has anyone confirmed the "goddammed piece of paper" comment?

[greenman3610]

My group locally would consider a full page
newspaper ad with that one.

[stop the bleeding]

1. I'm sorry but I do not know what your talking about n/t

[EFerrari]

3. Reportedly how B* referred to the Constitution.

But, the question is, where?

[Ilsa]

5. There has been a story circulating that after the

spying on citizens story broke, that Bush* referred to the Constitution as a goddamned piece of paper. It was a rumor, but yesterday or Monday Mike Malloy said on AAR that it has been confirmed that he said it. I haven't seen anything since then.

[stop the bleeding]

16. Thanks everyone and I like you all would be VERY interested in this

latest * comment

[NMDemDist2]

2. i sure haven't seen a confirmation

you really have to be cautious using Doug Thompson as a source, as entertaining as his rants are usually.

[Greeby]

4. I don't know about confirmation

But doesn't your gut just tell you it's right? Knowing what even the most ignorant knows about Bush, who couldn't imagine him saying this?

[Bill McBlueState]

7. sure,

But I think people who are planning on buying an ad need more than a gut feeling.

I haven't seen any confirmation of this either.

[IndyOp]

6. Mike Malloy said last night that it had been confirmed by outside

sources - BUT did not give the sources. I looked at CHB to see if Thompson mentioned confirming sources, but no...

Here is a relevant thread:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x37185>

It *would* make a great ad -

[EFerrari]

10. Here's rense, and the google search:

http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bush+goddamn+piece+of+paper&btnG=Google+Search

[ellenfl]

11. not to mention a great bit on countdown. eom

[helderheid]

43. Countdown mentioned it???

[ellenfl]

58. nope, sorry . . .

i was responding to

It *would* make a great ad

and saying it would sound good on countdown, too. sorry for the confusion.

ellen fl

[Burning Water]

33. I'd like to believe it,

but as a principle, I have found it useful to NOT believe anything that is not confirmed by someone I can put a name to and hold responsible. I've been wrong, occasionally, but more often not. And, to date, I have never suffered harm by distrusting these sources.

[caledesi]

8. Yes, go here.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

From Capitol Hill Blue

<snip>

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!”



<snip?

[mattclearing]

21. I think it's implied that confirmed means "got it from a credible source."

[mike_c]

9. I believe this is the source of the original story....

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

CHB, so take it under advisement.

[MnFats]

12. i have some very very strong doubts on this one...

....doubted it from the first time i heard of it more than a month ago.
....first saw it on a website that appeared kinda whacky -- don't recall the site but it was on the order of DEBKA.
....I think this may be a set up. I think solid confirmation would have shown up by now if it was going to.

Not just Malloy but a definite, indisputable source hard as granite. (nothing against Malloy but...)

.....I honestly think somebody like Rove could float this, then when it gets widespread attention come out weeping 'look how they're making this crap up about our beloved president...."

I'd advise extreme cauction. It's just too pat. Too easy. To reflective of what we all think is going on in *'s head.

[Rosco T.]

17. The problem with that view.. is that the Chimp's actions...

BACK UP THE STATEMENT. His total disregard of the 4th, his defiant "Ah Did it and Ah'm agonna keep doing it" is all the 'confirmation' I need.

[Rosco T.]

13. At this point in time... it no longer matters who the sources are...

.. what matters is can Chimpy prove he DIDN'T say it.

His actions echo and speak the same sentiment. Spread it, repeat it, force Chimp to address it.

The SAME goes to the MEME that 'Bush wiretapped and spied on the Kerry Campaign', given Chimp's actions
and his defiant attitude, till someone can prove otherwise, he did it.

Yes, I know, that's the opposite of "innocent till proven guilty".. but Shrub ADMITTED HIS GUILT AND DID SO DEFIANTLY...

[wtmusic]

14. All sources apparently point back to CHB

which amounts to a lot of wishful thinking

[Richard Steele]

15. Don't hold your breath waiting for any confirmation.

The original 'source' was Capital Hill Blue,
which has a long history of dramatic,
attention-grabbing UNCORROBORATED reports
like this one.

