Comments (88)

Garth wrote on May 29, 2007 3:53 PM:

if only Bush could be trusted.

therein lies the rub.

impeach bush
impeach cheney
install pelosi

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent - Isaac Asimov

Peter wrote on May 29, 2007 3:56 PM:

Wow, what do you know. Sometimes a presidential directive is just a presidential directive.

bobh wrote on May 29, 2007 4:21 PM:

What these directives fail to realize in planning as well as doctrine is that if ever a situation crippled America so much that they were needed the presidents power would likely extend a fe hundred miles in any direction and thats about it. Regions would fend for themselves and we'd all get a lesson in old world politics as we devolve. If we aren't picked apart by our neighbors or a agressive enemy invader we'd stitch together in a few years, maybe....maybe.

Mark Richards wrote on May 29, 2007 4:41 PM:

But why issue a new one? What's wrong with existing rules? Why not go to congress and get the needed authorization rather than issuing what amounts to a decree?

I echo the "if only Bush could be trusted" part.

Frankly, given his supreme authority grab, I view these attempts at legitimacy with a suspicion that suggests these are cover for deeper malfeasance and a signpost to further horror.

Anonymous wrote on May 29, 2007 5:30 PM:

what is the difference between Bush's "line item veto's" and his presidental directives...noting!

Moreover, the directive that was signed May 14/15 is the most troubling...it is his way of having total power in the event of a natural or man made disaster...

Rick Cass wrote on May 29, 2007 6:32 PM:

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.

Spencer's Mom wrote on May 29, 2007 7:34 PM:

I'm with Garth, "if only Bush could be trusted."

Bush's numbers are in the toilet, the GOP is splintering, and I just can't help feeling that these ghouls would do anything, ANYTHING, to try to hold onto the White House in '08.

I scare myself just thinking that an administration could/would perpetrate a catastrophy on it's own people just to retain political power, but nothing about the extent of illegal behavior surprises me anymore.

I sure hope I'm wrong and it's just the tinfoil in the kitchen talking...

PEACE

treepeony wrote on May 29, 2007 7:39 PM:

Even if this power is nothing new, what is new is a president so untrustworthy that I'll not be surprised if a false flag attack occurs next year in October, Bush declares martial law, and he suspends the national election. I expect this Supreme Court would support him and Gonzales (should he survive his term in the DOJ) would bring all the police power of the federal government to maintain Bush.

Congress must restrain this man.

Laura wrote on May 29, 2007 7:39 PM:

Nothing to worry about? What about the "classified Continuity Annexes"?

I agree with Garth. Bush has given us every reason not to trust him. Without knowing exactly what's in those "classifed" annexes, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Isaac wrote on May 29, 2007 7:39 PM:

Violence is the last (refuge) of the incompetent. -Isaac Asimov

dougdavo wrote on May 29, 2007 7:42 PM:

Has anyone checked the ACLU's Mike German to see if he's been replaced by an exact duplicate controlled by...where's that tinfoil hat?

dougdavo wrote on May 29, 2007 7:42 PM:

Has anyone checked the ACLU's Mike German to see if he's been replaced by an exact duplicate controlled by...where's that tinfoil hat?

starwheel wrote on May 29, 2007 7:46 PM:

Thanks Josh and TPM Team.

I caught a couple Thom Hartmann podcasts over the past few weeks and how he explained it was absolutely chilling. I tend not to believe everything I hear on talk radio but I did not take the time to look dig into this any further.

The fact that your team devoted some time to it is much more than I could ever expect from the mainstream media.

I, too, am deeply cynical about what the current administration is capable of considering their history of piddling on the Constitution.

Perhaps I'll rest a little easier tonight.

Mike Valentine wrote on May 29, 2007 7:46 PM:

The yiddish expression for screw you is trust me.

Bush is Jewish? Who knew?

Mike M. wrote on May 29, 2007 7:53 PM:

I'm still surprised people aren't more worried about this. The lesson of the Bush Administration has been that executive powers that other presidents used without mucking things up have been entirely misused by Bush & Co. Maybe it's not unusual for Bush to have this authority. Maybe it's just an update of powers that all presidents have had "just in case." But this is Bush we're talking about here. You remember? Worst. President. Ever.

Austin Cooper wrote on May 29, 2007 7:55 PM:

The document itself may be nothing new, but what about the timing?

