Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
(Toggle Right Side Navigation)

Song Parodies -> "Georgie with his Lies of Diamonds"

Original Song Title:

"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"

Original Performer:

The Beatles

Parody Song Title:

"Georgie with his Lies of Diamonds"

Parody Written by:

Michael Pacholek

The Lyrics

And no, GLD is not a drug -- as far as I know.
Picture yourself on the Potomac River
cherry-blossom trees and lobbyist guys.
Somebody calls you, his brain is quite lowly:
The guy with billion-dollar lies.

Cellophane promises taking your green.
Logic goes over his head.
Look for the jobs his tax cut's meant to bring
and they're gone.

Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Ohhhh, whoa...

Follow him down to the Afghani mountains
where primitive people eat camel-meat pies.
Everyone knows that Iraq don't have nothing
to do with 9/11 guys.

Newspapers he isn't reading no more
say his job's going away.
Climb on the John Kerry bandwagon
Georgie, you're gone.

Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Ohhhh, whoa...

Picture yourself in D.C.'s Union Station.
Inaugural buttons affixed to their ties.
Georgie Bush leaves with the new Oath of Office
and he's got big tears in his eyes.

Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Ohhhh, whoa...Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Georgie with his lies of diamonds.
Ohhhh, whoa...
(repeat 'til fade)
I guess the new Prime Minister of Canada is lucky: What rhymes with "Martin"?

Your Vote & Comment Counts

The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.

Place Your Vote

Matches Pace of
Original Song: 
How Funny: 
Overall Score: 

In order for your vote to count, you need to hit the 'Place Your Vote' button.

Voting Results

Pacing: 3.2
How Funny: 3.0
Overall Rating: 3.2

Total Votes: 6

Voting Breakdown

The following represent how many people voted for each category.

    Pacing How Funny Overall Rating
 1   2
 2   1
 3   0
 4   0
 5   3

User Comments

Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.