I, like many others, have come to believe
that these stories are fiction.
I think he's just making this stuff up.

[petgoat]

22. Either Doug Thompson is lying, or he's telling the truth.

I wouldn't repeat the story without a major caveat,
but what intrigues me about it is that IF it's true,
and three people in the meeting talked to Thompson
about it, then they're surely talking to their beltway
friends about it too.

So IF it's true, everybody in the beltway knows it,
even though nobody's willing to talk to the "lamestream
press" about it.

[Balbus]

18. If CHB says it's true...

then it probably isn't.

[mattclearing]

19. Outside of CHB?

Not that I've heard of. I'd love for someone I trust to print it.

[liberalitch]

20. Since he and his cronies took office it would seem as though.....

they have seen that god damned piece of paper as "quaint"

[numnuts]

24. If the constitution is so sacred...

why don't we abide by it anymore?

[NMDemDist2]

26. welcome to DU numnuts!

:hi:

[numnuts]

27. I was wondering because last time I checked...

...the last line of the 2nd ammendment was "shall not be infringed"

[LeftCoast]

29. Of course, the first part reads: A well regulated Militia

The whole text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[numnuts]

32. and your point is?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of THE PEOPLE.......

[SidDithers]

37. Nice thread hijack....

if your looking for a gun argument, try the gungeon.

Sid

[numnuts]

41. I am not looking for a gun arguement

just a constitution arguement. I am a gun owner and I have no desire to ever use one for harming another person.

[Burning Water]

36. Comes down to the

definition of 'militia' doesn't it. In English common law, and the law of the States at the ratification of the constitution, it was the free male citizenry, not the National Guard.

Frankly, given recent events, I'm surprised more people haven't realized how wise the Founders were to make sure the citizens had the right to be armed. It's not about hunting or target shooting. It's not even about being able to protect yourself while the cops are on a donut break. It's about the ability to resist tyranny.

But some people never learn.

[numnuts]

38. exactly

Thats what I was talking about

[Burning Water]

39. From another newbie,

Welcome to DU:)

[NMDemDist2]

34. ????? i just welcomed you on board

didn't comment on the constitution at all


but it would be nice if the 4th amendment was adhered to a bit more by our current Executive Branch....

[numnuts]

40. I don't disagree with that

If they want to listen to phone calls they should have a warrent, they just need to cut through all the red tape BS so that they can get them in a timely fashion. Expecially when peoples lives are at risk.

[NMDemDist2]

46. ???? what redtape? they can have a RETROACTIVE warrant issued

anytime within 72 hours of the wiretap, fer gawd's sake

and when were people's lives at risk? what in the heck are you talking about?

either you agree with the constitution or you don't, either separation of equal co branches of government or not, what's up with you? i'm not getting what you're trying to say here

what does the 2nd amendment have to do with ilegal wiretapping, or my welcoming you to the board?

:shrug:

[troubleinwinter]

23. All goes back to Doug Thompson

There has been ZERO confirmation that I have found anywhere. He just gets quoted by others like Rense.

[Dongfang Hong]

25. Not that I've seen.

A great quote, it just doesn't seem to be a truthful one.

[petgoat]

44. A great quote, it just doesn't seem to be a truthful one.

I don't see how you can say it's not truthful.

Doug Thompson says three sources confirmed.
So it's truthful unless Doug Thompson is a liar.
Only if you have proof that he's a liar can you consider it untruthful.

But I wouldn't go out on a limb based on assuming DT's honesty.

[troubleinwinter]

52. "Thompson says". So what?

"Only if you have proof that he's a liar can you consider it untruthful" Absolute BULLSHIT! People here do not have to prove anything in order to make their own judgement of his claims. We do NOT have to accept what he says as truth, based on "he says".

I regard him mainly as an entertainer. And I don't find him particularly entertaining.

[petgoat]

55. So what?

Well, if it's true, it's indicative of a rather dangerous attitude on the
part of the President, and indicates that he's reckless enough to share it
with people who apparently know how dangerous it is.

