Never mind the politics of the site containing the link, for now. That's not the issue. I refer you to this post on DailyKOS, primarily for its inclusion of the text of President Bush's declaration extending the state of national emergency declared on 9/23/2001 in Presidential Executive Order 13224.
Reading that declaration, you will find that Dubya twice uses the phrase "unusual and extraordinary" referring to the threat of terrorism.
In the context of that usage, I pose this question: For how long can a condition, situation or danger persist before it is no longer honest to refer to it as "unusual" or "extraordinary", and, in fact, before it de facto becomes usual and ordinary?
The corollary to this question is: For how long can the President -- or, possibly, his successor[s] -- continue to simply extend this "state of national emergency"?
(Crossposted to neph_politics)
no subject
Really, the situation we have now isn't all that much different from.... business as usual- as it has been for over 200 years.
(and what's *wrong* with the politics of the site? Okay, they aren't dittoheads, but I can't say the dittoheads have taken us very far)
no subject
That's another $64,000 question, isn't it? I would say no, considering that terrorism has been a significant factor in world affairs since, oh, at least the turn of the last century. Archduke Ferdinand, anyone?
America was merely complacent because no major terrorist attack had taken place on American soil, and when it finally did, a lot of people -- including most of Congress -- went into shock. Then a small minority of power-grabbing bastards exploited it for all they could get out of it, and are still doing so.
no subject
It's all in your reality tunnel. :)
no subject
no subject
Yeah, that sort of sums it up. I tend not to consider Kos a reliable source on many things because, well, Kos is so ultraliberal sometimes as to verge on raging paranoia. And sometimes it's a broad verge.
no subject
no subject