mac - March 12, 2004 - Report this comment
I'll be surpised if your prediction comes true.... Johnny F. Kerry himself is no prize... but your Bush bash is quite well executed... I'm willing to part with some 5's.
David Chrenko - March 12, 2004 - Report this comment
Michael, lies or not (and I think "not"), with all that's just happened in Madrid, and with the spread of terrorist cells around the globe, this is far beyond George Bush, and why we went to war in Iraq. In light of Kerry's voting record on military expenditures is concerned, I don't trust him to protect the US and US interests abroad. I think he'd be a clone of Neville Chamberlain, and I for one don't want to entrust my country's safety to a coalition of UN forces. Aside from that I gave you 5's for a well put-together parody.
martha - March 12, 2004 - Report this comment
Michael you may be interested to see what the courts in the US have decided on this issue .. they have come down(just) in favour of the view that there was aid and assistance provided by Iraq... I" would say that based on all the material about Salman Pak; based on the statement of Director Tenet's about the contacts, terrorism and so forth going back into the past; based on what I still believe is quite likely to have been this meeting in 2001 between Al-Ani and *232 Mohammed Atta; and based on even to some extent this article, ... I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common effort in the sense of aiding and abetting or conspiracy was involved here between Iraq and al Qaeda. See Tr. 160. I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, "by evidence satisfactory to the court" that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda"..
Grace Hampton - March 12, 2004 - Report this comment
Clever use of a tripper to give us a dose of reality.
Serafina - March 12, 2004 - Report this comment
Great job, Michael.
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 12, 2004 - Report this comment
Michael: I'm gonna give your straight fours because I don't think it was one of your best - sorry. Certainly I'm no expert since I can't keep my mouth shut, how about: "Somebody galls you, his brain works quite slowly" - for "Somebody calls you, his brain is quite lowly" and "The guy with deer head-light-like eyes" - for "The guy with billion-dollar lies" and finally "Georgie all your lies are Diamonds" With all due respect to the posters - I'm sitting here in NYC trying to figure out what I got in return for the $250 billion spent on the war (not including the Halliburton over-billing), the nearly 3,000 lives lost in lower Manhattan, the long-term psychological impact on everyone who lived through that day - especially those who were on the island of Manhattan that morning. We feel extremely unsafe - We've been on code orange since September 11 - and we now look at planes, people, packages and life diffently now. All I ever wanted was Osama's head.
David Chrenko - March 14, 2004 - Report this comment
Robert, while I agree with you in part, I think we'd be naive to pin Sept. 11 and it's aftermath on GW. He had used the same intelligence sources as Bill Clinton had, and came to the same conclusion on Sadam. What did you get for $250 million? Hopefully an Arab state that will allow our military planes to land there, in the likely event of a major Middle East War. We eliminated from power a dictator who had used WMDs against his own people - a very wealthy man, who if he hadn't already aligned himself with Al Qaeda, certainly would have in time. If you're looking to sleep like a babe at night Robert, I'm afraid those days may well be over. And that isn't George Bush's fault. It isn't America's fault. It's the risk we take as a free and open society. As to John Kerry - I remember him well from his anti-Viet Nam war activist days. He was up there with Jerry Rubin, Abbe Hoffman, Jane Fonda. I am also aware of his voting record on military appropriations bills. Are you aware Kerry's own campaign chairman admitted yesterday, that should the US experience another Sept. 11 incident - rather than retaliate, Kerry would seek permission of the UN for a muli-national coalition. Do you REALLY want America's, and your own security to be left to the freakin' UN?!!
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 14, 2004 - Report this comment
David: Yes, it's a different world today. But I didn't blame the events of September 11on the man with the golden tongue - I blame the fact that there has been no closure, on him - sorry, picking up Saddam doesn't do it for me - he wasn't responsible for September 11 and he wasn't a threat. And, I can't let this one go - it was $250 BILLION. And regarding Mr. Kerry's days when he demonstrated his patriotism by exercising his First Amendment rights to speak out against the abuses of his own governement, I commend him and those who stood with him. Hmmm, a choice between a candidate who stood next to Jane Fonda or a candidate who calls Kenny Boy Lay his friend - seems like a no brainer for me. And, wasn't it the UN who said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Finally, I respect your opinion David because the First Amendment is important to me (not the Patriot Acts) but I don't sleep much at all now. Good luck in November - me, I'm looking forward to President Kerry.