That too could be explained: Having created generations of Muslims who hate what we've done to them and their families, this is Bush's way of saying "Wal, they're gonna get us sooner or later!", so they need to ensure that the Republican Party, Richard Perle's writings, and Paul Wolfowitz's used condoms are preserved for prosperity.

Code = news, as in, This is...?

bjobotts wrote on May 29, 2007 7:58 PM:

Yes, of course. But this is the first president who actually said a dictatorship wasn't a bad idea as long as he was the dictator. Who has consistently used signing statements to place himself above the law and with the Comey testimony about illegal activities connected to the WH and all the lies that got us into this deadly occupation in Iraq...
It's enough to make anyone paranoid about this Presidential Directive because with this president, nothing is business as usual.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on May 29, 2007 7:58 PM:

I'll join in the outlook, "if only bush could be trusted."

I get the creepy feeling they released to this public as a warning, if something goes catastrophically wrong, if the bush administration commits criminal negligence again as they did on September 11, 2001 ... they can say, "We told you we were going to do this."

bush cannot be trusted to change a light bulb, and yet we are supposed to trust him with such a broad expanse of power? (precedented or not)

Nathanael Nerode wrote on May 29, 2007 8:00 PM:

It's suspicious simply because Bush felt the need to replace Clinton's version with a new version.

What was wrong with Clinton's version?

Then, if you actually *read* it, another problem with this directive pops out: it purports to give the President power over the *Congress* and *Supreme Court* in the event of such an emergency. This is a blatant violation of separation of powers and could very easily be used in order to get rid of those annoying "other branches".

MB wrote on May 29, 2007 8:12 PM:

It just doesn't make sense that this directive is "nothing new" -- if so, why deliver it at all?

pft wrote on May 29, 2007 8:18 PM:

So replacing a clear directive whose subject is simply the "Federal Executive Branch COOP",which all branches of government have, with a directive

1) titled "National Continuity Policy" that states "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government". Federal government being all branches of government.

2)covering the continuity of all Federal Government structures and operations and creating the position of a National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies.

Where is congress involvement here since this directive does not seem to be limited to the Executive Branch.?

He has again issued a directive replacing clarity with ambiguity that could be interpreted in various ways. Since we do not have the luxury of going to the courts during National Emergencies this means the interpretation on what the directive means rests with the President, until the Emergency is over.

Blue Shark wrote on May 29, 2007 8:30 PM:

I was going to say nothing here...but the security code to post is: SCREW...

...now THAT is appropriate!

neil wrote on May 29, 2007 8:38 PM:

Sheesh, what a bunch of paranoid maniacs. You'd think that Bush couldn't launch a coup d'etat without filing a classified executive order or something. That's just not how it works. If you overthrow the government, you overthrow the government. You don't write a document laying out how you're going to do it.

Nestor wrote on May 29, 2007 8:41 PM:

For another opinion, check out Jerome Corsi on YouTube.

arch stanton wrote on May 29, 2007 8:44 PM:

I wouldn't think twice about it except...well, I kinda think this country is headed toward a few major crises in the relatively near future. Its over folks.

angryvietnamvet wrote on May 29, 2007 8:44 PM:

Of course, a blatant "coup" by bush, turning the federal government into the bushchaneyrove junta has been slowly in the making for some time, or haven't you noticed? The Directive 51 is just the vaseline to make slide in more easily when they decide to not just ignore, but do away with the Congress...as far as the Supreme Court, well, since they installed this usurper as "President" on day one of "The Day the Country Died" back in 2000, I do not expect that bunch to raise any objections...they will be as silent as Justice Thomas the tongueless one...

Steve Paradis wrote on May 29, 2007 8:49 PM:

That's not scary. VICE-Presidential directives--that's scary. Dick's probably issuing one a week, and the next time Bush goes in for a 'scope, they'll all be released. Number one is probably about something called Ecomcon.

Joseph L Clark wrote on May 29, 2007 8:58 PM:

Laura, Josh,

If presidential directive number 51 has changed no precedent, why was it issued?

J Clark,
Atlanta

Hedley Lamarr wrote on May 29, 2007 9:01 PM:

I'd look for a following signing statement.

snarfle wrote on May 29, 2007 9:04 PM:

Everybodys missing the point: this lazy jerkoff of a president won't lift a finger do anything that doesn't directly benefit him in some way. Doesn't matter whether it 'looks' benign... it CAN'T be if he took the effort to sign it.

