George W. Bush on the Constitution.

[Repo Man]

Bush on the Constitution: \"It's just a ***damned piece of paper\"

This story broke on Capitol Hill Blue about three weeks ago...

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 ***damn,” 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 ***damned 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 ***damned piece of paper.”

Follow ups...

Consider the source

Where there's smoke, there's ire

Are we that good? Damn right we are

I have been reading Doug Thompson's columns for several years now. He was just as hard on Bill Clinton as he is now on George W. Bush. He is extremely well-connected in the beltway. And he has the cajones to admit when he's wrong.

Since the media has yet to pick up on it, I thought I'd post it here.

Socialist Party \"D\" and Socialist Party \"R\" has been wiping their butts with the Constitution for years now, so I don't know why this bugs me as much as it does. Oh, and by the way, I voted for Bush in the last election. Or more accurately, I voted against Kerry. No more damage control for me.

[EDIT 12/28/05: fixed a typo and added a link]

[Testiculese]

If he really said that he should be dragged outside and shot. Literally. What a ★■◆●ing ★■◆●.

[Mobius]

Seems to me the express wish of the founding fathers was that every generation of Americans would revisit the constitution and change it according to their needs and wants.

Many parts of it do not seem to be serving the citizenry as it should.

It is, after all, "Just a piece of paper" - but it is a very IMPORTANT piece of paper.

I just find it odd there's reluctance to delete, or edit parts of it, given that there are enough very smart people in the USA to make a good job of it.

To my way of thinking, a document which has stood virtually unchanged in over 200 years, does need a make-over. It's not carved in stone.

[mesh]

People claim a lot from non-representation, or ... "I voted for the lesser of two evils". Some how people can remain outside responsibility for their choice if the choice entails unintended baggage. SWEEEEEET! Good? Bad? I'd say bad because we can still write letters to our congressmen, senators, editors... etc... become involved.

However, these complaints are prevalent. I stumbled across a different voting method at wikipedia one day and thought i should share.

Maybe an alternative voting scheme can allow more than two candidates to compete without "vote stealing" (/me shakes head)... i recall comments from the republican side after Perot ran for president: "Perot took a lot of votes away from Bush". I suspect that the democrats would have said the same thing if Bush won. Nobody is ever wrong.

[Zuruck]

Not really suprising...good site though. I liked the rants...


*now waits for woodchip or will to come in and say how clinton used the constitution to wipe the juice off of monica's lips

[Kilarin]

You KNOW how much I LOVE George W. Bush.
But I just have a hard time buying this story on one man's say so. It needs to be backed up by several others before I'll bite.

I wouldn't accept something GOOD about W from only one source, only seems fair that I don't accept the bad that way either, no matter HOW much I agree with it.

Kilarin

[Repo Man]

Kilarin,

I understand your concerns. The only reason why I posted the column here was because it was from Doug Thompson. He has a great track record on stuff like this. Plus, he isn't partsian hack; just check out his archived columns on the Clintons.

Repo Man

[Repo Man]

Seems to me the express wish of the founding fathers was that every generation of Americans would revisit the constitution and change it according to their needs and wants

The purpose of a constitution is to change it as little as possible. It is the supreme law of the land and contains the precepts for all other laws after it. Changing the foundation of the governmental system at the whim of whoever happens to be in power at the given moment is tyranny.

[Nosferatu]

If he really said that he should be dragged outside and shot. Literally. What a ★■◆●ing ★■◆●.

Maybe not that far.

But I think it should indeed be an impeachable offence.

He swore an oath when taking office. Such a statement (if true of course) should be considered breaking that oath.

[CUDA]

I would tend to doubt this for one reason, with as deeply religious a man as GW is for him to go off spouting GD every other sentence doesnt add up. as religious as I am there are somethings I just will not say, even in a fit of anger. is it possible? yes butI have serious doubts about it. this doesnt add up, sounds partisan

[Zuruck]

Cuda, Bush has been religious for the last 10 years. The firs 40 years of his life were spent saying things much worse than that, I don't think saying goddamn would make him bite his tongue. Just a thought.

I believe it.

[Zuruck]

*double....


to throw the whole idea out because he's religious and wouldn't say that is pretty extreme cuda. open up a little bit...it's plausible...what do you think about the source?

