Dear John & Doves,

I'd like to make a few observations on this issue of whether or not President Bush screamed obscenities and generally behaved like a wild man in the Oval Office, referring to the United States Constitution as "just a piece of paper", etc., etc., according to Doug Thompson.

I pose the simple question "who is Doug Thompson?"  Yes, he is the owner of the Capitol Hill Blue website, and he apparently has worked as a journalist for many years. But who is he in relation to other journalists, such as Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, William Safire of the New York Times, Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun-Times, just to name a few high profile newspapermen who have connections inside government that we can only dream of. Indeed, Doug Thompson, based upon his own highly pumped-up resume' on his website, is an 'also-ran' in the field of journalism. He's had an interesting career no doubt, in fact by his own words, he was working right along side noneother than Al Gore when the Internet was invented (that's not a joke, his resume' includes the passage: "Thompson worked on transfer of what was then DARPANet from the Department of Defense to the National Science Foundation, the beginnings of the Internet. Sensing the coming growth of the Internet, he started a web hosting and design company in 1994 and that same year launched Capitol Hill Blue as the web's first political news site.")

Now I cite this not to ridicule Thompson, but to establish that a.) Thompson's journalistic career is hardly the stuff of legend, b.) it is clear that (speaking of 'legends'), he IS one in his own mind, which brings me to one more simple question:

Does anyone seriously believe, that if President Bush was swearing and using obscenities and cursing the Constitution, that anyone who witnessed such a shocking scene would run to their phone and/or personally contact *Doug Thompson* of all people, so he could post it on his humble website?

I don't think so. You can be assured that IF such an event had taken place, that it would have been reported on CNN and every other major news network inside of 24 hours, and it would have been front page news, with every Bush-hating journalist and reporter in America (and there are plenty of them) would be writing articles questioning the President's mental stability, his ability to continue in office, there would be the obligatory speculations about him perhaps taking up drinking again, and such coverage would not be confined to 'Capitol Hill Blue' with a 'tut tut' from Chuck Baldwin, it would be on every TV screen in America, covered by the network anchors who live for such stories. If this story had any credibility whatsoever, it wouldn't be reported by a has-been living in what sounds like seclusion in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Who, What, Where, When, Why and How.  Those are supposed to be the six foundations of any legitimate news story. Let's see if they apply to Doug Thompson's alleged expose' ...

Who? Doug Thompson has no sources, but claims that three people witnessed Bush's insane behavior. He doesn't name them.
What? Thompson has described an elected President that fits the description of mentally unstable, but provides no substantiation.
Where? Thompson claims this happened in the Oval Office, although he hasn't been back to Washington in years by his own admission.
When? Thompson states that this event took place "last month" (presumably, November 2005). No specific date.
Why? Thompson doesn't suggest 'why' Bush behaved this way, but it can be reasonably concluded that Thompson wants to paint a picture of a President gone berserk. This is nothing more than what takes place on hate-Bush websites and bulletin boards every single day.
How? It would be nice for Thompson to explain 'how' he, of all people, managed to land THE story of the decade, IF it were true, when there are certainly enough reporters and media types who despise George W. Bush that if such an event took place, they would have it on the air within hours, not a month later.

Actually, it is my view that Doug Thompson is not a 'has-been'. He is a 'never was' who never made it out of the minor leagues, and he desperately wants to be a 'player' before he hits that half-century mark. He is unable to name his sources, he is unable to point to a specific date that this incident allegedly took place, he has nothing to substantiate the claims he has made under the guise of journalistic reporting.

I suggest that before anyone begins quoting Exodus 20:7 about taking the Name of the Lord in vain, that they may wish to skip forward to verse 16 of that same chapter, where the Ninth Commandment states: "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness".

Regards,

Marc McIntosh