Musharraf declares state of emergency. Will Bush?

[Dave NoCal]

What do you think? I wouldn't put it past him and Musharraf's rationale sounds pretty familiar.
Dave

Musharraf declares state of emergency - Focus on Pakistan - MSNBC.com

 

[Osiris]

Musharraf is no fool and it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't have his hand on some of this "insurgency". If Bhutto dies, it puts him in the catbird seat and he can sweep in like a hero and smite the evil men who assassinated the best hope for democracy in Pakistan.

He wins over the whole country if this happens.

 

[Calboner]

To answer the question in your title, the time to dread that Bush will make this move is January 2008, when a new president is supposed to be sworn in. There could be another terrorist attack, perhaps with the collusion of the Bush administration, in consequence of which Bush declares that the country is in too much peril for the presidency to be handed over to the president-elect. I hope that this doesn't happen, and I think that it is not likely to happen, but I would not put it past Bush and co.

 

[Rikter8]

To answer the question in your title, the time to dread that Bush will make this move is January 2008, when a new president is supposed to be sworn in. There could be another terrorist attack, perhaps with the collusion of the Bush administration, in consequence of which Bush declares that the country is in too much peril for the presidency to be handed over to the president-elect. I hope that this doesn't happen, and I think that it is not likely to happen, but I would not put it past Bush and co.

We are in Peril alllright.... we need to get the fuck out of the middle east and start working on our own country that's on the financial rocks.

The golden rule among many veterans, service folk, and mass devout republicans is not to change hands in midst of war.

Im not sure on this one... I'm sure they'll try some stunt to stay in office. There is alot of civil unrest with Shrub and Co., and if this happens, I think you'll see a BIG move for Impeachment.
We had enough with the downward spiral and corruption of this administration. We need to elect someone different, that can re-start the healing process from the last shrub in office. (If it can be fixed)

I don't think you'll see Hillary get it, or Obama.
From what I heard, she fumbled badly on answering questions in a heated debate. Obama in my opinion isn't ready. The other candidates from what Ive seen aren't much better.
If the system worked Properly....IF.... I would Pick Hillary.
If there is corruption, then the system should buck it. That's their job.

Pick the least evil of the bunch.

 

[dong20]

To answer the question in your title, the time to dread that Bush will make this move is January 2008, when a new president is supposed to be sworn in. There could be another terrorist attack, perhaps with the collusion of the Bush administration, in consequence of which Bush declares that the country is in too much peril for the presidency to be handed over to the president-elect. I hope that this doesn't happen, and I think that it is not likely to happen, but I would not put it past Bush and co.

Never mind the next inauguration is in fact 2009 not 2008 (sadly) for someone to seriously consider Bush would attempt such a thing is highly amusing, not so much because Bush himself may not find the idea appealing but because it simply wouldn't work. I'm not an expert but isn't that what transation is about, an orderly handover of power, the President-Elect would be in a position to assume office regardless of such events.

That aside and ignoring due process, the constitution, the senate and the house (which, I'll grant for Bush is not entirely without precedent) he would need the military (and other more covert agencies) on his side to pull it off, does anyone really think, given his track record he would have their support?

Were he to attempt such a thing, it would surely be end of the US in it's current form. Were he to even flirt with the concept of entertaining the idea and it leaked (which it would) the worldwide repurcussions could be significant, even catastrophic for many nations, not least the US itself.

From a distance, I think the US' biggest problem is ensuring the next President is less of a goon, potential felon or outright risk to global stability than the current one. Looking at the candidates on offer so far, good luck with that one.:smile:

 

[Calboner]

Never mind the next inauguration is in fact 2009 not 2008

D'OH! Slip due to unconscious wishful thinking?

 

[odd_fish_9]

What do you think? I wouldn't put it past him and Musharraf's rationale sounds pretty familiar.

The situations are hardly comparable. Musharraf's problems with the homicidal wing of Islam are orders of magnitude greater than anything in the US.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

So, we have:

* An unaccountable military autocrat who frose to power over an Islamic nation after a democratically elected leader was ousted in a coup.
* Armed with nuclear weapons in an unstable area of the Middle East.
* Whose nuclear program has been known to sell technology to fanatical dictators in other unstable regions of the globe.
* Has threatened and clashed with his neighbors over territorial claims.
* Has been less-than-enthusiastic on helping eradicate terrorist cells operating within his country.

This is our "ally?"

