The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
This is very broad, and is not limited by location. A war in the Middle East causing very high oil prices might be sufficient, as would a hurricane such as Katrina, or a 9/11 type event.
When such an event occurs, this directive says that the President can "coordinate" the three branches of government.
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President . . ."
"Continuity of Government" plans have been around for years, and I don't know how this latest directive compares.
I do know that post-9/11, a false-flag emergency is a serious prospect. I also know that Bush has already asserted excessive power, and has joked about being a dictator.
Zbigniew Brzezinski might agree that a false-flag operation is a serious prospect:
Christian Liberation Front: "Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency"
Ron Paul: "'Continuity of Government' - A Threat to the Constitution"
Mathew Rothschild: "Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency"