I won't delete this diary, although I will edit it. This diary (together with its comments) has much to say about where we are as a community of reason, and even more to say about our limitations -- individually and collectively -- in the endeavor to reclaim our democracy. The original post, together with some further thoughts, are below the fold:
I just read a post by Ted Kahl over at Democrats.com, quoting a Capital Hill Blue article that claims President Bush said, in a WH meeting on renewal of the Patriot Act about a month ago, that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper." The entire OP is below the fold. the URL for the piece at Democrats.com is
http://www.democrats.com/...
Can ANYBODY confirm this story???
Source URL:
http://www.democrats.com/...
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
By Ted Kahl
Created 2005-12-10 15:09
Doug Thompson writes for the conservative Capitol Hill Blue:
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the [Patriot] 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!"
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 goddamned piece of paper."
Attorney General Alberto [Geneva Convention is "rather quaint"] Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
Aside from the below classic quote, don't forget that Bush said back on the 2000 campaign trail, "There oughta be limits to freedom."
Democrats.com's DictatorshipIsEasier.us reports on a changing America under George W. Bush.
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" -- George W. Bush, December 18, 2000
Source URL:
http://www.democrats.com/...
My own comment: If this is true, it is outrageous and proof that Bush is truly losing his mind. Can anyone confirm this story, or shed more light?
****************
That was my original diary. I don't know about light being shed. But heat? Oh yeah. LOTTA heat.
I definitely come from the "words-have-meaning" school. If I say red, it's because I don't mean scarlet; if I say madder lake, it's because I don't mean blue. I say what I mean, and I choose the words I use with care. So, if I ask: "Can anyone confirm this story ... can anyone shed some light?," I don't mean it as the rhetorical flourish at the end of a self-proving statement.
I took another blogger's post, from a site I'm not familiar with, which itself referred to a site I'm not all that familiar with, and questioned it. What I got back was criticism for having posted in the first place.
My initial response to that criticism was measured; it took into account the possibility that I'd been taken in by yet another internet hoax (and if so, get a life, whoever you are). It explicitly apologized for having missed other, similar posts. But it also took into account the fact that just flaming the author(s) and the site(s) doesn't shed light on the real issue, which is the authenticity of the original Bush-said-something-important story.
Important to me was that I responded with some humility. I certainly don't like my posts being ignored. No one does. But I like being used by shills even less. So, my initial response also included the possibility that people more familiar with the authors and/or sites involved might rightly suspect a hoax, even if they were not able to prove it. I put aside the ego boost I got from seeing my post on the DKos front page sidebar (and believe me, you guys, for a minute there I thought I was queen high sh*t for the day); instead, I invited people to stop drawing attention to the diary by ceasing to post comments to it. That was at comment # 17.
35 comments later ....
Can anyone explain the downright bullying tone of some of these comments? Can anyone -- Bueller? Armando? Anyone? -- can anyone explain why an AUTHOR OF A DIARY would get troll rated FOR HER OWN DIARY? (Frankly, I thought netiquet was that troll ratings were pretty much just for people "down wit' OPP.")
Can anyone justify the abusiveness, the coerciveness brought to bear by a respected writer at this site, who said, in essence, "I've troll-rated you, and you can only remove that rating by deleting your diary!"
I asked if anyone could verify or shed light on the original post.
"Shut up," he explained.
Well -- I don't like being pushed around. I really don't. So I overreacted in responding. I'm fine with the substance of what I said, but not the tone of it. And tone matters. Words matter. What you think -- what first pops into your mind when you feel under attack -- matters. My first thought was -- hey, go troll-rate your mama. Kiss my ass. And fuck you. Ummph. And this is the same mind I use to pray for peace every day? Not good. Not good at all.
At the same time, I'm a -8.38/-8.46. I just don't GET the upper left quadrant. I honestly don't get it. I do not understand those people. And I have to think that leftists who respond to what they dislike with abusive actions, threats, bullying, coercion, and the like, are upper quadrant people.
But they are among us. Heck, in fundamental part, they are us. And we're together in wanting to reclaim our democracy. If it's going to happen, though, it strikes me that we're gonna need some humility on the part of people like me, restraint on the part of people like Armando, and courage on the part of you other readers, who agreed with the sentiments of the upper left quadrant, but said nothing about the abuse.
You gotta call it when you see it, without regard to Person, without regard to the fact that the abuser is popular, prestigious, or powerful. If not, then the Armandos of the world get to be, in their own spheres of influence, no different from the Bushs -- "as long as I'm the dictator." As far as I'm concerned, the "Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper" comment cuts much closer to the bone right here at DKos than we'd like to think, sometimes. At bottom, it imposes the the same conditions: do it my way, or I'll make you do it my way.
Hey, people. The reason the Constitution is important is precisely because its a democracy that's being constituted. And the requirements of democracy, including the ability to disagree without destroying one another, emphatically is not found in the upper quadrants. Upper quads, either side: let's just not go there.