SeeDee wrote on May 29, 2007 9:06 PM:

All this gnashing of the teeth and wringing of hands...just over yet another 'in your face' move by a megalomanic imposter.

Surely you do not expect our newly empowered Democratic Congress (Demo-rats, that is) to raise any objections or questions.

What about it, Nancy, Harry, Steny???

Like Sheehan, I must be 'dis-illusioned'. Ho-hum...

FlaLaw wrote on May 29, 2007 9:11 PM:

Actually, the directive doesn't purport to give the Executive authority over Congress or the Supreme Court. It simply lists "the functions of the legislative and judicial branches" as "Government Functions" that the COG and COOP plans should aim to preserve. I sincerely hope that any continuity plan would aim to preserve the legislative and judicial branches.

The directive also "Recogniz[es] that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs." Thus, it provides for "an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability... ."

The only thing this makes you wonder is: Why didn't the previous Continuity of Operations Plans explicitly provide for coordination with the legislative and judicial branches' continuity plans?

Anonymous wrote on May 29, 2007 9:12 PM:

Yes, and the IWR was just a formality to provide some clout at the UN.

Allsburg wrote on May 29, 2007 9:28 PM:

This is why I love you guys. This explains your true value to society. When there's a non-story, you just let it go. It's truth you are after, not any particular political agenda. Go TPM!

cromulant wrote on May 29, 2007 9:30 PM:

I am with Garth too: it is too much to believe this is a benign directive. Bush is not trustworthy. And instead of asking why wasn't it done before now, start asking why it is being done now.

bloomingpol wrote on May 29, 2007 9:32 PM:

Our little town has the same sort of thing on a smaller scale, so that we have some idea of who is going to run stuff in a dire emergency.

bcg wrote on May 29, 2007 9:33 PM:

All the informed commentary points to this as a red herring. At this time, the executive branch wouldn't issue an order that challenged established precedent: they've already got too much shit coming down the pike to ask for more.
I agree with the earlier posters: the question isn't about what's in this directive, but about what was in the directives that it replaces. It's an interesting question; but, since I'd guess that they remain classified, I doubt we'll find out until some indeterminate time in the future.

Rick Cass wrote on May 29, 2007 9:33 PM:

For those feeling like this is no big deal, I ask 1}read the whole directive, slowly, twice. As yourself whether the Executive branch's coordination activity is directive or cooperative. Ask yourself where Annex "A" is. Then ask yourself how many classified, secret annexes, which are part of the original executive order there are, and what they provide. Can Homeland security remove you from your home, or place you in one of the Haliburton camps? Direct which corporations or other businesses get priority on the highways? On rail transit? Will the internet be coopted, in the naqme of national security to keep us from commmunicating? I don't know, maybe not. But this is Bush and cheney.

voxoo wrote on May 29, 2007 9:34 PM:

Peter Dale Scott has a talk on Where was Cheney on 9/11 at 9/11 blogger. He talks about COG and about Cheney and RUmmy writing the Reagan era directives that come up when you google 'u.s. concentration camps'

he points out RUmmy wasn't even in gov't at the time

remember that Halliburton contract a yr ago to build new u.s. detention camps

Wiltmellow wrote on May 29, 2007 9:46 PM:

One constant, one certainty, one reality, one theme, from December 12, 2000 until this minute.

Power.

The Bush unitary executive will not relinquish it. (Voluntarily.)

The how of the matter is up to them.

VL wrote on May 29, 2007 9:49 PM:

Will the internet be coopted, in the naqme of national security to keep us from commmunicating?

---

I think that's kind of the scariest thing--and even one of the most likely, since it's relatively easy to do. Then you only have MSM and maybe a little cable. Then go the cell phone towers . . .

Yossarian wrote on May 29, 2007 9:55 PM:

Bush can't be trusted on this one. He should not be trusted on this. I bet he is up to something sneaky and malicious. He is probably preparing to take over the country after the next presidential elections. He will have one of his goons call in an attack on us and then say "look we just got attacked and i think i am the best person to take over, new president elect and the constitution be damned."

Security Code: debt as in "I am paranoid about debt to China"

misplaced wrote on May 29, 2007 10:25 PM:

The security code: "wind" as in pissing into...