Michael Pacholek - March 14, 2004 - Report this comment
David: I would sooner trust my country's protection to the UN than to the biggest national security failure in US history, Georgie Bush. But Neanderthals (to use the word of that other Massachusetts Senator) seem to think that Kerry talking to the UN means giving them control, not getting their support, a distinction you and Bush both fail to comprehend. Then again, "comprehend" is probably a word Bush fails to comprehend. And he probably thinks Neville Chamberlain is the basketball player with the 31,000 points and the 20,000 women. Kerry was not "up there" with them. That infamous picture, with John and Jane in the audience -- NOT onstage -- was well before Jane made her legendary trip to Hanoi. And Kerry would not have aligned himself with Hoffman and Rubin. That's like Laurence Olivier lining up with Robin Williams and Adam Sandler.
Michael Pacholek - March 14, 2004 - Report this comment
Martha: bin Laden HATES Saddam, because he was a secular dictator who used Islam only when it suited his purpose -- though perhaps bin Laden doth protest a bit too much there. Besides, bin Laden probably has more money. He needs help from Saddam like Bill Gates needs a tax cut. Their feud is almost like the one Pat Buchanan types have for "Rockefeller Republicans." And as for "US courts" deciding it, ever since December 12, 2000, a date which lives in infamy, such a rationale (Oh my God! He used a FRENCH word!) has been incredibly dubious.
Michael Pacholek - March 14, 2004 - Report this comment
As for those who supported me... Grace: I hadn't thought about it like that. I guess Costner was right: "Don't think, Meat. It can only hurt the ballclub." Robert: "Deer-headlight-like eyes" is a little awkward, and I don't need any help with being awkward. Somewhere, there's gotta be a parody in which the "looked like a deer caught in the headlights" analogy can be used, but Dan Quayle jokes have slipped beneath even Nixon jokes on the radar. If you want Osama's head, you can either wait for late October -- as in "October surprise," meaning they're just waiting for the perfect time to SAY they have him -- or for about halfway through Kerry's first term, 'cause when they're not being "crooked, you know, lying," as Kerry says, they're incompetent. And maybe you should stop saying "$250 billion" and start saying "a quarter of a TRILLION dollars!" That might get more people to realize what a freaking waste of money is going on. Whatever happened to "The American people know how to spend THEIR MONEY better than the federal government"? I guess that's another thing that died in 2001, but on January 20, not September 11.
David Chrenko - March 14, 2004 - Report this comment
Michael, so talkative today! You know what? ...hold that thought...Robert, yes I noticed the typo - $25 billion is the correct figure. Now where was I? . . . Michael, I'm still not convinced that Saddam is innocent of any Al Qaeda connection. JFK & LBJ didn't trust each other. Hitler thought Mussolini was an oaf, but still used him to get what he wanted. So what Osama Yo Mama thought of Saddam may or may not be important. When I say John Kerry was "up there with the aforementioned, I don't need a photo of Jane four rows in front of Kerry. I lived in Massachusetts at the time, so John Kerry, anti-war activist was well known to me. As ill advised as Viet Nam was, certain activists crossed the line of protest by demoralizing our troops, or offering aid and comfort to the enemy. By the way, you DO remember it was the Democratic party that mired us in Viet Nam; the party of Chicago's Mayor Daley and the police riots outside the '68 Democratic Convention?
David Chrenko - March 14, 2004 - Report this comment
Yes, yes I know. I did it again. Sometimes I type too fast for my own good. $250 BILLION. Ta-da!
Paul Robinson - March 14, 2004 - Report this comment