 

[tripod]

Well... Pakistan is REALLY in a state of sliding into complete chaos. My uncle used to live in Pakistan for several years while he was a Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army during the cold war. Pakistan played a MAJOR role in helping to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, it was under a military dictatorship at the time and was a fairly stable country (except for the Punjabi in and around Kashmir). That leader was overthrown in a coup and the country has been fairly stable under the rule of ol' Pervez in recent years. Musharraf is no angel and is a dictator, but that country is losing it's mind with Islamic anger towards India and the West and his military regime is our only hope of staving off a full blown Islamic revolution that will make Iran's 1979 overthrow look like a tea party.

WE DO NOT WANT PAKISTAN TO BECOME UNSTABLE... THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND BIN LADEN WANTS TO GET HIS HANDS ON THEM... IF PERVEZ NEEDS TO CLAMP DOWN AND GET SOME ORDER IN THIS VOLATILE COUNTRY THAT WAS CREATED BY THE PROBLEMATIC PARTITIONING OF INDIA IN 1947... SO BE IT... WE, AS AMERICANS SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR HIS SUPPORT.

Oh, and lemme just say that Benazir Bhutto is a crook and a liar, she has been convicted of corruption and should not be trusted. She is making her comeback on the behest of Bush and Co. because they see Musharraf as weakening and think that she would inject some life into the "extension" of his dictatorship.

The situation is complex, but I am hard pressed to find a conspiracy here besides our involvement in the "Return of Bhutto". Pervez is doing the best that he can.

 

[AlteredEgo]

dong20: We're in a state of martial law. The vice president's lawyer is a genius at subverting the Constitution, and in fact, the complete subverion of it, and the expansion of the executive powers granted therein have been Mr. Cheny's and (his attorney) Mr. Addington's agenda and driving goal since the Nixon administration. It is not to be ignored that it is possible, especially in a state of martial law (which is what has permitted such attacks on our Constitution as the Patriot Act), that this administration has no intention of stepping down peacefully.

I'll be licenced to own firearms in two states by then. I intend to be prepared to defend my grandmother's house in case of riots. While I do think it highly unlikely, I think it naieve to not consider (and prepare for) the possibility. I mean: I'm not likely to set my kitchen on fire either, but I still have two fire extinguishers in it.

 

[dong20]

D'OH! Slip due to unconscious wishful thinking?

Probably! At least the election is in 2008.

 

[agnslz]

I remember the right wing whackjobs saying the same thing about Clinton at the end of his presidency. Now, unfortunately, the left are doing so with Bush. I thought it was stupid then and I think it is stupid now. There's no chance of Bush staying in office past his two terms.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I remember the right wing whackjobs saying the same thing about Clinton at the end of his presidency. Now, unfortunately, the left are doing so with Bush. I thought it was stupid then and I think it is stupid now. There's no chance of Bush staying in office past his two terms.

I don't remember hearing that about Clinton, and frankly, it would have surprised me greatly. His was a flawed administration as well, but I wasn't afraid of them. I can't think of anythig off the top of my head that the Clinton administration did which violated the constitution. But now we have a president sanctioning torture, illegal search and seizure, etc. When have we ever in the past had six consecutive years of a declared state of martial law? It just doesn't sound the same to me at all. As I say, because the population would probably riot and revolt it is highly unlikely that the Bush people would try to stay in power. By the same token, they've pulled some ballsy and stupid shit before, and I could only be but so surprised if they give it a try.

 

[dong20]

dong20: We're in a state of martial law. The vice president's lawyer is a genius at subverting the Constitution, and in fact, the complete subverion of it, and the expansion of the executive powers granted therein have been Mr. Cheny's and (his attorney) Mr. Addington's agenda and driving goal since the Nixon administration. It is not to be ignored that it is possible, especially in a state of martial law (which is what has permitted such attacks on our Constitution as the Patriot Act), that this administration has no intention of stepping down peacefully.

I understand why you say that, but objectively I think it's a serious overstatement. A vital requirement for martial law is military control of the judiciary, this happens (typically) alongside a curfew, travel restrictions and so on. Are those things happening in the continental US today?

Subverting the constitution is one thing, suspending or openly refusing to abide by it (by for example, simply refusing to leave office after an election on the pretext of abc) is something else entirely. I can only speak as an outsider but I simply do not see that happening, the risks to US' stability both domestically and internationally are too high, for no obvious benefit.