Are you all just bitching and kvetching? Or are you DOING something to change our reality. I love this blog for the viewpoints, but it's easy to get mired in conspriacy theories. I hope you're writing your local papers, your Representatives and Senators with these same vigor and candor (less the profanity and paranoia), because some of these concerns are legitimate. It's just hard to see those enlightened points of reason hidden in all the crap.

Also, I'm not willing to write off this Democratic Congress yet. You can't expect 6 years of subversive policy and politics to be remedied in 6 months. In other words, you can't fix an open chest wound with a bandaid or even five or six bandaids. I WANT them to be thoughtful, thorough and methodical in their governing because those are important qualities of leadership -- qualities absent in the Bush administration.

Mimi Schaeffer wrote on May 29, 2007 10:32 PM:

I haven't really looked at the fine print but one thing that I remember sticking out is the fact that Bush assigned to himself all the power, whereas the Clinton directive did not.

Yossarian wrote on May 29, 2007 10:34 PM:

Dear friend misplaced:

Do you really believe any of us on this blog are capable of doing anything? Are you kidding me? If we could we wouldn't be here yapping away our grief. We would be too busy fixing these problems instead of just writing to this blog. We are all here to just relax and have fun like little chatty Kathys.

Irina wrote on May 29, 2007 10:42 PM:

We have been writing to the MSM and our "representatives."

By all means lets give these asshats all the money they want. I am so sick of this shit. Congress, specifically our functional majority in the house, needs to say "NO" to war funding bills......

This is in line with his latest stuntTo create a dictatorship!!!

This will effectively pull most of the combat troops out of the US. Does anyone know where his mercenary army is currently located?

George has nothing to look forward too once he leaves office, he's served his purpose and will be of no concern. But, if he can make sure that the US military is effectively stuck in Iraq, and not able to offer any resistance, his private army made up of mercs from Blackwater and Dyncorp to name just two can establish martial law and he can keep remain the President for as long as he pleases.

I know it's a tinfoil hat moment, but it's possible?.......

“Notice the media and even the Dems won’t touch this subject , you don’t hear a word about it”

scartletwoman wrote on May 29, 2007 10:42 PM:

bcg writes: "At this time, the executive branch wouldn't issue an order that challenged established precedent: they've already got too much shit coming down the pike to ask for more."

Are you kidding? THEY'RE not distracted, WE'RE distracted. That's why it's the perfect time for them to pull some more shit.

That's been the bush administration M.O. from day one: just keep pushing for more power, no matter what else is going on. And the more stuff going on, the better -- it lets them sneak stuff through while everyone is looking at something else.

Justice Putnam wrote on May 29, 2007 10:48 PM:

This is a telling statement:

"... German called the release a positive sign, but said he urges the release of all previous directives so we can get a real sense of what has changed."

Seems like nothing, but what has changed? Does anyone know?

yathink wrote on May 29, 2007 10:49 PM:

Re: "Sheesh, what a bunch of paranoid maniacs. You'd think that Bush couldn't launch a coup d'etat without filing a classified executive order or something. That's just not how it works. If you overthrow the government, you overthrow the government. You don't write a document laying out how you're going to do it.
Posted by: neil"

Actually, Bushco has been announcing virtually every move. Only people like you don't take him seriously or most don't even know about it. I don't trust a word for a minute. The apologists can go on saying "It's all OK."

I know it is not. As I've told one of my senators for a couple years now, this is not your father's Republican party. Rove et al will do anything, say anything, and we are all losers if we accept it. They lie as a course of action, but they do whatever they want.

Could we stop this nonsense now? Doubtful, since the majority party won't prosecute anyone.

Anybody else fed up?

jimmo wrote on May 29, 2007 11:12 PM:

I would not normally quote the Governor of Ca., but anyone willing to trust our democracy to Bush is , "getting a little girlish". Remember, the Dept. of Justice has been turned into the "brownshirt brigade of Just-us." It is not "morning in America, it is midnight." Do you get my drift? It is time for the real patriots in this country to step up, or it is game, set, and match. PROGRESSIVE Bloggers acting like the MSM WILL NOT GET IT DONE!

Also, Nancy Pelosi's calculated capitulation on the impeachment issue was seen, and was, a sign of weakness in the Democrats. It was the dumbest statement I have ever heard in politics. What it said was our laws and Constitution do not matter---that it was just a political issue. Doesn't she know it is her duty to support the law and the Constitution.

