Constitution just a piece of paper?

Doug Thompson, publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, one of the oldest political websites,is a Reagan Republican. (The website itself has a strong Libertarian slant.) Thompson was a critic of Clinton and is now a critic of Bush. Like many on this board, he seems to believe politicians in general are corrupt. He has good connections in Washington and has often been the first out with a story which later crept into the mainstream media. One example is that he was the first one to break the story that Bush was abusing his staff and throwing temper tantrums. That story turned up in the MSM much later.

The story below cannot be credibly dismissed as liberal Bush bashing. Thompson is no liberal. The closest political label,IMO, would be Libertarian.

The Rant
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 07:53

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

Full story at:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

And he's a goddamned piece of sh!t.

Phucking idiot. He's an America hater, just like his top supporter, Rory Blows.

King George.

Thats the same website that claimed Bush was on Med during the last election.


Gotta love the libertarians. For some reason they think they are free thinkers. In a two party system about as useful as tits on a bull.

I think what you meant to say is that the two major parties are as worthless as tits on a boar.

Yes but they are the only vehicle for change right now. Jumping into the greens or libertarians is like hpoing the wife gets pregnant by you buffing the bald mouse.

I'm sure the party chairmen agree, tk.

If your wife is having trouble getting pregnant, just send her over.

The "yes But" was in reference to the two parties and if you think for one second that Kerry would operate any differently than anyone else or even to a lesser degree your a smokin weed not tabaca.

Kerry just isn't that crass or crude. Want to bet? He dropped F bombs like they where litter during the campaign. look at the animal he married. No class and about as crude and rude as they come. Birds of a feather and such. I have known lots of people like Kerry in my life. they will tell you or show you what they think you want to hear to get what they want. Just look at ol Billy Clinton. Classy guy in person and when the camera is on. Behind the camera he is looking at a cigar in never before thought of ways.

If [operative word] he's talked to three people who he claims were at that meeting when the alleged words were purported to have been uttered, why doesn't he name those 3 people so they can cooberate what he is attributing to them as saying?

Why bother? Apologists like you always find a way to ignore it anyway.

Keep up the good work, champ.

A much easier question is, "If the story's not true, why doesn't ANYONE in attendance come out and refute it?"

Rory,
Here is a response by Doug Thompson of Capitol Hill Blue to your question about anonyous sources.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7787.shtml

Rory,

Are you there? Since Doug T. took the trouble to respond directly to your post about him using anonymous sources for his story about President Bush cursing The Constitution (link to his response, 2nd post above), I've been looking forward to your reply.

You are going to reply aren't you?

All he does is defend the use of anonymous sources by talking about himself and using a history of using anonymous sources. He is actually Monkey humping himself before you guys get a chance to get on.

TK,

Uhh, 25,000 stories and had to retract only two. Can you beat that?

SG,

How long did OJ live before he killed someone. Oh thats right he was innocent based on his past record I forgot how it works.

TK,

The OJ story is a little old now.

Let's cut to the chase. At a meeting with a bunch of Republican congressmen and aides about the Patriot Act, Bush blew up and revealed his true feelings about the Constitution of our great nation.

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Forget OJ. What are your thoughts about President Bush saying the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper?

If he did say it I would have to here it in context of the entire conversation. They weigh it against his actions. It is not a holy document. If he wants to undermine the constitution then he has to deal with the supreme court. There are plenty of checks and balances. I am not like you hand wringers. Every single issue does not have to go the way I want it for me to be satified with life in the US. There is always tomorrow and on the balance it's a great place to live. So on the sacle of 1 to 10 and 10 being the worst it is a one.

but mention just one lil amendment that happens to be the second one and wonder what the founding fathers meant by it and your a ****ing commie..........the hypocricy is getting pretty thick

TK needs the context.

"Hey, your mom is a whore."

"Dude, that guy called your mom a whore."

"In what context?"

Nope that would make someone a moron to trust the Govt Re the second amendment. Specifically when every culture in the world that lives free came about their freedom at the operationl end of a firearm. They currently maintain their freedom with firearms. In spite of history and reality draw your conclusions based on feelings.

Oh Yeah TK,

It's no biggy for the President of the United States to throw a temper tandrum and curse our Constitution as just a goddamned piece of paper.

And you say that those of us who value the Constituion as the foundation of our democracy and find President Bush's behavior and statement more than a little disturbing are "hand wringers".

Wow!

that is totally absurd
how was the freedom taken from them in the first place.....most countries with major amounts of guns are anything but free....its a conservative lie....there is absolutely no correlation between gun ownership and freedom........period... to say there is is a flat out lie told by conservatives to mislead the uneducated.... there are free countries with large gun ownership and there are highly oppressed cultures with high gun ownership

there are countries that are free with very low gun ownership and there are countries that are totally oppressed with very little gun ownership

]http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7787.shtml[/QUOTE][/url]


It's a response, but where are the actual names of those allegedly making the damning charges?

Anyone who's willing to stand behind those words and charges and allegedly give them to a reporter for publishing would be willing to stand behind their story publically. This doesn't pass the smell test.

If someone where to publish a story that you were a child molestor or something equally awfull given to them by 'three people who witnessed' you committing the horrifiic act, should we automatically believe the damning report if the '3 witnesses' are anonymous and aren't available to cooberate the story?


Personally I would want more evidence and tangible proof before I was willing to taje the word of someone who may or may not have you're best interetses at heart.

C'mon now Rory, you'd absolutely believe that John Kerry killed his own mother even if a known pathological liar said he thought he may have seen it happen... but couldn't be sure.

rory-take your words and apply them to the cia leak case....my how short memory can be

thanks Rory, for giving us the GOP talking point. I'm sure you'll let us know if the talking point changes.

Let's back off for a moment and look at the story with a little common sense.

Assume that Doug Thompson ,in his disgust for politicians, after a long career of being a reliable journalist with no history of faking stories, decides to fake a story about President Bush.

So he publishes a story that Bush threw a temper tantrum in a room full of GOP Congressmen and their aides and said that the Constitution was just "a goddamned piece of paper."

If he wanted to fake a story, wouldn't Thompson have picked a story that was a little harder to refute? All of the Congressmen and aides that were in the room at the time know exactly what Bush said. (And, by now, inside info will have spread to everybody in Washington.)

Why would Thompson publish a story that a room full of witnesses could immediately refute...if it weren't true?

I tell you one obvious reason the story doesn't pass the smell test---The word G.D. that was attributed to him by the story's author. I'd like to see where it can be shown that Bush 43 has used those terrible 2 words lately at anytime in regular conversation or even heated anger. If he had used another word in the quote the story would have been more plausible.

“No. 3: Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vein,” Say whatever you want about Bush 43, but he studies his Bible regularly and takes his faith seriously--even if he were to really lose his temper I doubt he would use those 2 words when there are other descriptive adjectives available.

Plus... how do you know God's name is really God?

I have it from an anonymous source that God's real name is Marsha

Now thats funny right there. I don't care who you are, that's funny.