From Daily Kos: Could a recently signed pres. directive keep Bush/Cheney in power after Jan 2009?

[gauguin57]

OK ... I'm even more scared ... :scared:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/29/12921/7971

Will Bush walk away in 2009?

"... Many of us have had a difficult time picturing how it's going to go in January of 2009. It's hard to imagine Bush and Cheney just walking away from their unpopular but apparently supernaturally powerful positions as the leaders of the Only Superpower On Earth. Well on May 9, Bush quietly signed a directive that may ensure that he and Tricky Dick II don't have to hand over the reigns.

It's called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive and provides Bush with everything he needs to provide "continuance" of, well, whatever he wants to "continue". ... Basically the directive states the in the case of a national Catastrophic Emergency", the President, along with the head of Homeland Security, can take over the government and do whatever they please in order to provide "continuance".

... (b) "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

Sounds innocent enough, right? But look at that phrase "regardless of location". What the hell is that supposed to mean? Stephen Pizzo at the Smirking Chimp puts it quite beautifully: Regardless of location? Would that include, say, a terrorist attack on Saudi oil fields and refineries? That would certainly "disrupt" the U.S. population and economy. ... "or government functions." Would that include mass public protests such as those during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War eras? ...

[whistle]

1. It certainly can and most likely will unless congress impeaches them both now!

[wakeme2008]

2. See my thread King Bush will have 103 full time Secret Service Agents

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3288877

[bamacrat]

3. Holy Fucking Shit. We are in store for a 9/11 part two.

I can only imagine what they have cooked up for the next "terror attack"

[Bitwit1234]

4. When you put all the stuff he has done

together, a person would certainly wonder why he would be sitting up this dictatorship type presidency unless he thought he would benefit from it.

I have wondered why he continues to seize more and more power. He knows according to the way things are going, there is in all probability going to be a democrat in office next. So why would he want them to have all this power. The maniac is going to wait til his term is almost up, bomb Iran and then declare an emergency and become the first real dictator of this country. The little wimp enjoys the power. The first time in his life he has been able to call the shots and have everybody bow down to him. What has he done in his miserable life except ruin this country.

[Richard Steele]

5. Exactly. If he's INCREASING "Presidential Powers", it's because he's not planning to leave. nm

[ccpup]

7. you're half-right

the dimwit in the Oval Office doesn't actually call the shots. He only thinks he does. His coterie of handlers and yes-men (and women) nod their heads, smile and say things like "excellent idea, Mr. President" or "that's a great plan, Mr. President" (you and I both know people are forced to address him as Mr. President at all times as well as monogram everything article of clothing he owns with the Presidential Seal, right?) and then they turn to Cheney -- who actually runs things -- and get their marching orders. Bush is placated when things don't go his way and then, boom!, they put another shiny object in front of him and all is well until the next temper-tantrum or "choke on a pretzel/fall off a segway/who put that wall there?" moment.

I often wonder what will happen to the Campaigner in Chief when he learns that repugs running for Office in 2008 really don't want him on-the-stump for them. 'But I was told I was the most popular President in modern times', he'll cry to himself as he figures out what to do with his time now.

[bamacrat]

6. A president that allowed unknowingly or not 2 terror attacks during his time in office

should be thrown out of office for incompetence, not given an endless reign.

[magellan]

8. I'm going to be the voice of dissent here

Bush** doesn't need to remain in office because the agenda will move forward no matter who is elected. And THAT is what should scare people.

[Mark Twain Girl]

18. Yep, that's it -- there's the rub. n/t

[Toots]

47. When your grand children have children Alita will still be a Justice

He will be there for at least another forty years and Roberts is not much older.

[renate]

9. I wonder why KO didn't mention this last week... Thom Hartmann did

This would seem to be the hugest of all the huge stories of recent years--that Bush and Cheney are putting plans in place to grab power without end.

[NightWatcher]

10. I dont think that he will walk away. Because...

the WH people have not appeared to enter the pres race yet. There is no "Carlyle Group-er" who has appeared on the stage yet. We know that they like to fix elections, but who are they going to fix it for, Romney? Mitt-ens is the only one with a connection to the venture capital companies that really rule our planet. He founded Bain Capital back in 1984.

