Bush and the Constitution: "Just a Goddamned Piece of Paper"

[frogcycle]

I saw a reference to this in someone's signature here on DU the other day, and have to admit if I heard about it at the time it had slipped my mind, what with all the other outrages since Dec '05.


So I googled it. It is no surprise, to be sure, but still worth a re-read. It dramatizes what we are up against, and how the coming Constitutional crisis will be viewed by the current illegal occupant of the White House.

I suggest everyone send a copy to their Senators and Congressman. They have heard it before, too, but they can use all the moral support we can give them to 'stay the course' and expunge this evil from our midst.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html



December 14, 2005

Bush and the Constitution
"Just a Goddamned Piece of Paper"
By GARY LEUPP

Doug Thompson, publisher of Capitol Hill Blue, says he's talked to three people present last month when Republican Congressional leaders met with President Bush in the Oval Office to talk about renewing the Patriot Act. That act, passed by legislators who hadn't read it, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (when most people were shell-shocked and lawmakers in particular disinclined to use their brains), has of course been criticized as containing unconstitutional elements. All three GOP politicians quote their president as saying: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

At least one of Thompson's sources says the president, when told his insistence on preserving some provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives following the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination disaster, stated, "I don't give a goddamn: I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

I don't know how credible this report is, of course, but let's suppose it's true. It has the ring of truth, it seems to me, given numerous earlier reports on the Commander-in-Chief's state of mind and penchant for profanity. (Capital Hill Blue has earlier noted his "short temper and tirades" during cabinet meetings. Thompson and Teresa Hampton, citing "a number of White House staffers" wrote in June 2004 that " who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them 'fucking assholes' in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others." The Drudge Report has carried similar stories. The most recent Newsweek contains a report that Rice has to warn foreign diplomats, "Don't upset him" before meeting the Chief.) The man told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in 2003 that "God told me to smite . And I smote him." Why should a man who conducts such conversations care about a document which makes no reference to God?

One can only hope that if Thompson's story is true, one of those three Republican politicos will at some point share with the public the details of the Oval Office encounter.

- snip -

Recall how he mocked Karla Faye Tucker, sentenced to death in Texas? How his former Harvard business professor Yoshi Tsurumi described him as "totally devoid of compassion, social responsibility, and good study discipline"? How his one-time biographer Mickey Herskowitz has quoted him as saying, in 1999, "If I have a chance to invade . I'm not going to waste it"?


- snip -

[NYCGirl]

1. Doug Thompson and CHB are not a good source of truth. Witness his last rant:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2850

Thompson should be the last person to present himself as an expert on journalism.

[Phredicles]

4. I used to frequent CHB before discovering DU, and Thompson was all over the map

during that time. One column he'd be comparing Shrub to Hitler, then he'd inveigh against "partisanship" as something to be avoided even in opposition to the Dear Leader. Logically, then, one would conclude that partisanship is worse than Hitler in Thompson's eyes.

But that doesn't mean he's wrong all the time. And even if the "Goddamned piece of paper" comment can't be attested beyond all shadow of a doubt, it certainly does capture the essence of the man's attitude towards the constitution, doesn't it?

[frogcycle]

5. ok, so I disagree with Thompson's assessment of KO

and as the writer of the piece I posted acknowledges, the story ie hearsay. Thompson claims corroboration by three witnesses. But who corroborates Thompson? Nevertheless, if there is any truth to it, the Gary Leupp column hopes, and we can also hope, that one or more of those supposed Republican politicos will speak out. And the the Gary Leupp column points out aspects of the illegal occupant's character from other sources.

Even if the quotes are untrue, the behavior of the WH demonstrates such an attitude. Frankly, as dirty as politics has become, particularly as played by Rove & Co., I'd like to see this column become 'viral,' get circulated enough that eventually Tony Snowjob has to deny it.

I'd like to see people start asking the rep candidates if they support the Constitution, or believe in bush's position that it is obsolete and to be ignored.

[NYCGirl]

9. Thompson has some "Bill Clinton is a serial rapist" columns, too. NT

[frogcycle]

14. point taken

but hell, that should make him credible to 'the base' !

and even a broken clock is right twice a day!

I won't be subscribing to the guy's "news" any time soon. Perhaps that's why I hadn't heard this story before.

[VP505]

2. Ya, its

just a G-D piece of paper and * works hard to prove it every day!

[jobycom]

3. Unsubstantiated, and too obviously a re-telling of a Hitler quote.

Capital Hill Blue tells a lot of really cool stories that claim to be insider knowledge from unnamed sources. The author seems to think that listing a higher number of unnamed sources makes him more credible.

After what the Repubs did to Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and now Hillary with their unnamed sources and insider stories, I'm hesitant to cite anything I don't see reasonably proven.

Even so, he might have said it. But without proof, what does it matter? His provable offenses and his attitude to the law of the land are quite obvious enough.

[frogcycle]

6. yeah, I had never heard of this guy until I googled the quote this morning

so maybe its dreck.

As you say, one must take care about going on the record with something unsubstantiated - unlike, I suppose, the claims that there is "mixed progress" against the 'benchmarks' (snark!)

But I wouldn't mind seeing this getting circulated like the RW emails that are continuously forwarded praising jeebus for giving us such a holy man to lead us. Geez, who wants to play fair any more?

[melody]

10. But a fairly obvious metaphor used often in conversation

I can see George pulling that one out of his ass, without any consideration
of repercussions.

[jobycom]

11. Oh, it's possible. Just not close to substantiated.

[frogcycle]

12. sounds like perfect fodder

for a dirty rotten rumor!

:rofl:

Much like the "what are they hiding" mantra, a drumbeat over the anti-Constitutional attitude can keep them on the defensive. The more shit they have to deflect, the better. They'll get sloppy and blurt out something.

Wouldn't it be cool if Snow said "he never called it paper - he knows it's parchment!"

[bdamomma]

7. not only the Constitution he clearly shows disdain for any

Legal documents/laws, he wants to re write history.

[TexasLawyer]

8. The president holds his power under the authority of the Constitution

The president is given one specific job under the Constitution-- to defend the Constitution.

[BrotherBuzz]

13. And according to John Yoo's broad circular logic paint brush, the job entails more than you think

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

By Jon Carroll

Monday, January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments:

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[frogcycle]

15. There was a time when this would have been funny

sigh