We need Democrats that are willing to stand toe-to-toe with these thugs, fight them, and not blink.

macdust wrote on May 29, 2007 11:23 PM:

If you seriously wanted to know what's up, you would ask the following of people who know the answers:

Why was a continuity-of-government bill so high on the legislative priority list in 2005?

Where are the main alternate-government locations, and what has been happening in those places? Which have been closed, which re-opened, which expanded? Where are the new ones and what is their function?

Where have senior administrative officials been relocating their personal residences and why?

Where does continuity-of-government sit in the list of national intelligence priorities?

Where does continuity-of-government sit among the political priorities of the American Enterprise Institute and its rooted cuttings.

What activities has FEMA been rehearsing?

What private firms have been retained to implement the continuity-of-government programs and what are they getting in return, both now and in the the aftermath of martial law?

What is the practical power of the States under Martial Law?

etc.

Yossarian wrote on May 29, 2007 11:25 PM:

Here Here yathink! I agree fully with you. But what are you suggesting we the people do?

Propagandee wrote on May 29, 2007 11:53 PM:

Heard Congresswoman Barbara Lee tell Bill Press on his radio show last week that she'd look into it.

Press is pretty freaked out about it and has given it a lot of play.

Yossarian wrote on May 30, 2007 12:05 AM:

Press would get freaked out about anything even a Panda eating bamboo. The Dems are just pussies and they have proven it time and time again over the past 13 years. I don't expect them to do crap. Dems will not win the presidency nor will they keep control of senate and the house after the next election. You heard it here first.

Security Code: meat as in "we are just dead meat for the republicans" the dems said.

Yossarian wrote on May 30, 2007 12:08 AM:

I say the best candidate (dem or repub) out there for president right now is Huckabee. Vote for Huckabee!

Yossarian wrote on May 30, 2007 12:13 AM:

Dems are just hustlers. Reps are just pimps.

aarrgghh wrote on May 30, 2007 1:02 AM:

the directive that was signed may 14/15 is the most troubling ... it is his way of having total power in the event of a natural or man made disaster ...

i scare myself just thinking that an administration could/would perpetrate a catastrophy on it's own people just to retain political power ...

even if this power is nothing new, what is new is a president so untrustworthy that i'll not be surprised if a false flag attack occurs next year in october, bush declares martial law, and he suspends the national election. i expect this supreme court would support him and gonzales (should he survive his term in the doj) would bring all the police power of the federal government to maintain bush.

of course, a blatant "coup" by bush, turning the federal government into the bushchaneyrove junta has been slowly in the making for some time, or haven't you noticed? the directive 51 is just the vaseline to make slide in more easily when they decide to not just ignore, but do away with the congress ...

can homeland security remove you from your home, or place you in one of the haliburton camps? direct which corporations or other businesses get priority on the highways? on rail transit? will the internet be coopted, in the naqme of national security to keep us from commmunicating?

remember that halliburton contract a yr ago to build new u.s. detention camps

he is probably preparing to take over the country after the next presidential elections. He will have one of his goons call in an attack on us and then say "look we just got attacked and i think i am the best person to take over, new president elect and the constitution be damned."

george has nothing to look forward too once he leaves office, he's served his purpose and will be of no concern. but, if he can make sure that the us military is effectively stuck in iraq, and not able to offer any resistance, his private army made up of mercs from blackwater and dyncorp to name just two can establish martial law and he can keep remain the president for as long as he pleases.

hmmm ... a lot of you guys — too many — sound like the same chicken littles who were endlessly predicting false flag attacks and marshal law all of last year in the run-up to the elections ...

while it makes exciting and breathless blog chatter, i just don't see it, folks. it's not like bushco hasn't already had ample opportunities to set these paranoid fantasies in motion:

but i don't recall our congress being abolished nor any marshal law decrees being issued nor any halliburton death camps being filled after 9-11.

nor any after katrina.

nor before the election.

so tell me what are they waiting for?

myrtle june wrote on May 30, 2007 1:45 AM:

So why a new one if they're is nothing new in it since the old one? What's that about? Did the old one run out? There's a reason. What is it?

Audacious wrote on May 30, 2007 2:00 AM:

Combine that directive with a dirty bomb and what happens to the remaining threads of democratic ideals left in this country?

