Dear Laura Bush, Shut Up
Tweet
First Ladies have, and historically should, received some sort of deferential treatment. It is their spouse, not them, who has run for high office and they’re essentially just along for the ride. But when they become partisan attack dogs they give up the shield.
First lady Laura Bush cautioned Wednesday that Americans discussing the war in Iraq _ especially politicians _ should be careful what they say because other countries are paying attention.
"The right to have these conversations is part of what makes our country great and our democracy strong. We must be mindful that people around the world are listening to these discussions," Laura Bush said at a suburban Columbus recreation center during a campaign appearance with Rep. Deborah Pryce.
Laura Bush, it is your husband who is saying that a vote for the Democratic party is a vote for Al Qaeda. It is your husband who has made the image of America worse in the world, it is the actions of your husband that allowed the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history to happen, one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history to extract a harrowing toll, and it is your husband who has defiled the office of the presidency in an unprecedented manner. People who don’t speak up are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Please, close your face Mrs. Bush.
42 Responses to “Dear Laura Bush, Shut Up”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
As she was leaving she said, “Oh! And teach kids to read!”
It’s not her fault. She only knows what they tell her after they change her batteries.
That’s great. Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, but if you exercise it, you’re aiding the enemy.
Classic neocon bullshit.
Our first lady is amazing. She has time to criticize administration critics AND fight gang violence at the same time. (Remember that initiative? How’s that going?)
it is the actions of your husband that allowed the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history to happen
Wow. Never before have I seen a pile of BULLSHIT piled so high. I suppose 8 years of dithering and shrugging off attack after attack after attack with never any concerted effort to go after the bastards had nothing to do with it. Do you really believe the nonsense you type?
one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history to extract a harrowing toll
Yes ladies and gentlemen, President Bush caused a hurricane.
Dude, get off the meds.
Do you really think building a blatant, obvious, undeinable, enormous, visible-from-space strawman is a good strategy, Jay?
No Jay, they are OFF the meds, thats the problem.
Look, Oliver has a playbook that he thinks he invented and he is playing it out here: Attack, attack, attack. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not (he has admitted as much). Keep control of the conversation (witness everytime someone brings up a counter-point the answer is always another, unrelated, question). A sense of loyalty to ones country is turned into some sort of sedition according to the lefties. We are through the looking glass folks…up is down, down is up.
Expect this through the election at least…Ollie can finally see the brass ring, the one that gets him a cushy government job in a democratic administration.
Shorter Jay and Pedro:
We have no life.
A Republican partisan complaining about attacking, deception, and deflecting questions is a lot like George Steinbrenner complaining about the influence of money in pro sports.
Shorter jay and pedo: “But Clinton….”
It’s taken six year, but Laura has FINALLY shown that she truly is the wife of George ‘Fascist’ Bush.
Jay, Bush has only been in office for 6 years, not 8. It took him 8 months to scale back Clinton’s anti-terrorism programs to make 9-11 inevitable. Afghanistan followed, which he managed to not finish in, followed by Iraq, which he has failed to finish in. 9-11 commission to not follow up on. etc. etc. Afghanistan and Iraq, talk about shrugging it off and pursuing a course of death and disaster for the US! New Orleans, Bush shrugged that one off too. Not to mention he sent Iran and Korea headlong down the path to nuclear weapons unchecked by the US.
Meanwhile it is you and your ilk that stands by and shrugs as the constitution is assaulted by Bush. Who cares about warrants? Who cares if the government listens to our phone conversations or reads our emails? You want the US to torture people in secret prisons regardless of their guilt or innocence. After they are tortured, you don’t care if they have a fair trial, or any trial. Shrug it off, Jay. It is amazing that many right wingers accuse left wingers of being like Soviet Communists, yet under their rule we get the GULAGs. Nice job, comrades.
A sense of loyalty to ones country is turned into some sort of sedition according to the lefties.
Pedro, unquestioning loyalty to Bush is not the same as loyalty to our country. (In fact, it’s quite the opposite.) The problem that lefties have is that we value the Constitution over neocon wet-dream power-mongering. Shame on us.
“I suppose 8 years of dithering and shrugging off attack after attack after attack with never any concerted effort to go after the bastards had nothing to do with it.”
Jay,
Then I supposed you’ll blame, even more than Clinton, Bush’s current allies in congress who at the time fought against even those minimal efforts undertaken by Clinton. If you disagree, please explain in detail why. Pedro, you can join in if you want. Shrug.
“The problem that lefties have is that we value the Constitution”
But only when it’s politically expedient.