[Palzon]

I would tend to doubt this for one reason, with as deeply religious a man as GW is for him to go off spouting GD every other sentence doesnt add up. as religious as I am there are somethings I just will not say, even in a fit of anger. is it possible? yes butI have serious doubts about it. this doesnt add up, sounds partisan

this doesn't jive with your perception of GW as a religious person so it is reasonable to doubt it is true?

Maybe you just can't bear to see your "evangelical" president exposed as a hypocrite so you are in denial.

And when the Bush propaganda machine demonizes this guy you can feel justified in remaining willfully ignorant.

I study Christianity. I respect Christianity. I respect everyone's right to follow the faith of their choice. But Cuda, your thinking is totally irrational by any standard.

[Top Wop]

Ive seen that article before, its a cut and paste from other fishy websites who dont like to post the source of their reporting which came from a series of other articles claiming Bush said this or that. That article and source is not credible.

[Zuruck]

Ok, at this point I want to step back and ask those that defend Bush & Co what sites they would deem to be credible. I enjoyed reading the archived texts on Clinton, and really enjoyed the jollies on Bush, the man doesn't seem to be aligned either way, yet, he must be. If it's not from Drudge, Rush, the White House Press Association (aka Fox News), then it's simply not good enough.

Given this president's track record, I would not be suprised he said it. Forget about the sources for a second, many things in that article make sense. The way the president attacks defectors, anyone that does not heartily adhere to his policies is deemed un-american.

[Kilarin]

The only reason why I posted the column here was because it was from Doug Thompson. He has a great track record on stuff like this

And I'm GLAD you posted it. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm just saying I'm keeping a healthy dose of scepticism for right now.

Ok, at this point I want to step back and ask those that defend Bush & Co what sites they would deem to be credible.

I'm just looking for a few more people to say that they have spoken to the same sources and heard the same story. If the sources won't spill thier guts to anyone else, there is nothing to be done about the story. Might be true, might not, no way to tell.

Kilarin

[Palzon]

Wop, you'd say the same if Bush hosed your little sister, so you're not credible either. I'll wait for more information.

[Iceman]

Sorry but I ain't a stoopid little blind follower. I want sources ... sources of the information Doug Thompson claims as fact. Sources that Doug Thompson conveniently failed to post along with this blow by blow detail of the said meeting.

Some of you people want so bad to hate the Reps that you jump on the bandwagon without even so much as a question about its legitimacy. I find this ridiculous and childish.

I'm not saying it didn't happen either. If it did happen I want to know so that I can contribute to the BBQ'ing of Mr. Prez's @$$. I just think this is some Rep hating blowhard spouting off ...

[Top Wop]

Wop, you'd say the same if Bush hosed your little sister, so you're not credible either. I'll wait for more information.

That would be true since my sister is deceased. Ass****.

All you want to do is believe whatever you want to even if the source is questionable because you hate Bush so much. Because you just LOVE the idea that Bush would be bashing the consitituion and would just HATE if it wasnt true. Becuse you WANT to be lazy to question the article and source because it fits into your hatred and you cant stand for one moment if in any way you yourself defended Bush by a false accusation by saying that this story is fishy.

Now dont you DARE call me for a second a Bush defender because there are alot of things I dont like what he is doing, but all you are being is a stupid idiot jumping on the nearest anti-Bush bandwagon. Why? Well just because, no reason at all except BUSH SUX!!!!!

[Palzon]

Wop, you'd say the same if Bush hosed your little sister, so you're not credible either. I'll wait for more information.

That would be true since my sister is deceased. ★■◆●.

All you want to do is believe whatever you want to even if the source is questionable because you hate Bush so much. Because you just LOVE the idea that Bush would be bashing the consitituion and would just HATE if it wasnt true. Becuse you WANT to be lazy to question the article and source because it fits into your hatred and you cant stand for one moment if in any way you yourself defended Bush by a false accusation by saying that this story is fishy.