When I dont see the WH getting behind a candidate, I get worried that it is because they know that there will not be a replacement.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. No

a presidential order cannot do that.

[renate]

23. is a presidential directive different from an executive order?

Because if not, have any of Bush's executive orders been rescinded yet? (Is it even possible to do that? I thought that was the whole idea of executive orders--that Congress couldn't do anything about them.)

I'd like to share your optimism, I really would. But there just doesn't seem to be any limit on the powers that Bush is taking for himself... and as others have pointed out, why would he declare these kind of powers for the president if he (or a hand-picked successor) weren't planning to be the president for a long time?

[MonkeyFunk]

25. There is absolutely nothing

in the directive that gives him the power to cancel elections. All the crazy paranoid theories being espoused here are being made up out of whole-cloth - the product of fevered imaginations.

[renate]

27. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm hoping you're right, but...

...while there may not be anything in there specifically about elections, this part concerns me:

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

And why is a National Continuity Policy even needed if there would be an orderly and constitutional transfer of powers?

I'm also concerned because I heard Thom Hartmann talk about this last week as if it were a means by which Bush could stay in power. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not as smart as Thom, so I took his word for it that he either had a lawyer take a look at it or he saw something in it I didn't.

I sure do hope you're right, though, MonkeyFunk. I would be absolutely thrilled (but surprised) if it turns out we're just being paranoid about this.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. we'll know in year and a half or so...

People believed the 2002, 2004 and 2006 elections would be canceled, and any attempt to argue against that resulted in lots of name-calling.

So all I can say is "we'll see".

[rateyes]

12. If those fuckers try to stay in power....

all hell will break loose.

[Frustratedlady]

13. And they have weakened our military...

to prevent a coup?

I have scanned over some of the articles that suggested such a takeover by this administration as folly but, with each passing day, I am getting more and more frightened.

I still can't understand why we aren't marching enmasse in the streets.

[leeroysphitz]

16. This administration seems to be depressingly prone to folly. nt

[Matariki]

26. while strengthening Blackwater, i might add.

i think this is exaggerated paranoia, but i admit i sometimes succumb to it...

[NNN0LHI]

14. Giuliani tried to stay mayor after 9/11 when he was due to leave office to "protect us"

This is in these Nazis blood.

Don

[NYCGirl]

35. And he was spectacularly unsuccessful in grabbing power. NT

[tmlanders]

15. How does this happen?

How can something like this be done without the consent of Congress?

[gauguin57]

17. Checks and balances go bye-bye.

If you need me, I'll be in my bunker.

[blues90]

19. I heard bush and condi say

We are safer but not completely safe not long ago which effectivly gives them an excuse if we are attacked again , this talk worries me . Everytime they plan ahead and place doubt there is always some plan behind their actions .

We may very well find no elections in 2009 and should focus more on now than on the 2009 elections and all the candidates hype we are being battered with now , this is how we got screwed the last elections by not paying attention to their wording as if it were minimal as a threat .

[calimary]

20. That's what my husband has been saying. He is certain there will be

no election in 2008. He keeps talking about how he fully expects bush to waive the election because of some "national emergency" or because "we're at war" or some other crap (ESPECIALLY if it's looking like a Democratic rout - for a candidate who's vowed to end the war as soon as he/she steps into the Oval Office - and bush thinks the war must be continued).

I'm beginning to wonder about that one myself. Otherwise, why would he have signed that executive order that gives him ALL power during whatever "national emergency" case HE so designates? EVERYTHING this asshole does MUST be looked at with suspicion. And looked at for its underlying ulterior motives. NOTHING this bastard does is on the up-n-up.

[Hubert Flottz]

21. "NOTHING this bastard does is on the up-n-up."

Bush has a reason to have done this or he wouldn't have gone to the trouble. He is plotting IMHO!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

22. I was worried sick in '92/3 that Poppy wouldn't leave office.

But he did.
Somehow I think these current bastigiz will sufficiently privatize their operations by '09 so that staying in office would be unnecessary and maybe counterproductive.

[onenote]

24. I've read the directive and I'm still not sure what it does and doesn't do

For one thing, it replaces a directive adopted by Pres Clinton, but I can't find the language of that directive so its impossible for me to ascertain how much farther this one goes than the old one.