Jay is busy, his neighbor’s dog was barking, proving its terrorist intents. Jay has a special new interrogation room set up in his basement he is rarin’ to break in.
Oh, Mr. Dunderback
How could you be so mean?
I told you that you’d be sorry for inventing that terrible machine
Now all the cats and long-tailed rats will never more be seen
They’ll all be ground to sausages in Dunderback’s machine!
so nihilistic you believe all americans have a right to bear arms then correct? Oh, and the constitution says nothing about having to have a license or permit…so we ought to be able to carry anytime anywhere right?
Piddgy you have gone off the deep end. When you suggest that Bush is the cause of the NORKs and the Iranians producing nukes…well, it just doesn’t even bear listen to anymore.
Shorter Mr Pedo “I got handed my ass (again) so let’s change the subject”.
Stop calling them Norks. Norks are women’s breasts. North Koreans are citizens of a small communist country in the Far East.
Pedro you slay me. At the top of the thread you write:
To which Nihilist responded:
Which prompted this from you:
Two totally unrelated, topic changing questions in an attempt to control the conversation. Just brilliant, just totally brilliant.
What an idiot.
you believe all americans have a right to bear arms then correct? Oh, and the constitution says nothing about having to have a license or permit…so we ought to be able to carry anytime anywhere right?
WELL.
REGULATED.
MILITIA.
I swear, the least you cons could do before you wipe your ass with the Bill of Rights is read the damn thing.
Clinton:
Iran, no nukes.
NKorea, no nukes.
Bush:
Iraq, Iran and N Korea, AXIS OF EVIL!!! Invades Iraq.
Iran, WE NEED NUKES!
N KOREA, WE NEED NUKES!
Nope, couldn’t have anything to do with Bush.
Piddgy, I hope you don’t have any kids. “Daddy, she MADE me hit her..” what a moron.
Paul (Frameone), Nihilistic was trying to wrap himself in the constitution, I am pointing out that he follows only the parts of the constitution that he WANTS to follow, a typical lefty hypocrite.
BD:
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.
two separate ideas BD, two ideas.
Pedro,
Give me a moment to recover from your stinging retort.
he follows only the parts of the constitution that he WANTS to follow, a typical lefty hypocrite.
When have I ever said anything that could be construed as not supporting Americans’ right to own guns? Point it out, if you can, because if I did, I must have been smoking crack. I am totally in favor of gun ownership. That’s right, I’m the Right Wing’s worst nightmare, a liberal who loves guns. So before you go calling me a hypocrite, get your facts straight.
So perhaps you’d like to respond to my original point, which was that ass-wipes such as yourself value loyalty to Bush over our Constitutionally protected liberties.
I CAN’T DEAL WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS SO I’LL INSULT THEM INSTEAD AND HOPE THAT’S ENOUGH
“Paul (Frameone), Nihilistic was trying to wrap himself in the constitution, I am pointing out that he follows only the parts of the constitution that he WANTS to follow, a typical lefty hypocrite.”
Which is, of course, total bullshit and still utterly irrelevant to the point at hand.
You see pedro, loyalty to the president is not the same as loyalty to the Constitution and loyalty to the COnstitution is not the same as intepreting Constitutional law.
The Constitution protects free speech but the courts have ruled that the government has an right and responsibility to restrict some speech that might be dangerous, yelling fire in a crowded theater, for instance. Does that mean that the courts are “choosing which parts to support and which not”? Does that mean the courts are “disloyal to the constitution”? No, of course, not. Same with gun control. There is a right to bear arms in the Constitution but the full extent of that right and its application is a question of intepretation which has nothing to do with being “disloyal” or selectively “following” some parts of the Constitution over others.
But I’ve already said too much. Your totally irrelevant questions have shifted the conversation from the original topic.
As Americans we are responsible for being loyal to the Constitution and its principles. Not the president.
I’m sure you would agree with that. Right?
Pedo:
Point out anything Bush has done in the last 5 years to deter Iran or North Korea from acquiring nuclear technology and weapons.
Let’s see, under Clinton, Iran was moving towards democracy and was not seriously pursuing nuclear weapons.
Under Bush, since his axis of evil speech and Iraq invasion, Iran has moved away from democracy and raced to get nuclear weapons.
Under Clinton, N Korea’s programs were monitored by the UN and US, N Korea was moving closer to S Korea and diplomacy was bearing fruit.
Under Bush, after his Axis of Evil speech and Bush walking away from the diplomatic tables, North Korea has moved away from S. Korea. N Korea has kicked out the inspectors and has raced to get nuclear weapons.