Michael - I'm generally laying off political parodies this year - I get too upset. But I saw all the comments and I must mention a few things. Madrid may well demonstrate the danger of Mr. Bush's recklessness more than anything else. There is rather large possibility this hideous attack was done BECAUSE Spain's leader chose to support the Bush pre-emptive war, even though about 70% of his people opposed it. Their election is happening right about now and there is a possibility the Terrorists wanted to remind those 70% and also warn them. In Iraq people who are thought to be cooperating with "The Coalition" are in extreme danger. What exactly will happen to them when W declares Iraq a "Democracy" in June and starts to pull out? Do I feel any safer? No, but there are a lot of foolish laws now on the books that make me less free. OHHH...JOHN KERRY! Interesting article in L.A. Times Saturday about a fellow soldier in Viet Nam...fellow that Kerry went back to rescue under EXTREME DURESS, while already wounded. Turns out the guy, ( A middle-class Republican, retired Policeman) called Kerry's campaign up out of nowhere and is now campaigning for him. (I wonder if the Right-Wing "Smear" machine flacks will go after this guy, it would take a lot of gall, but it they seem to have it.) So let's weigh this, OK? Kerry, who Republicans are trying to paint as an Un-American, almost Treasonous SOB for daring to question the Viet Nam fiasco (And it was a FIASCO), now having someone who is NOT a life-long lefty, a fellow soldier who Kerry happened to have risked his OWN life to save , speak up on his behalf. In the other corner, you have W., who also server honorably during that period, apparently by protecting the barstool he was hiding under most of the time. Which one was the more Patriotic? Just a little brain-teaser, I won't tell you my choice here, wouldn't be fair. Later...
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
I won't add anymore to the Presidential debate and Michael, I apologize for adding my critique of the parody - I am especially guilty of awkwardness in parodies. David, one other thought re: "As ill advised as Viet Nam was, certain activists crossed the line of protest by demoralizing our troops, or offering aid and comfort to the enemy." I'm not certain what you mean by "demoralizing" but any offer of aid and comfort to the enemey in its literal sense is wrong. The majority of protesters were exercising their First Amendment rights - I find that in itself patriotic. The attitude by supporters of the current war seems to be "if you're not with us, you're against us" - I find that un-American.
MARTHA - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
I do not think that the US courts have the right view of this is just quite an interesting slant.. I came across the judgement when doing a random search for silly things about law and music .. (it came up throught the term Frank Sinatrta . something that BL had said about him singing New York New York which was about the twin towers).. The case was a law suit brought by those acting for the estate of individuals killed in septemebr 11th claiming damages ...Smith, deceased; and Katherine Soulas, in her own right, on behalf of her minor children, and as Executrix of the Estate of Timothy Soulas, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. The ISLAMIC EMIRATE OF AFGHANISTAN, The Taliban, Al Qaida/Islamic Army, Shiekh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden a/k/a Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, The Republic of Iraq, Defendants. some of the evidence was new to me .. may be well known in your media.. (may all be lies of course) eg "Director Woolsey reviewed several facts that tended in his view to show Iraq's involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in general [FN17] and likely in the events of September 11 specifically. First, Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists (e.g., Egyptians and Saudis) are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, [FN18] plaintiffs *230 demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway. The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism." etc this is not particularly relevant to the overall policital debate .. and the many unanswered questions about the role of eg Saudi Arabia..the connections between the Bushes and BinLadens etc role of the military industrial complex in general.. the imperative of securing long term oil supplies etc etc., it is just a peculiar little sideview on the direct question of the connection between BL and SH.... FN17. In particular, Director Woolsey stated that
David Chrenko - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
Robert, go back and re-read some of the news items of Jane Fonda's visit with the Viet Cong, and her pro-communist statements of the time. Many of the more visible personages were "used" by the communists to demoralize our troops through propaganda broadcasts and by playing them to prisoners of war (this according to John McCain, who claims Kerry's speaches were a part of this effort). In a time of war, while we have the right of free speach, we also have to use caution in what we do and say, because our enemy will analyze it and strategize based on how they perceive us. Paul: Europe today is very similar to Europe in 1938-39. Appease, appease, appease. We just saw it in the election yesterday. The Spanish are being very foolish. Now Al Qaeda knows it can turn an election through terrorism. This isn't any different than Hitler taking Poland. After that the weakness of the European resolve made them easy prey (save England) for the Nazis. The argument that Spain was bombed because they supported Bush's attack on Iraq doesn't mesh with Michael P's assertion that Osama can't stand Sadam. Then why retaliate against Spain for what is a problem of your non-ally, Iraq? Either Iraq is involved in Al Qaeda, or it isn't - you can't have both scenarios. Either way, the Europeans cannot remain any more neutral and isolationist than they were able to be against Hitler. Don't be deceived, as they are. Al Qaeda has ALL the "infidels" (actively hostile enemies or not) in the cross-hairs.