Second, I don't see where it takes Congress out of the equation or specifically allows the president to stay in office. Anyone able to cite to specific language that allows chimpy to override the constitution or others statutes?

[dysfunctional press]

29. no. even the repugs wouldn't sit still for something like that.

people WOULD take to the streets.

[librechik]

34. what? They did it in 2000--and the only demonstrations were from Rove's office

that was highly unusual and against the constitution--yet nobody raised much of a fuss. Americans don't like to do that, generally.

[dysfunctional press]

39. entirely different situation.

they were able to use the media to fudge things enough to pull it past a lot of people, but a president dictator trying to stay more than 8 years, people understand...and in 2000, the debacle in iraq was still just an intention, not a reality.

[librechik]

43. they'll spin it so that a lot of folks don't know or don't believe it

it will be as hard as it was in 2000. People still don't know/believe Al Gore won, and the media refuses to discuss it.

[dysfunctional press]

46. if you want to worry about it, that's your perogative.

i honestly don't see it happening, and don't intend to lose any sleep over it.

[Javaman]

30. What to you mean "could"? they are planning on it. nt

[Javaman]

31. I'm waiting for his*speech on the glorious 4th reich and how it will last 1000 years. nt

[momster]

50. Rove Gave That One

Something about 'a permanent Republican majority?'

How's that workin' out for ya, Rovie?

[redacted]

32. KICK

[librechik]

33. Catastrophic emergency= many more Dems than Pukkkes flood the polls

on election day 08.

[Frustratedlady]

40. Gee, didn't we do that in 2004?

The way our votes are handled, it seems it doesn't matter how many Dems make it to the voting booths.

[librechik]

44. yup--they got a game for every situation

bastards

[redacted]

36. Here's another article: "Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency"

Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency

by Lee Rogers

Global Research, May 21, 2007
roguegovernment.com

The Bush administration has released a directive called the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”, the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.

The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.

"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;

So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail. Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.

The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721

[Cha]

38. Where are our esteemed

Democrats on this? Why aren't they making sure fucking bush leaves not a fucking second too soon on Jan 20, 2009?

[redacted]

48. Good question. Inexplicable, isn't it? Time to raise hell?

No rational explanation I can think of. Either they don't yet know, or they don't mind the very serious potential of a dictatorship in this country.

[Initech]

37. You don't think these fuckers will leave office in 2009?

[Blaze Diem]

41. Makes Bush's "...dictator" statement even more ominous..

though this does fall right into place with a fascist gov't. George & Dick's wet dream.

I want Keith Olberman to know of this...make some noise.

Death comes to democracy in silence..like a thief in the night..
IMPEACH

[lovuian]

42. I havesaid they have no intention of leaving the WH

I would not be surprised at all

[seemslikeadream]

45. Oh my - from the people who don't allow discussions about 9/11

except for the offical conspiracy theory

[RedCappedBandit]

49. oh good, we have time to impeach him now

:sarcasm:

[mod mom]

51. From TPM: EXPERTS: PREZ DIRECTIVE NOTHING NEW

Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New
By Laura McGann - May 29, 2007, 3:31 PM

When a presidential directive appeared on the White House’s Web site on May 9, seemingly expanding the president's powers after a catastrophic attack, readers began emailing us asking why there had been no uproar in the media or amongst civil liberties groups.

The consensus amongst experts seems to be that the directive, aimed at establishing "continuity of government" after a major disaster, is not new nor does the policy seem to expand executive power.

In fact, Mike German, the policy counsel to the ACLU’s Washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might “not be that bad of an idea.”

Executive power expert, NYU law professor David Golove, also sent me an email saying the directive didn’t appear to be a power grab.

-snip
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

[mod mom]

53. THAT SAID...

This was posted under comments and makes an astute point:

The secret annexes to the executive order which are incorporated into the executive order by reference is not more of the same. Secret executive orders by annex? Very Rovian, and much in the old tradition of alito when he was a WH/Justice lawyer.

[Philosoraptor]

52. If we're lucky, there'll be an asteroid impact on the White House.

Otherwise it's Lord of the Flies time.