From Doug Thompson’s “Capitol Hill Blue” webzine, 12/9/05 – http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml:
This for real?
Did Bush really say this?
Did he really mean it?
What does this, well, signify about this Administration?
If you can get three independent witnesses to come forth and testify publicly that Bush said that, in that context, I will gladly lead the mob to the barricades.
Unfortunately, even that won’t sway the hard-core righties. Buckle up, people. It’s going to be a bumpy next few years.
Capitol Hill Blue has a reputation of putting out “too good to be true” stories. Interesting stuff, but take it with about a 50-pound bag of rock salt.
This looks like a lefty blog to me. Unless you can find this in a reputable news source, we can’t answer the first question. And while I hope no one here will try to answer the last question in the OP until the first one is answered, I doubt very seriously that that will be the case.
Googling that phrase turned up a bunch of other lefty blogs, but not much else.
If I can see three truly independent witnesses to this event, quoted in a publication that has a national reputation for careful reporting – think Washington Post or the equivalent – I will publicly vow here and now to never again support this administration in any material matter.
What Doug Thompson forgot to mention is that Bush was DRUNK when he said it. You can’t blame a man for what he says when it’s the booze doing the talking. 
As far as I can tell, there are no reliable independent sources which confirm either of these Thompson stories.
It seems the left leaning OP’s are taking it as God’s Honest Truth and running with it. Unless one of the “anonymous” sources comes out with a recording of Bush saying it or Bush admitting he said it, I don’t see how you could know if it’s true or not.
So far I only see a report from a left leaning columnist on a very anti-Bush publication* saying he is quoting 3 anonymous sources with only his own credibility to back him up.
I think Bush would be the only one who could answer if he really meant it, if he said it.
I think it could be true or false. I am not going to go by hearsay based on hearsay…
The original author has his own thoughts on it though.
Apparently, unless you believe everything this guy prints you support Bush “no matter what”.
I don’t support Bush no matter what, but I don’t believe everything someone tells me either.
*The organization’s motto is: “Because nobody’s life, liberty or property are safe while congress is in session or the White House is occupied.”
Most of the well-known lefty blogs are quite familiar with CHB’s spotty track record. I note that, based on Google at least, the biggies - Atrios, Kos, AmericaBlog, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, Digby, etc. - haven’t cited this CHB story at all - even with a disclaimer.
The only blogs I’ve heard of that Google shows as having cited it are Suburban Guerrilla, which said something about the usual caveats applying, and The Left Coaster, which unfortunately didn’t.
But even there, the first few commenters were skeptical, saying things like “Thompson looks far from objective.” and “What kind of credibility does Thompson have? I find it hard to take him seriously without knowing that some of his stories have been confirmed.”
By the time we get to page 4 of what Google turned up on that quote, we start getting the real crazies, for instance our old friends at Stormfront.org.
I, for one, do not believe the President said any such thing.
The Constitution is written on parchment, not paper. It beggars belief that he would not have known that.
If it’s true, and any of these “Republican leaders” puts country ahead of party, we’ll know soon enough (and it’s a damn dirty shame that I have to put that first condition in there as well). Bush’s actions, like anyone else’s, mean everything and his words mean nothing, of course. It would be more helpful to discuss if his conduct as President reflects a respect for the Constitution even when he finds it restricting, or if it does not. The evidence should be clear by now, of course.
If he said it, there’s a chance, too, that he didn’t mean it. Bush has a reputation as having a temper, and he might have just been frustrated that his advisors kept challenging him by bringing up the Constitution.
I agree. Parchment feels totally different on your ass than paper does.
Daniel
Actually, I find it far more likely that the president would have no idea regarding the material on which the document was published than that he made the statement claimed (or made it in any seriousness rather than a fit of pique).
well, there’s a defense team forming up.
I am obliged to (reluctantly) add my voice to the sceptical caucus–only because not even Jorge is THAT dumb, to allow himself to be heard expressing what are, without doubt, his real feelings about checks and balances.
If I’m being serious and not snarky, tom’s of course right. I really, really doubt Bush said this: it’s just too convenient a line, sounds way too much like a cheap villain script than like what he’d actually say.
But I think Terrifel was joking, too.
Daniel
I don’t know one way or another, but the author of that piece is certainly not shy about explaining why they’re the only ones to have the story.
Could be worse, could be nutjobs selling tell-all videotapes with shadowy figures “testifying” that they witnessed Bush’s utterance.
What are the odds that 3 prominent Republicans the President trusted enough to say such a thing to are, in fact, secretly so liberal that they’d spill their guts to an obscure, left-wing blogger?
I’m not a defender of President Bush in general. I think he’s wrongheaded, a poor speaker, unwilling to take advice, and overly imperious, and I’m not a big fan of most of his policies. But having a bit of a temper myself, and sometimes saying things when I’m frustrated that I wouldn’t think of saying normally, I can sympathize with the president in this situation.
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
This line is what causes me to doubt the story. It’s one thing to caution that provisions of a law may be unconstitutional, but I seriously doubt that any presidential aide worthy of the name would caution a president that some law he supports ‘undermines’ the Constitution. The term is too vague, too subjective, it smacks of partisanship, and, as far as I know, it isn’t illegal. IANAL, but I’ve never heard of anyone having been charged with ‘undermining’ the Constitution and I’ve never heard of a law being struck down because it ‘undermines’ the Constitution.