http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071104/ap_on_re_as/pakistan;_ylt=Ai.gD._j77GzE.JyVWJ8R3ADW7oF
2007-11-04 01:50:06 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
minion = An obsequious follower or dependent; a sycophant.
2007-11-04 01:54:37 · update #1
Has anyone seen Executive Directive 51? Lays the groundwork for something like this.
Totally off point, but when are people going to realize Bush has little to do with this? It is all Cheney, him and the rest of the neo-con madmen just needed a likeable idiot to be the figurehead, which they got in Bush. Think about it, seperate the policies from the man, he is actually pretty nice, unlike Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the ilk.
2007-11-04 02:13:19 · answer #1 · answered by bacco l 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Pakistan is in deep trouble. By choosing to train the Tali bans and by entertaining international Islamic Terrorist groups it was playing a dangerous game.It lived by the sword and now has to die by the sword. Pervez Mussaraf has declared Emergency and nullified all constitutional rights. He is displeasing several groups simultaneously : Political Party leaders, Judiciary, students, Islamic Fundamentalists, Al Quaeda, Talibans
Pakistan has Nukes. That is dangerous.Only Bush and China have any control over Musharraf. He should be advised to leave Pakistan voluntarily and should go in exile to some chosen friendly country. Probably China.
2007-11-04 01:32:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First and foremost, the President of the United States, no matter who he is, does not have the power to suspend the Constitution. The President cannot suspend the meeting of Congress, it is separate from the Executive Branch. He also cannot suspend the Supreme Court from taking the Bench.
If the President were to try and do these things, it would be considered a High Crime and Misdemeanor. That means he will be impeached and probably convicted.
2007-11-04 01:02:09 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
confident. "British officers gave warning the former day that usa's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging conflict against the U. S.-subsidized Baghdad government. a stable assertion from standard David Petraeus approximately Iran's intervention in Iraq could desire to set the point for a US attack on Iranian militia centers, in accordance to a Whitehall assessment. In heavily watched testimony in Washington next week, Gen Petraeus will state that the Iranian threat has risen as Tehran has offered and directed assaults by militia combatants against the Iraqi state and its US allies."
2016-12-15 16:07:48 · answer #4 · answered by carcieri 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Bush had this same idea and in the planning stages.
It has been for quite some time. I am just not sure how he is going to do it. Another war or claiming a national disaster of some sort. He already has all his ducks in a row with all the power at hand.
Most people don't look at what the president actually signs. It is available on line.
2007-11-04 01:06:29 · answer #5 · answered by letfreedomring 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Of course they will. The government there will be overthrown. Someone that's not Musharraf will take power. They will have nukes. The US will be "forced" to invade to keep the world safe.
And yet another war the US cannot win will start.
2007-11-04 01:56:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I doubt it but if it would ever happen, Bush/Cheney would be the only ones with the audacity to try a stunt like that.
2007-11-04 01:59:34 · answer #7 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
with the folks that are runnin the place its possible
2007-11-04 01:53:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
three words for you
ridiculous
liberal
pap
go back to pelosi for more marching orders. this one aint gonna fly.
2007-11-04 01:56:40 · answer #9 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
I don't think so.
2007-11-04 01:54:07 · answer #10 · answered by Michael M 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