Paul in LA wrote on May 30, 2007 3:49 AM:

Ms. Sheehan is a Gold Star Mother. Her protest has always been a burden that more Americans should have supported. Even so, she is walking wounded of Bush's illegal genocidal war, and I'm glad she is leaving the public role. She believes she is disillusioned, but I think she is still in shock.

Anyone disillusioned simply does not believe in politics, and people at this site are surely not among those. We have probably the best Speaker in decades (who voted nay on this and the Iraq Resolution, etc.), and we have 140 solid no votes to Bushco policies. That's pretty good considering they've been stealing the elections on a grand scale, including of course in 2000 and 2004 (as the caging lists demonstrate, along with the firing of the entire elections board in Cuyahoga Cty for cause, etc.).

Bush's 'Executive theory' is not legal, and not constitutional. So if the ACLU wants to whistle in the graveyard of Bushcoism, that's their perfume. The rest of us are ENTIRELY AWARE that Bush considers his Executive power absolute, and Dick Cheney thinks that the Office of the Vice President is somehow the fourth branch of government. The theory of their dictatorial opinions has been amply revealed, and Cheney has repeatedly openly threatened a terrorist attack if the Democrats won, passed some bill, or in any way tried to forestall their accession to more power.

So, no, starwheel, if you need to be sung to sleep at night, a bottle of scotch is a better friend that some twit at the ACLU.

Paul in LA wrote on May 30, 2007 4:00 AM:

"Also, Nancy Pelosi's calculated capitulation on the impeachment issue was seen, and was, a sign of weakness in the Democrats." --jimmo

H'yeah, jimmo, that's why it's called NOT HAVING ENOUGH VOTES to impeach AND convict.

One of the main reasons why the Congress is stymied has directly to do with the illegal stopping of Republican indictments by Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove's "staff." We do not have the votes because there are people in OUR SEATS in the government.

That is not Speaker Pelosi's fault. She did not create the Blue Dogs and she did not create the votefraud system that is foisting this illegal gov't down our throats.

Luckily, as I see it, Speaker Pelosi is not going to risk it all on whether the 5-4 Supreme Court will allow an Executive conviction during war. We have to remove Gonzales and restart the indictments to go forward.

Blaming the 140 + 19 is not the path to restoring our laws.

Paul in LA wrote on May 30, 2007 4:13 AM:

"Could we stop this nonsense now? Doubtful, since the majority party won't prosecute anyone." --yathink

The party does not have prosecutorial powers anyhow.

The Congress, on the other hand, can refer charges, and we are a LOT closer to that than in the 109th. The AG is clearly a liar and the ILLEGAL political manipulation of his office is blatantly exposed. And yet people act like nothing has happened.

Is that "the Democrats'" fault? No, that's the 'damn the Democrats we have' policy -- in favor of the nonexistent third party we could have if my grandmother becomes a trolley car and Jesus lets her.

starwheel wrote on May 30, 2007 5:23 AM:

So, no, starwheel, if you need to be sung to sleep at night, a bottle of scotch is a better friend that some twit at the ACLU.

Posted by: Paul in LA
Date: May 30, 2007 03:49 AM
-----------------------------------------------
I don't recall saying I needed to be sung to sleep at night.

But if this is one less thing we need to feel paranoid about, the better. I'm still bristling that the government knows what books I'm reading from the library. I check out a right wing nut book every couple of weeks just to throw them off my trail.

But I certainly don't think whipping people up into a frenzy without knowing all the facts is a good idea either.

That would be, I dunno, terrorism.

lambert strether wrote on May 30, 2007 6:53 AM:

The experts think there's no problem. Good to know.

Paul in LA wrote on May 30, 2007 8:01 AM:

"But if this is one less thing we need to feel paranoid about, the better."

There is NOT one less thing to feel paranoid about. You are in extreme danger, and the only real counterweight to that may be that your enemies (and your friends) are in it with you.

NOTHING is more dangerous than a band of traitors in the White House, except blinding yourself to the danger they continue to pose.

Ron Byers wrote on May 30, 2007 8:19 AM:

Kevin Cosner did a movie on this topic called " The Postman."

Brian wrote on May 30, 2007 8:58 AM:

"I don't understand it mom, he's been distant and cold for weeks, but after he stayed out all weekend without explaining why, he bought me flowers, and jewelry, and we're going away to Tahiti for the weekend!"