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
David: I understand what you're saying - but we're never going to agree on this - which is fine. "In a time of war, while we have the right of free speach, we also have to use caution in what we do and say, because our enemy will analyze it and strategize based on how they perceive us." - I couldn't disagree more - at no time, as citizens of this country, should we have to exercise caution in what we say - I believe that curtailing free speech is detrimental to a (our) free society (as well as it being un-American). The government would never have been formed if the right of American citizens to speak out against their own government was not included in the Constitution (there would not have been a Constitution without the Bill of Rights). Now, you may not like what is being said but it would be anti-American to not defend a person's right to say it. Granted, you are far from alone in your viewpoint - I think the opposing ideology of our viewpoints is indicative of the polarization of this election. Come on now, isn't this fun?
David Chrenko - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
Robert, I wasn't suggesting government curtailing of free speech, but of personal "keeping the retoric in check" for oneself. Doesn't mean stilling the voice of desent. Desent GOOD. But what we're exhibiting here and now in the US goes beyond healthy desent and into the realm of dividing our country at a time when we can ill afford it. BTW, I was thinking that rather than tie up good "Comments" space, perhaps we could begin a thread on the Message Board. What say ye, Robert (and Ye Paul)?
Paul Robinson - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
David C - Thanks, but I'm going to I mentioned at the top of my comment I get WAY too worked up over the current political situation. I can't even stand to LOOK at Bush for very long, much less talk about him. I just think he's doing tremendous harm to our nation and the world. It's just not good for me to walk around with that much of a red-ass all the time. There's not a chance in hell of me accepting Bush as a capable, fair, or intelligent leader. I disagree with your read on history, but I respect it. But even if you were right, Bush is NOT the man to carry them out. He is an incredibly polarization person and he will NEVER have any credibility with me. But thank you for the offer. (lol).
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
David: We should do that sometime - however, like Paul (and probably yourself) I too get very worked up (and I'm at work during the day). To put it in perspective, I feel the same way about Bush that you probably felt about Clinton. Always love to talk politics with anyone who's also willing to talk though. So, in advance, I'll just agree to disagree with you on everything. By the way, loved the reference to "rhetoric" - believe or not, my college minor was "Rhetoric and Communication" - since it became such a bad word during the Reagan years, I believe that minor has now been changed to simply "Communication"
David Chrenko - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
Robert, Paul - Agreed. I personally am not so much a student of political science, but of the Bible, American history, and 20th century pop culture. Later 'gators.
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
David - well ya got me - I don't know much about anything in particular - especially the bible. But speaking of the bible, if you haven't read The DaVinci Code - I recommend it (for what's that worth) - his book before that also was good - "Angels and Demons". Until next time . . . bob
Jeff Reuben - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
"Michael: I'm gonna give your straight fours because I don't think it was one of your best - sorry" --political opinions aside, this comment bugged me. You shouldn't have to apologize for giving fours on a scale of 1-5. 4 should be "extremely good". 5 should only be for the best of the best, everyone here can write "pretty good" songs. If you have to apologize for your votes, and you're still giving out 4s, you're probably rating songs too highly. Not really an opinion on this specific song, just a comment on voting in general.
John Jenkins - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
MP, I commend you for provoking so much discussion with another baseball parody - isn't that what diamonds are about?

