He has put in place a plan that if there is any emergency in this country ( and it includes natural disasters, earthquakes, ect) that he and he alone will be in charge of the entire goverment. Is anyone else worried here?Here is a link to an article about it.
http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807
2007-05-24 05:00:01 · 16 answers · asked by kaisergirl 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yeah I went and read the actual text of it on the White House website, and yes, I am worried. I wouldnt trust that man with a dog I didnt like.
This, the warrantless wire-tapping, the open-ended wars, the firing of people for political reasons, the unbelievable levels of corruption in the government, etc etc, this sounds like something out of the old U.S.S.R., not something I'd expect in the USA.
I mean, realistically speaking, laws like this have been around under most Presidents. The part that worries me in the text of it is that theres no reference to the power of Congress whatsoever, whereas in previous Presidential Directives like this, there was always some kind of reference to Congress having to approve of what an "emergency" or "national crisis" is. With this one, the President alone decides what the definition of crisis is, can give himself total power without the Congress having any say, and can decide when the crisis is over, or not over. Thats what has me slightly worried.
But also realistically speaking, should Bush try to grab total power like that, the value of the US dollar would plummet, and Bush is so tied in with big business I cant see him doing that. But if theres one thing I've learned in the last 6 years, its that Bush always has the potential to surprise me and do things I wasnt expecting him to do.
2007-05-24 05:07:33 · answer #1 · answered by Jesus W. 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Oh I'm worried, but not surprised. This is the same man who invaded a country that posed no immediate threat to us, completely disregarded the writ of habeas corpus, and decided to tap everyones phone lines... but we all know that this has more to do with Cheney than Bush, he will be the one pulling the strings in any emergency.
2007-05-24 05:10:16 · answer #2 · answered by World Peace Girl 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, if something does happen, he and he alone will be to blame. Let's hope that he and all the next Presidents learned what not to do after Hurricane Katrina, in other words, they had better be on the ball, lickety split!
2007-05-24 05:18:01 · answer #3 · answered by robotchic 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Of course 9/11 and Katrina has demonstrated his competence.
2007-05-24 05:14:21 · answer #4 · answered by Matthew P 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ok let's get this straight. I think Bush is crazy, but you're just plain ridiculous. Bascically you want us to vote on a committee on whether we should send buses to New Orleans and then you criticize the government for being slow? Get out of here.
2007-05-24 05:07:26 · answer #5 · answered by -_- 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well he and his administration have done an exemplary job in New Orleans haven't they.
2007-05-24 05:09:57 · answer #6 · answered by Deidre K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it seems to me to be a direct response to all the criticism for Katrina. Everyone wanted to blame him and said he should take responsibility, so he has now.
2007-05-24 05:07:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think it's time to hitch up the bush-hog and head for the White House! What do you think? IMPEACH BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-05-24 05:08:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, I don't know if this is true. But you know that saying "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself".
2007-05-24 05:07:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, HE'S A GREAT LEADER...
Plus, your source is bogus. It's like citing something written by Hugo Chavez.
What's "anoint" mean?
2007-05-24 05:07:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