Gary wrote on May 30, 2007 9:08 AM:

Bush said the other day, "Here in America", "we are living in the eye of a storm," he said. "All around us, dangerous winds are swirling and these winds could reach our shores at any moment."
They have every intention to use this directive! They promised us a New World Order, look what they did on Sept 11 2001. And now a new threat we have to take seriously.
Wake Up People! Can you say Dictator?

Jim Spencer wrote on May 30, 2007 9:37 AM:

I just read the COP directive and am curious about several things:
1. Who decides when the COG directive is necessary and under what conditions? Any administration that uses “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” can weasel-word anything.

2. Why is the Chief of Staff to the President to designate those whom will be in control? Chief of Staff isn’t elected or really a government position.

3. Who defines the National Essential Functions necessary to lead and sustain the Nation?

4. Who decides when Primary Mission Essential Functions are no longer necessary?

MontanaMaven wrote on May 30, 2007 9:57 AM:

"Trust, but verify" Reagan said of the Soviets. I can't even trust this administration, so more reporting on it is needed to keep "verifying".

Gregory X wrote on May 30, 2007 10:24 AM:

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
---------------------------

It would be interesting to know what is in the classified annexes. Do I trust Cheney/Bush to do the right thing? No. That being said, the cabal already has all the tools it would need to seize unitary power under the various provisions of the Patriot Act. All it needs is a sufficient provocation.

DebT wrote on May 30, 2007 10:45 AM:

Thanks for looking into this. I'm relieved. One less thing to worry about.
It's difficult when you always expect the worst from this administration.

Chris wrote on May 30, 2007 10:46 AM:

Come on! Wake up sheeple. PD 51. Area 51. Bush is going to convene his dictatorship at Area 51 with the support of alien overlords. It's so obvious.

Actually, I do believe that we on the left should shamelessly encourage paranoid thinking about the Bush administration whenever possible. It will be a powerful innoculation against similar regimes.

glenn wrote on May 30, 2007 10:54 AM:

as much as I would like to be paranoid and believe this: think for a minute people.

This is an administration of business people which means the last thing they would do would be to ruin the economy in one fell swoop.

martial law would destroy the american economy.

And, if they were going to do this sort of thing, they would have done it in 2004.

And they can't even fight a war in Iraq, how could they pull off something monumentally more complicated?

Don Snabulus wrote on May 30, 2007 11:24 AM:

It makes more sense as a power grab than as a mational security directive.

When a catastrophic event happens, chaos ensues. If everybody sits around waiting for the National Coordinator to coordinate government, you have a Katrina situation where nothing gets done while people die.

It makes more sense for departments and agencies to plan for autonomy and acting independently in the event of chaos instead of top-down centralization of power (this autonomy was the centerpiece of Clinton's directives I seem to recollect).

This directive broadens catastrophe to include disruptions not including loss of life and also claims that the continuance of "checks and balances" depends solely on the executive branch. If that doesn't set off the creepy meter, I don't know what will.

RBS wrote on May 30, 2007 1:19 PM:

Amazing how easy it is to believe, though, isn't it?

http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com/2007/05/george-lucas-american-orwell.html

Audacious wrote on May 30, 2007 2:08 PM:

As it was said in one of my favorite movies" the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making you think he doesn't exist". You have been warned.

mort shelby wrote on May 30, 2007 5:22 PM:

Is it just me, or does Clinton's directive give executive power to FEMA,while Bush's directive gives power to GWB?

Anonymous wrote on May 30, 2007 6:04 PM:

impeach everybody and start over

Clark wrote on May 30, 2007 6:05 PM:

impeach everybody and start over

Clark wrote on May 30, 2007 6:07 PM:

the u.s. is now a neo-fascist nation.

of the corporation; by the corporation; for the corporation.

James wrote on May 30, 2007 9:16 PM:

Earlier posting by glenn:
re: Bushies not being able to pull of a coup, it being more difficult than Irag.
In the case of a coup here, the people would be stampeeded by the MSM, their employers, their churches and by fear alone we would do the heavy lifting for them (the Bushies). As to doing it earlier than now, there is necessary prep work: warrantless spying on movers/shakers, stacking the courts, no-end war and other "mood" enhancers.
As for Blackwater troops on the streets while the
military is in Iraq, we are paying for that too.
They push the ball and it rolls downhill on its own.

mia wrote on May 30, 2007 9:44 PM:

only for a national emergency? like, an outbreak of drug-resistant TB, for example? Pardon my cynicism, and I know, I know ... I've got my foil hat on as i write ..but, man, it's hard not to connect the dots. Plus, I just watched V for Vendetta again last weekend...