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.
two separate ideas BD, two ideas.
Why on Earth would somebody put two different ideas into the same sentence? How sloppy do you think our Founding Fathers’ writing skills were?
You think they got together and said “Let’s make sure that the Constitution allows for a well regulated militia. Oh, and while we’re in that amendment, let’s say that any idiot can keep and bear arms as well.”
Why bother with the first part, if the second part is, as you say, all-inclusive?
have you read the constitution Bd?
The first amendment has about 7 different idea, including freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the right to obtain redress from the government.
Having the right to own a weapon is substantially different from a seperate statement about the usefulness of a militia.
It really isn’t all that complicated BD…
I fought your whole argument is that it was.
Back to rehab Pedo.
Speaking of rehap, something tells me that around 2011 they’ll be breaking ground on the Laura Bush Clinic.
As long as its not a driving school.
The first amendment has about 7 different idea, including freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the right to obtain redress from the government.
Having the right to own a weapon is substantially different from a seperate statement about the usefulness of a militia.
Completely wrong, as usual, Pedro.
Let’s look at those amendments, shall we?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice how all those items after the first are introduced by the word “or”? “or” is what we call a “coordinating conjunction”. Sentence elements linked by “or” are of equal value to one another. That means that all are equally valid completions of the sentence that begins “Congress shall make no law…”
Amendment II
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.
This sentence is composed of two elements, but they are not equal. Notice how the second part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed coud stand alone as a separate sentence?
Can’t say the same for the first part: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. This is what we call a “participial phrase”, and is a species of “subordination”. It is not a separate thought from the main part of the sentence but instead describes the “attendant circumstance” of the main clause, i.e. the conditions under which the main clause (the part about keeping and bearing arms not being infringed) has validity.
Of course if you’d worked hard and paid attention in school you’d know that, and you woldn’t have gotten stuck in Iraq denial.
Why do I get the feeling that someone’s going to bring up Ted Kennedy.
Mission accomplished, pedro. Your totally irrelevant questions have shifted the discussion Laura Bush’s fucked up ideas about loyalty and freedom of speech to gun control.
Don’t even tell me that it’s just a tactic of the left. Idiot.
It is pedro who is always changing the subject, not I. President Bush’s lapses allowed 9/11 to happen. The terrorists are the cause, but Bush’s negligence does not go unscorned. Bush didn’t cause Katrina, but again, his inaction made it much worse. Everybody else in America sees this besides the Bushlovers.
I see what is so confusing to you leftists….you expect people to just take what you say at face value…rather than to question your assumptions.
So when nihilistic (get a shorter f’ing screen name will ya!) says
The problem that lefties have is that we value the Constitution over neocon wet-dream power-mongering. Shame on us.
I am expected to take that on faith. But see, since I know that lefties as a whole are lying hypocritical pieces of feculent debris, I call “bullshit” and then point out the hypocrisy of the statement. Yet I have somehow changed the subject…fascinating.
And wilbur…ya got me. I cannot for the life of me remember how to diagram a sentence. However, you point is certainly arguable. I would also point out though, that applying modern rules of grammar and common speach to something written over 200 years ago is likely fraught with errors…
“I call “bullshit” and then point out the hypocrisy of the statement.”
What hypocrisy? Gun control is not unconstitutional. Not even close. Neither is it evidence of “picking and choosing” which part of the Constitution one feels obliged to follow.
I’ll also note that previously you wrote:
But in your most recent post you wrote:
You’re an idiot.
Pedro,
I call “bullshit” and then point out the hypocrisy of the statement.
Oh so quick to condemn someone for beliefs that they don’t even hold (your original statement was that he (meaning me) follows only the parts of the constitution that he WANTS to follow.) Since you haven’t come back with any examples of how I did that, I’ll assume you were talking out your ass.
And: you expect people to just take what you say at face value…rather than to question your assumptions.
You didn’t question my assumptions. You attacked me with the single most predictable neocon retard response to any mention of the Constitution: the 2nd Amendment. Someone half as intelligent as you think you are would have provided evidence to disprove my claim. Perhaps you could show me where someone on the right has defended the Constitution in the face of Right Wing power.
But no. You and your “conservative” brethren genuflect to your lord and master, King George, rather than stand up for the First Amendment.
Typical.
Laura Bush is one crazy lady. I think Pedo met her in Rehab.
Laura Bush is one crazy lady. I think Pedo met her in Rehab.
Or maybe is was in drivers ed.