libs! you sound just like the Y2K nuts. You really don't hear what you say do you?
The Y2K nut were certain that Clinton was going to declare marshal law and hand the country over to the U.N.. You Libs are just so pathetic, you can't even come up with anything new.
The constitution has always had in it provisions for suspending elections in a time of great distress. Bush did not write it it was there long before he was born. Your boogey man is just a President that has done his best to handle a problem that has been ignored for decades.
2007-09-23 05:35:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by Locutus1of1 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
Oh yes it will! Bush could have stopped the 1st one and didn't. He doesn't want to give up his dictatorship. He wants to declare martial law and stop the elections!
ABC News: U.S. Spy Chief: 9/11 'Could Have Been Prevented'; Failed to Connect Dots
U.S. Spy Chief: 9/11 'Could Have Been Prevented'
Director of National Intelligence Says U.S. Didn't Connect Available Information
Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, testifies on Capitol Hill on this Feb. 27, 2007
Six years after the deadliest attack on U.S. soil, the head of U.S. spy operations admitted to lawmakers that "9/11 should have and could have been prevented."
Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, told members of the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday that "it was an issue of connecting information that
was available."
McConnell, explaining that the intelligence community was, at the time, very focused on foreign threats, said the community allowed itself "to be separated from anything that was potentially domestic," and that domestic threats were
"not something we [were] supposed to be concerned with."
"Yeah, that translates to negligence," charged committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich.
"Or interpretation of the law — of how the culture had evolved," McConnell countered.
Given the vast resources of the intelligence community, along with the FBI's and CIA's knowledge that al Qaeda had an interest in flight training, and had sent 9/11 hijackers Khalid al Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi and terrorism suspect
Zacarias Moussaoui to undertake such training in the United States, McConnell said, "For whatever reason, we didn't connect the dots."
A federal judge in Virginia sentenced Moussaoui, the only person indicted in connection with the 9/11 attacks, to life in prison without the possibility of parole, in May 2006. "We could have done a better job as a community," McConnell told the House panel.
McConnell's admissions before the panel took a statement he made on June 29 a few steps further.
Guess you blew it!
Some protection the East coast has. We can't even get jets to go the right way!
2007-09-23 12:41:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
This question has been asked and answered time and time again. The consensus has been that the people of this country will not allow that to happen. His actions so far have made him one of the most unpopular presidents in our history, any attack would have to be calamitous and his response far better than the last time before another term would even be thought of.
2007-09-23 13:22:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He Cannot. only congress has the authority to grant G.W. another term, and them the PEOPLE would have to hire him again as out president in a national election.
I can only conclude that your one of them leftist-socialist liberal democraps that STILL believe that Bush STOLE the '04 election.
open your eyes and get your head out of your... Starbucks coffee cup.
Better yet, Read The Federalist Papers by James Madison. it's the "Doctor Spock's Big Book of Baby Care and feeding" for our Country. it's a guild and a good reference for HOW this country Should be run, and exactly what the Constitution means and how it should be interpreted.
2007-09-23 14:29:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by Elkin G 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is an interesting question; why limit the scenario to one particular politician--
Oklahoma bombing was at the hand of a citizen, then 9-11 was due to international criminals.
It appears that neither party was capable of handling the attrocities without a form of alteration of investigative efforts.
Both reflected an aspect of lax law enforcement, or intelligence to prevent dangerous occurances, (past tense). It sort of questions the quality of the persons hired to do these jobs they were hired for, there are dead Americans as a result. May they rest in peace.
2007-09-23 12:35:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
to the fellow below who says the constitution doesn't allow it
what's the maater with Bush people, don't they read the news?
bush signed papers saying he could do that about a month and a half ago: see the Continuity acts. And gain a clue.
2007-09-23 12:31:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
We'll start a rebellion. Or we could do what Gandhi did in India, where everyone stopped working and traveling for a few days. I will NOT live another four years under George Bush.
2007-09-23 12:28:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by BeautifulDevil 3
·
6⤊
0⤋
Complete intense revolution like we have never seen.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Join the truth join the ROn Paul revolution before its too late.
2007-09-23 12:31:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by stephenmwells 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Revolution
2007-09-23 12:26:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
1⤋
Hit the streets locked and loaded
2007-09-23 13:03:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