BigPhatJay wrote on May 31, 2007 1:08 PM:

Has anyone forgotten the fact that Shrub is a devout evangelical who is eagerly awaiting the final battle so that Jesus can return? To such people is there anything more important?

N. Kelly wrote on June 2, 2007 6:04 PM:

Didn't ANYONE read the part where this "catastrophe" is "regardless of location"? That means that if say our nearly finished embassy that is being built in Iraq gets blown up, because it is US property, he can initiate this directive and become a dictator overnight... plus... the Constitution upon which this country was founded was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF THING FROM HAPPENING! WAKEUP AMERICA!!!

My brother is the history buff in the family and he said this... "You know, there were 3 kinds of people in Pre-War Nazi Germany. The first group of people saw the writing on the wall and realized he was crazy and got out with their lives and their assets. The second group tried to ignore what was happening until they just couldn't anymore and by that time all they could get out with was the clothes on their backs and maybe a suitcase. The third group just kept ignoring what was going on and said it could never happen and then when it did, they were either tortured and killed because they wouldn't join the SS or they joined and killed millions."

Those who forget our history are condemned to repeat it.

William H. White wrote on June 20, 2007 11:18 PM:

Can you think of anyone better than Bush with whom to entrust the dictatorial powers enumerated in NSPD-51? And its such a relief to know he declared in NSPD-51 that he alone will decide when he must accept this burden, though surely only upon the advice and consent of his personal Savior.

My guess would be early Spring of '08, when he is forced to use nuclear weapons against Iran and it then fails to cooperate, attacking our fleets in the Gulf and Mediterranean instead of accepting our compassionate offers of assistance.

Besides how could anyone resist the perfectly Orwellian logic of declaring a dictatorship to insure "Constitutional Continuity" for the homeland, while setting aside the actual Constitution of the United States. But in case a few dead-enders do object or the usual suspects might think to object, KBR is hard at work building detention centers around the nation to accommodate those incompatible with Constitutional Continuity.

Congress, demonstrating its usual wisdom and courage, will no doubt express concern about the pace of the summary executions and outrage at being locked out of their capital offices due to a classified biological threat of undetermined duration.

To demonstrate our determination to carry on, we should select the proper anthem for this new world order. I'm hoping for something stirring, with the right spiritual uplift, along the lines of "Deutschland Uber Allis," except with a touch of Texas twang as in "Dallas Uber Allis." However, since this is such an important decision, our new anthem, as well as the national prayer and corporate logo, should be selected by national referendum, putting those voting machines to work in November '08 after all.

William H. White wrote on June 20, 2007 11:22 PM:

Can you think of anyone better than Bush with whom to entrust the dictatorial powers enumerated in NSPD-51? And its such a relief to know he declared in NSPD-51 that he alone will decide when he must accept this burden, though surely only upon the advice and consent of his personal Savior.

My guess would be early Spring of '08, when he is forced to use nuclear weapons against Iran and it then fails to cooperate, attacking our fleets in the Gulf and Mediterranean instead of accepting our compassionate offers of assistance.

Besides how could anyone resist the perfectly Orwellian logic of declaring a dictatorship to insure "Constitutional Continuity" for the homeland, while setting aside the actual Constitution of the United States. But in case a few dead-enders do object or the usual suspects might think to object, KBR is hard at work building detention centers around the nation to accommodate those incompatible with Constitutional Continuity.

Congress, demonstrating its usual wisdom and courage, will no doubt express concern about the pace of the summary executions and outrage at being locked out of their capital offices due to a classified biological threat of undetermined duration.

To demonstrate our determination to carry on, we should select the proper anthem for this new world order. I'm hoping for something stirring, with the right spiritual uplift, along the lines of "Deutschland Uber Allis," except with a touch of Texas twang as in "Dallas Uber Allis." However, since this is such an important decision, our new anthem, as well as the national prayer and corporate logo, should be selected by national referendum, putting those voting machines to work in November '08 after all.

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 1:24 AM:

Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye