That is to say, at least I didn’t consider how much of the functioning of the government relied on the personal ethics and morality of the individuals in government. It’s a bit eye opening, but what is evident now is that if there are individuals who lack a sense of ethic, integrity or honor, the rules are not so clear as to prohibit them from violating every sense of what is proper, decent and honorable.
The present Republicans are the type of people who make groups or organizations come up with all sorts of explicit rules about what cannot be done that, later on, seem extreme or over the top in terms of the details and specifics. Rules-doctors with a psychopathic streak currently run our government.
The fact that there are still many in the general public who would support, defend or even just give these guys cover as a lark no longer surprises me. Perhaps what modern America somehow, for some reason, needs is a Republican government every thirty years to remind us just how corrupt, sleazy and untrustworthy our leaders can sink.
No it most certainly does not.
The plan specifically recognizes the separation of powers, but permits coordination with the plans drawn up by the other branches.
This does not mean that the executive has the power to coordinate the judicial or legislative plans, any more than they have the power to make unilateral changes in the executive plan. The coordination will be done by negotiation by staffers.
They are discussing the subject at hand, which is the same as it always is -
OHMIGODBUSHLIEDEVILBADIHATEHIMHATEHIMHATEHIMBADBUSHBADBUSHICKYICKYHATEHIMHATEHIM!!!
My preciiousssssssss…
Oh, and Zoe?
You were asked for a cite that showed that Bush is responsible for -
You then gave a cite that says -
Not quite the same thing, wouldn’t you agree?
“Quick”? I posted a link or two going back to 2004 that this kind of paranoid nonsense about Bush cancelling elections and becoming dictator was being preached and swallowed with fervor on the SDMB. Guess what? It was hysterical bullshit back in 2004, just like it is now, and for the same reasons.
Face it - you’re lying. You’re making shit up about Bush. What you are claiming is not true.
OK - if evidence came in that Bush was not plotting to cancel any elections, that this planning was pretty much identical to something done by Presidents going back to Truman, that every allegation about how sinister this all is was based solely and entirely on the paranoid delusion of the less rational fools of the far Left -
Would you change your mind then?
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, thanks ever so much for your reasoned non-response. I am curious, though-did you get that "OHMIGODBUSHLIEDEVILBADIHATEHIMHATEHIMHATEHIMBADBUSHBADBUSHICKYICKYHATEHIMHATEHIM!!!
My preciiousssssssss…" rant from Limbaugh, or did you think it up all by yourself?
And would you mind actually answering the question about whether you would change your mind about Bush if the cites were provided?
I made it up myself. The idea that it was a “non-response” is stupid.
Sure I’ll answer it. Provide the cites, from mainstream media, that all the charges are specifically true and that Bush is directly responsible for them. AND -
if you answer my question first.
None of this fucking weaseling. The charge was made that Bush is responsible because Jews at the Air Force Academy were told to accept Jesus or they would not be promoted (or whatever you want to call “getting ahead”). What was provided was a cite that the second in command sent an e-mail about the National Day of Prayer, and that he was immediately rebuked for it. So all I need to see is a cite that Bush started the National Day of Prayer, and instructed officials in the military to warn recruits that they had better become Christians.
You will also need to provide a cite that nobody was given time to read the Patriot Act before they passed it, and that the wiretaps were first begun based on the authority of the Iraq war resolution (and not from a program started under Mr. Peanut).
Then you can show how Bush cancelled the 2004 elections and is ruling by fiat.
Fire up Google, and get cracking.
Regards,
Shodan
Well Zoe, here’s the thing. I AM aware of this problem. However, thats not the assertion that was made, nor the one I asked for. Look back over the assertions made and try again…or not. AskNott seems to feel that I shouldn’t dare ASK for cites (the name and assertion is really quite funny…IMHO)
Thus far all I’ve seen is hand waving and ‘read the bloody news your conservative idiot’ type assertions…along with a cite for something other than what was asserted.
Since its not clear I guess, let me say right out…every one of those assertions is a distortion. If the poster wants to clean them up and bring them in line with reality, I’m all for it. Either do that or let me see the cites…
You funny.
-XT