We do NOT have to accept what he says as truth

No we don't. I accept it as "questionable", but I have to recognize that
in doing so I am supposing that DT might be a liar without any evidence that
he is.

My reaction was to DongFang's assertion that the quote "doesn't seem to
be truthful." I felt that since he had no evidence that it was not truthful,
that statement was not justified.

So I'm an agnostic. DT's story has not been corroborated and it hasn't been
refuted. In time, liars get careless and are found out.

Forgive my pedantry--when you spend time investigating 9/11 as I do you inevitably
have to spend a lot of time pondering epistemology. Dr. David Ray Griffin is
a master.

[rinsd]

54. 3 sources confirm that Doug Thompson is full of it....

...see how easy it is.

On Edit: Oh and in terms of Mr. Thompson's unimpeachable credibility, he pimped nearly every Clinton scandal under the sun.

[petgoat]

56. see how easy

Well really it's not. Cause Doug Thompson has been running CHB for some time now
presumably under his real name, and you're "rinsd" who is allegedly from San Diego.

I can't refute the NYT simply by passing out leaflets with made-up quotes and
photoshopped pictures.

[rinsd]

59. You're right. It is not easy.

One has to be able to weave the proper narrative that will grab the reader and be plausible enough so that people wonder if its really true.

Though I think Doug's ears were burning because he wrote this one.

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

"
So the next time somebody calls Capitol Hill Blue a “garbage site” or claims I’m a clown, ask them for their qualifications and background. Did they get their information from credible sources or some anonymous poster on a partisan bulletin board or a blogger with a political ax to grind?"

From his pen to your keyboard.

So, again. I ask you if his cred is gold, are his stories on Democrats true. Or is someone shoveling plausible red meat to a ravenous crowd?

Gary Condit, slime of the earth?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant.asp?ID=2148

Jesse Jackson, a crook?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant.asp?offset=10&ID=1498

Clinton, a crook?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant.asp?offset=20&ID=320

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant.asp?offset=60&ID=520

And unfortunately, the archives only go back as far as 2000. Otherwise I could regale you with Doug's tales of Clinton the rapist.

[EFerrari]

28. In a way, you don't need to chase down confirmation.

If you repeat the meme, that's enough.

"The Constitution: It's not just a piece of paper."

You don't have to make claims about what Junior said or didn't say. We all have seen how he is behaving. And, the other story is floating around.

[helderheid]

45. extremely good point

[bluemarkers]

30. This is why I love Democrats

(First time poster but loooong time lurker)

WE actually care about the truth! What a concept. Instead of just parroting what someone said, you are fact checking. Fact checking!!

thank you!

(this, imo opinion is why justice will prevail - we are not afraid of the truth. We are not afraid to think for ourselves. Of course it's like herding cats, but there you have it.)

[NMDemDist2]

35. welcome to DU bluemarkers! glad you decided to jump on in!

:hi:

[bluemarkers]

42. thanks

Time is limited so I have tried just to read - it is hard not to post!



:)

[NMDemDist2]

48. yes it is, so quit fighting it

:rofl:

[me b zola]

50. Glad to have you on board, bluemarkers

Welcome to DU :toast:

[newyawker99]

53. Hi bluemarkers!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[thebigidea]

31. what rings false is the idea of "GOP leaders" defending the Constitution

which GOP leaders exactly? Which GOP leaders would put the Constitution over serving monkeyface, and have the temerity to bring it up to him? I seriously doubt Frist would ever do such a thing. Mehlman? Hastert? DELAY?

while its very in character for Bush to be grumbling about the Constitution, its ridiculous to imagine GOP leaders putting the Constitution over their party and princeling.

[Catherine Vincent]

47. I'm out of the DU loop,

what does this mean?

[NMDemDist2]

49. CapitolHillBlue did one of their "unnamed source" rants that quoted

georgie as saying (paraphrased) "quit throwing the constitution in my face, it's just a f%^&*ing piece of paper"

[Catherine Vincent]

51. ah....Thanks!

I could see doofus saying something like that. It's in his nature.

[Cleita]

57. I tried to find something on Snopes, but they don't have anything

about it.