Now dont you DARE call me for a second a Bush defender because there are alot of things I dont like what he is doing, but all you are being is a stupid idiot jumping on the nearest anti-Bush bandwagon. Why? Well just because, no reason at all except BUSH SUX!!!!!

read my post again. i said i'll wait for more information. you have no point. i never said i believe the story. i just think your knee-jerk denial is BS as is Cuda's.

the OP listed reasons why the source is NOT fishy. Your reasons are crap by comparison. Your history is one of taking white house press releases as gospel.

sorry for the loss of your sister. my comment was meant as hyperbole illustrating your partisanship, not disrespect to your sister. i didn't mean to cause you any grief about your sister by that comment.

that said, you're still full of crap and have no credibility with me. I stand by the meaning of what my hyperbole was illustrating. you are scott mclellans's ★■◆●.

[Repo Man]

Sorry but I ain't a stoopid little blind follower. I want sources ... sources of the information Doug Thompson claims as fact. Sources that Doug Thompson conveniently failed to post along with this blow by blow detail of the said meeting.

Some of you people want so bad to hate the Reps that you jump on the bandwagon without even so much as a question about its legitimacy. I find this ridiculous and childish.

Any Democrat Bush bashers who do jump on the bandwagon and believe they can bring down the White House over this are supremely hypocritical in that the Dems are even worse than the Reps when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. Because of the nature of this story, you will not see who the sources are--a reporter will never burn his sources. However, it does jive with the actions of the White House, even before 9/11. Don’t be stupid, but at the same time don’t be so skeptical that it prevents you from keeping your eyes open to the shenanigans going on in the beltway.

In a political system where retaliation rules, you can’t expose corruption or misdeeds by depending entirely on those willing to allow use of their names. Without anonymous sources, the truth about Watergate would never have emerged. The Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting most often goes to a newspaper story or series of stories that depends heavily on use of anonymous sources.

We put our reputation on the line every time we publish a story that depends on information from anonymous sources. Sometimes we get burned and when we do we admit it publicly, take our well-deserved lumps, and move on.

As a registered Republican, I have been deeply disappointed by my party. They have squandered every opportunity to rein the federal government back into its constitutional boundaries--and in fact have gone out of their way to grow it bigger than ever. Furthermore, with the passing of the CAFTA agreement and the even more odious FTAA agreement on the horizon coupled with their refusal to control our borders, the Republicans have demonstrated their absolute distain for our nation's sovereignty and their oaths of office. Be on the watch for moves in the near future to create a European Union-like super state here in the Americas.

As an evangelical Christian, I cannot claim to know George W. Bush’s heart when it comes to his faith. However, I must admit that I am skeptical about his depth of commitment in light of my statements in the previous paragraph.

I will reiterate, If Thompson was just a Bush basher, then I would have ignored the column, but since he bashes both sides of the aisle, it carries a little more weight than simple tabloid rumor mongering. Anyway, I threw this story out here because it was provocative nonetheless.

[Top Wop]

read my post again. i said i'll wait for more information. you have no point. i never said i believe the story. i just think your knee-jerk denial is BS as is Cuda's.

the OP listed reasons why the source is NOT fishy. Your reasons are crap by comparison. Your history is one of taking white house press releases as gospel.

sorry for the loss of your sister. my comment was meant as hyperbole illustrating your partisanship, not disrespect to your sister. i didn't mean to cause you any grief about your sister by that comment.

that said, you're still full of crap and have no credibility with me. I stand by the meaning of what my hyperbole was illustrating. you are scott mclellans's ★■◆●.

How the heck can I be partisan when I question the article due to fishy sources? Have you ever seen me support an anti-dem-whatever article because of fishy sources? I will answer for you, I do not and I dare you to prove me otherwise if you think I do. I will defend even people I dispise because I will not jump to a false story if it may not be true.

With me explicitly stating that I do not agree with everything Bush is doing, you telling me that I am partisan proves that ether you dont know how to read or you are confused. Or you are just reading what you want to read. I cant make it any clearer, the text is right there, in plain English, and all you have to do is re-read it.

[Kyouryuu]

Three weeks and not a single other source can collaborate it? Insomuch as I loathe Bush, I don't buy it.

[dissent]

Yeah. What a country, eh?

[CUDA]

Three weeks and not a single other source can collaborate it? Insomuch as I loathe Bush, I don't buy it.

agreed. so much for my knee-jerk denial eh Palz. and besides I never "DENIED" it I said that it didnt add up and I doubted it, and you can DAMN sure guarantee that if this was anywhere near true the Dem spin machine would be all over it like a ton of bricks. this just goes to show the lengths some people will goto to smear someone