I'll be licenced to own firearms in two states by then. I intend to be prepared to defend my grandmother's house in case of riots. While I do think it highly unlikely, I think it naieve to not consider (and prepare for) the possibility. I mean: I'm not likely to set my kitchen on fire either, but I still have two fire extinguishers in it.

I agree, it's never a bad thing to be prepared. Imagine a scenario - an election result contested on legal grounds, after all there is precedent. The resulting risk in terms of those riots (you refer to) as I see is it not directly resultng from Bush refusing to vacate #1600 in some form of half assed coup d'etat but from 'the people' fearing such an event, acting prematurely in such a way as to provoke the outgoing adminstration into acting to bring about something equally bad.

The irony in this scenario (and I'm sure there are many) is that Bush need do nothing illegal to achieve this, so his hands remain 'clean'. He would merely be acting to protect the nation from 'domestic terrorists' thus ensuring his legacy of eroding the key personal liberties and constitutional protections will be more deeply and irrevocably embedded than ever, and best of all the 'blood' will be on 'your' hands.

A self fulfilling prophecy, if you will.

I really don't think it will come to that or anything like that, and I certainly hope not; but I do think that Bush will leave a bitter taste on the palate of US domestic and international politics, one that already exists in much of the electorate. One may take some years to fade.

 

[agnslz]

I don't remember hearing that about Clinton, and frankly, it would have surprised me greatly. His was a flawed administration as well, but I wasn't afraid of them. I can't think of anythig off the top of my head that the Clinton administration did which violated the constitution. But now we have a president sanctioning torture, illegal search and seizure, etc. When have we ever in the past had six consecutive years of a declared state of martial law? It just doesn't sound the same to me at all. As I say, because the population would probably riot and revolt it is highly unlikely that the Bush people would try to stay in power. By the same token, they've pulled some ballsy and stupid shit before, and I could only be but so surprised if they give it a try.

Oh yes, they said it many times during this same time in that election cycle. I remember it went into overdrive during the uncertainty after the 2000 election. I remember some right-wing pundits saying that he was going to use that as a reason to try and stay on longer.

I agree that Clinton didn't have Bush's track record of subverting the Constitution at the time, but many of the right-wingers certainly thought he was power hungry and was going to try and stay in office as long as he could.

Still, I really don't think it will ever happen, even with Bush's record.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Oh yes, they said it many times during this same time in that election cycle. I remember it went into overdrive during the uncertainty after the 2004 election. I remember some right-wing pundits saying that he was going to use that as a reason to try and stay on longer.

I agree that Clinton didn't have Bush's track record of subverting the Constitution at the time, but many of the right-wingers certainly thought he was power hungry and was going to try and stay in office as long as he could.

Still, I really don't think it will ever happen, even with Bush's record.

You're right! I do remember that now, when everyone was waiting with baited breath for recount after recount report. Forget Bush's record for a moment. How well do you know Cheny? Do you know Cheney's position on the whole thing?

 

[agnslz]

You're right! I do remember that now, when everyone was waiting with baited breath for recount after recount report. Forget Bush's record for a moment. How well do you know Cheny? Do you know Cheney's position on the whole thing?

That I don't know, no.:redface:

 

[dong20]

You're right! I do remember that now, when everyone was waiting with baited breath for recount after recount report. Forget Bush's record for a moment. How well do you know Cheny? Do you know Cheney's position on the whole thing?

I would trust Bush over Cheney and I wouldn't trust Bush with my pet raptor.

 

[Rikter8]

Cheney's the kingpin. Bush is the puppet.
I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.
People should be prepared to protect themselves and their homes in the event of a riot.
It's going to get bumpy. Best thing to do is keep your ears and eyes open on what's going on.
My biggest fear of all, is being drafted into the military due to a senseless madman in office dragging the US down into the dirt for financial gain.
After all I've been through, and worked for to get where I am now, I'd rather die trying to stay in my own home.

 

[Rikter8]

Just another thought. Mabee THIS is the end of the world as we know it.
A Nuclear Holocaust.
Think about it... It's timed about right, isnt it?
2008-2009 Election time, Shrub stays in office... tensions arise
2009-2010 Middle east tensions escallate, war continues, world terrorists place themselves in strategic locations,
2011-2012, battles continue, China steps in and threatens US with force, Nobody complies... Nuke's fired. Civilization on a world-wide scale are destroyed.

Hopefully for all of us on this planet - this will NEVER occur.
But somebody better step up to the plate and start doing what's right, otherwise our worst nightmares could come true.
There are some seriously deranged individuals that are out of control. One of which, is right in our own country.