English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Martial Law?
Suspended elections?
An Official Dictatorship?
Economic meltdown?

Because it seems that Bush is planning for DC to get nuked as per this "security directive" issued 5/10/2007.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Think about it and remember 9/11 WAS an inside job and the government has plenty of spare nukes.

Did I mention that "Homeland Security" has run three "interagency drills" in the last year where the assumption is a nuke going off in Baltimore harbor...google it

2007-05-11 05:24:55 · 22 answers · asked by Perry L 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

So how many of you READ the security directive? It is a "contigency" plan to relocate the government out of DC on a "temporary" basis.

2007-05-11 05:43:15 · update #1

Also there was a "security directive" issued in July 2001 that completely changed the way NORAD responds to "Hijacked Planes" ordering them to get Presidential Authorization before engaging any Hijacked Planes. Unfortunately Bush was busy reading "My Pet Goat" and was little late on the shoot down orders on 9/11.

2007-05-11 05:50:48 · update #2

22 answers

It would be the easiest way to get martial law declared, get us all into the "fema camps" (concentration camps), and help bush get a dictator status.

Hey, but you know he could put this e.o. into effect preparing for his buddy hillary clinton to finish the job....who knows. you know that all of the elite are working together by now, regardless of party affiliation, don't you?


oh, and you are right to be concerned any time you see terrorism drills coming to your town. on 9/11, there was a drill going on at the same time for the same thing happenend. on 7/7 in london, the exact same terror drills at the exact same time. the odds of these things happening at the same time of the drills are very poor, as seen in "terrorstorm."

I agree with Barbara. You should listen to her - she is a very smart woman.

2007-05-11 09:43:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I am thinking if they can fake an attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre , this is not out of the realm of possibility, provided the big guns are in a safe enough place at the time.

It is not as though lives of citizens matters too much to them. AND they are buying up a LOT of real estate in Tasmania lately. That is as far from Washington DC as you can get on the globe.

http://www.vialls.com/cowards/byebye.html
Elite Prepares to Desert America. With 'Fortress Americas' now in tatters because of Russia's coalition with Brazil and Venezuela, Wall Street's neocons and other Zionist traitors will desperately try to avoid War Crimes Tribunals and the waiting hangman's noose, by fleeing aboard special jets to a little-known Australian island

These guys are so off the wall and devious in their planning, it is truly hard to tell what one can expect and what is a smoke screen.

2007-05-11 06:07:09 · answer #2 · answered by Noor al Haqiqa 6 · 1 0

All governmental agencies all over the country are required to develop contingency plans (also called Cotinuation of Operations Plans - COOP). The purpose of these plans is to ensure governmental services will continue in the event of major threats agains our country, terrorist attacks, WMDs, or natural disasters.

It is SOP. It is a good idea. It has nothing to do with Bush. The liberal Democrats are just as involved with this as are the Republicans. So you can't point an incriminating finger in any one direction.

2007-05-11 05:58:55 · answer #3 · answered by Dr. D 7 · 2 0

Yeah, never mind that N.Korea already has nukes, Pakistan already has nukes, Iran is trying to make them, and Russia can't even account for all of thiers - and any of those could be a source form which a non-nuclear enemy obtain such a weapon and deploy it via 'terrorists' to a city in the US.

Obiviously, it's OK to criticize the government for not being ready for 9/11 or ready for Katrina - but it's /not/ OK to learn from that criticism and actually prepare for possible future attacks or disasters.

2007-05-11 05:29:42 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2 5

Holly Chernobyl!!!

2007-05-11 05:41:48 · answer #5 · answered by Jose R 6 · 2 0

Gosh, Bush is really starting to worry me. Or whoever it is that is pulling Bush's strings.

ARgghhh....
What ever happened to this whole idea about democracy? Seems like Bush is doing whatever he feels like regardless of even Congress and public opinion. Oh well, at least he's out of his office in about half a year, eh. I hope that what you're saying doesn't come to pass, though. It would be downright armaggedon. Spooky stuff, man.

2007-05-11 05:29:28 · answer #6 · answered by Adel 6 · 2 4

because war is good for the oil guys...

educate yourselves at: http://www.rense.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
its not that bush himself will do it. what will happen is he will let it happen by not listening/caring about what the intelligence community says.

just like 9/11...they had prior knowledge, but did nothing to prevent the attacks.

so whether bush physically pushes 'the button', or just ignores intellegence, he would be responsible if this were to happen.

2007-05-11 05:36:10 · answer #7 · answered by Brian 2 · 3 0

You know, I dislike Bush as much as the next intelligent person, but this is just loony. Having a plan in place for worst case scenarios is logical, not sinister. It doesn't show that they're planning it themselves (As your question says) or even expecting it. They just need to be ready in case it happens. Makes sense, actually. Must not have been their idea.

2007-05-11 05:40:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

omg..that sounds scary..
he isnt gonna b presedent for long
because of the elections let just
hope bush doesnt do anything wrong lol

2007-05-11 05:28:40 · answer #9 · answered by hippy_paranoid 2 · 2 1

Well I hope he sitting at his desk getting a BJ while it is getting nuked!!!

2007-05-11 05:36:14 · answer #10 · answered by $1,539,684,631,121 Clinton Debt 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers