Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_7779.shtml

[indent]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!”[/indent]

I tend to believe this is true, but one must consider the source.

I heard about this yesterday...I would like believe that it's true and it just might be, but I would think or at least hope that Bush has more sense than to say that...

Rumor. The internet has given alternative media outlets unprecedented access for very low overhead, but unfortunately so many know so little about journalistic techniques and ethics, and their credibility suffers accordingly.

Chip

I'd like to think the opposite is true. And, given the source, I suspect it is.

At least this time it's posted in the right section...

No way to know if this is fact or fiction at this point, but I have to admit that it certainly sounds like something Bush would say.

It doesn't matter if he actually said it, because he has proven that he believes it. By allowing searches and surveillance without warrants he is in contempt of the 4th Amendment.

I seriously doubt Dubya said those words.
On the other hand I DO believe he considers the Constitution an important document, especially when the toilet paper runs out.

Mac

What undermines the credibility of it is the assertion that an "aide" would talk back to Bushit.

Everyone knows (except the liars) that Bushit not only doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with him, but won't have anyone who disagrees with him in his presence.

Of course it's rumor -- lie, more likely -- disguised as fact: the writer and publisher of "Capital Hill Blue" is an extreme right winger.

But we don't need rumor or lie to determine Bushit's view of the Constitution: we need only read such as the Gonzales and Yoo memos about how Bushit is above all law, and unconstrained even by the Constitution, and his obviously acting on that treasonous view.

And read the torture authorization he signed: torture is defined as a war crime, and banned without exceptions, not only in international law and US Federal law, but by the Constitution itself.

Actions speak louder than words: we don't need Bushit saying the Constitution is irrelevant; his actions do that for him.

An extreme right-winger? Not lately.

http://capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/cat_index_3.shtml

Maybe he had an epiphany similar to one of your likely heroes, David Brock. Maybe they both prefer to work for the underdog. Methinks it probably came down to a business decision.

Your hyperbole notwithstanding, the salient point is Congress passed resolutions authorizing the use of military force before our troops were sent into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush: this government does not torture

You obviously disagree with administration policy, but unfortunately have little more than baseless accusations to offer in support of your position.

Chip

Yes, lately, also.

Care to substantiate that you consider a smear? Of course not. Innuendo is classic wingnut deceit.

Perhaps you can restate that in comprehensible English.

The usual Reich Wing mistatement of the facts.

1. The resolution mandated that Bushit first exahust a stipulated series of steps before exercising the ver last option -- that of using military force.

2. When Bushit was claiming that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, they were in fact on the ground in Iraq and inspecting. As they had been for at least 8 years.

3. Bushit then told the inspectors to get out as "shock and owe" was imminenet.

4. Bushit subsequently lied that Saddam had thrown the inspectors out.

We know now -- and did before he even began his illegal rush to illegally invade and occupy Iraq, were we paying attention -- that Bushit withheld all the caveats, all the doubts, all the opposite conclusions from Congress.

Exactly as we know that at the time of the vote on the respolution, Republican Kay Bailey Hutchinson also expressed doubt about Bushit's claims. That is why the Congress mandated that stipulated series of steps to be exhausted before arriving at the possibility of using military force.

Actually, of course, the Bushit War Crimes Family and Liarium does torture. We know that from Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Abu Ghraib.

We know that when Bushit said, "We don't do torture," Cheney was at that very time making Bushit a liar by lobbying Congress against yet another prohibition against the use of the war crome of torture.

The photographs, etc., from Abu Ghraib are "baseless accusations"?

The fact that Cheney, at the same time Bushit was claiming "We don't do tourture," was lobbying against Congress enacting yet another prohibition against the use of torture -- already a war crime prohibited by US Federal law, US Constitution, and international law -- is "baseless accusation"?

The fact that US troops who were part of the collective punishment -- a war crime -- imposed upon Falluja testify that white phosporous was used indiscriminately -- testimony substantiated by photographic evidence -- is "baseless accusations"?

The fact that the Constitution gives exclusive authority to resolve election disputes, such as that of 2000, to Congress is "baseless accusation"?

The fact that the intelligence of at least DIA and CIA concluded that there was no "link" between Saddam and Al Qaeda/Osama is "baseless accusation," even though thosee who were paying attention for at least five years before Bushit's illegal and occupation of Iraq knew that the only "link" between Saddam -- a near-atheist -- and Al Qaeda/Osama -- religiofundamentalists -- was that there were mutual enemies, as made clear by the fact that Osama had been long and loudly on the record as wanting Saddam overthrown, and he and his westernized, secular gov't replaced with one along the lines of the theocracy in Iran?

Your baldfaced lies in behalf of the anti-American Bushit War Crimes Family and Liarium are so obvious it's a wonder you bother repeating them.

But not the implicit use of wiretaps.

Chip is, of course, hyperbolizing, and deliberately misreading the resolution, in lock-step with Bushit, who did the same.

And still does: what does he claim for his alleged authority to engage in illegal wiretaps? The Constitution -- and that resolution.

That resolution didn't authorize wiretapping the members of the UN Security Council -- but Bushit did that anyway. Nor did or does it authorize wiretapping phones in Iraq, even though that was the topic of the resolution.

And then, looking closer: the court from which he is required to get permission to wirtap has approved well over 95 per cent of his requests. That being the fact, why then did he not get that court's permission to wiretap? Let's find out who he was wiretapping, as I'm willing to bet those wiretaps were at least identical to Nixon's illegal wiretaps: of not only his brother, and Kissenger, but also the Democratic opposition.

It's one thing to have a one-pparty system as result of election thefts. It's quite another to further nullify the minority opposition by determining their political strategies in order to negate those also.

Thhe anti-Americans will approve Bushit's felony -- and impeachable offense -- on this point, exactly as they did when the crime was committed by Nixon. All in defense of their anti-American notion of America, of course. But we know where they are at to begin with: Clinton was impeached allegeedly because he lied, but actually it was because no one died. Had Clinton done exactly the same, but it had resulted in deaths of innocents -- the more the bettter -- he wouldn't have been impeached, as all these bloodthirsty fake-American thugs care about is kill, kill, kill, without opposition.

They have been curiously silent lately about their demand that everyone -- except themselves -- support the troops. Perhaps they got tired of that penultimate lie, so stopped telling it; after all, the insist upon prolonging this illegal war, which only means more dead troops, so they aren't about supporting the troops.

They weren't during US involvement in Viet Nam either, during which that hoax began. The only thing they care about is that their Dear Leader succeed in his policy, regardless how corrrupt and anti-Constitutional that policy. So they pretend a criticism of the policy is an attack on the troops.

That lying doesn't actually matter to these hypocrites -- in which gang I include such as Chip -- couldn't be more obvious: no matter what Bushit does, no matter what lies he tells, they will defend it. All the more if it results in many, many, many deaths -- especially when those masses killed are not quite white.

So that resolution -- which Chip misrepresents -- did not authorize wiretapping of any kind, of anyone, anywhere -- yet that was cited by Bushit as "authority" to ebgage in wiretapping.

It is now 55 per cent who see the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq as separate from the "War on Terror". There is no way the majority is going to march in lock-step with the brownshirt Bushit supporters who will tell any lie against Constitution, law, and country, in order to defend the disgraceful, reprehensible Bushit and his chickenhawk brigade. Their blindness and corruption couldn't be more obvious than their defense of their presidents above all else, including constitution and country. And that is about as pro-treason as one can get, short of taking up arms against the gov't. By contrast with that corruption --

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public
servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is
warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency
in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole.
Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell
the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to
blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other
attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that
there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the
President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally
treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken
about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth,
pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
--Actually-Elected President Theodore Roosevelt, "Roosevelt in the Kansas City
Star" (Editorial), 149, May 7, 1918; "Lincoln and Free Speech" in "The Great
Adventure," Vol. 19 of The Works of Theodore Roosevelt (NY: Scribner's,
1926), Chap. 7, p. 289.