I've got to echo most of what David C said. The primary function of the federal government is national security. George Bush has taken some tough positions and Kerry's primary position is that Bush is wrong. What do we have to show for our $250 billion? Iraq has a constitution with rights for religious minorities and women, electricity is at pre-war levels and oil production is at pre-war levels, and Lybia has discontinued its WPM program. I wish our freedom and security could have been acquired for a lower cost than $250 billion and the lives of 500 brave soldiers, but freedom and security are not cheap. We don't know how many terrorist activities have been prevented since 9/11, but I think that there is a connection between the policies of the administration and the absence of major terrorist incidents in the U.S.

I also think that Jeff Reuben makes an excellent point. Most of us are reluctant to put our name on a comment if it includes a criticism or admits to a vote of less than 555. Of course, there are a few exceptions, most notably MP. Anyway, 5-4-4.
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 15, 2004 - Report this comment
Gentlemen - I'd buy that argument if I were either one of you looking at the comment and knowing nothing else about how the poster votes in general. So, at least let me offer an explanation. I don't vote on parodies where I don't know the original song; I also don't vote on any parody that I don't like - for whatever reason - I won't trash with a low vote. Perhaps consequently or unfortunately, I don't cast a lot of votes. Yes, when I vote it's generally straight 5's. Michael is certainly one of the best writer who submits - my guess is that he appreciates feedback - I thought I offered that. bob Oh, John, I understand if it was worth it for you - hell, arguably half the population agrees with both of us. I was trying to back up my Bush Bashing. I think the outcome of the 9/11 debate will determine the election. Perhaps if I wasn't so close to the event, I might feel otherwise, I don't know. At this moment, I feel like a sitting duck. bob
David Chrenko - March 16, 2004 - Report this comment
Yeah, I know what you mean about the voting of anything less than a five. Of course it's all subjective, anyway, so there really is no set standard. Usually I'll vote based on a particular writer's overall parody ability. That can be tougher on a writer with the volume of output and quality of work of say, Rick D. Rick's 3s could be 5s for a less experienced writer. I also ask myself if the subject matter is universally funny, and not just funny to a small group. Weird Al's parodies are usually highly accessible to the masses, without dumbing down - and we do have many parodies here that could give his songs a run for the money. Now, if you come up with as engaging a presentation as his, I'd say, "Take it on the road!".
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 16, 2004 - Report this comment
Well, thanks David - you know I was responding to John and Jeff. But I agree with what you said - I think you said something very similar but put it in a better way.
Michael Pacholek - March 16, 2004 - Report this comment
David, bin Laden made plenty of anti-Saddam comments. Our troops in Vietnam weren't demoralized because of American antiwar demonstrators, they were demoralized because they were getting killed and maimed for an unworthy cause, which was first saving Diem, then saving Thieu, then saving LBJ, and finally saving Nixon, all under the convenient excuse of fighting Communism. Police riot or no, Mayor Daley Sr. was against the war, and was ready to join with RFK as he had with JFK eight years earlier to fight LBJ & HHH at the Convention. Go ahead, write to Mayor Daley Jr. and ask him. By the way, you DO remember it was in the Fifties that we started losing men in Vietnam, under the Republican Dulles brothers and their bald, smiling puppet who had once been such a great hero. However, I've never been a fan of the former Mrs. Ted Turner. I quote Alan King: "Jane Fonda killed more people with that exercise tape than she ever did in the war!"
David Chrenko - March 16, 2004 - Report this comment
Michael, your revisionist history is charming, bro'. Why you're attacking me on Viet Nam is beyond me though. When you were still wiping the snot from behind your ears, I was protesting the war, as was most of young America. It was more than fashionable. Then, as if they were to blame for I what we called McNamara's War, our brave men and women were spat upon, booed, called baby killers and worse, when they returned home from Viet Nam. It was disgraceful. And how would YOU know what demoralized the troops? Did you read it in a history book? And as far as Daley is concerned - so it's fine if he had young war protestors brutilized outside the convention by the police, as long as he joined hands with RFK against the war? Interesting.
Michael Pacholek - March 16, 2004 - Report this comment
You stick to the revisionism, David, and I'll deal with the history. Apparently, you're not too good with anatomy, either, since snot does not come from behind the ears -- at least, not on this planet. You say McNamara, I say Dulles brothers. Who the hell names D.C. area airports, anyway? A living RFK would have meant the protestors would have had someone to rally around, and there would have been no need for such radical action in the streets, and there would have been no need for Daley to send in the police "to preserve disorder." Clearly, while you were protesting the war, you were also making some chemical investigations. You probably also think Tricky Dick would've beaten Bobby.
David Chrenko - March 16, 2004 - Report this comment
Sorry Michael, it's entertaining, but difficult at best to deal with "what ifs". I'm pretty sure though, that the kids in Chicago would have still rallied outside, even with RFK. Their leaders (remember the Chicago Seven?) would not have given up the publicity angle a police riot would bring, and 1968 was the year of the riot. Riots were breaking out all over the country that summer. A race riot (as they were called then) also broke out in Chicago, and my wife and her family made a wrong turn in their car, finding themselves in the thick of it, with bricks and bottles smashing up their car. They got out alive, but she still has clear memories of it as a child of eight.
Robert J. Pagliaro - March 16, 2004 - Report this comment
Personally, I believe that any movement loses credibility when factions within the movement resort to violence - no matter what the cause. The system isn't perfect but it survived 200 years. That being said, David, seriously, I've got to ask you - (especially since you were old enough - I was a kid) - if there is unrest in a country to the extent that it was then, isn't that a clue that something is very wrong with the society? If so, I wouldn't blame the people, I'd blame the "moral" leadership of the country. The government pitted the protesters against those who served. Finally, assuming that this country's anti-war movement was used as propaganda to demoralize troops, why is the demoralization the fault of the anti-war movement. It wouldn't be fair to expect them to rally around the flag for something they don't believe in, would it? Again, I blame the unrest on the person in charge of foreign policy - the president. bob

The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.

Link To This Page

The address of this page is: For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.

This is view # 1498