You earn all 5s with your very clever rhyming and word play, but the only thing worse than what Bush is offering is what Kerry proposes.

Great pacing and rhyme, Michael. 555

These are a few of your favorite wars?

I love the "Fallujah, and Kabul... trouble' chorus. 5-5-5.

Let's recap, now the reason why we invaded Iraq is to give the Iraqi citizens their First Amendment rights - while taking away Americans' First Amendment rights. Bill Maher at Michael Jordan's Steakhouse in Grand Central Terminal the other night: "The pictures of the abuse were very gay. Soldiers were saying, 'take a photo of me with this pile of hairy men and all these penises.' Donald Rumsfeld shouldn't step down - he should come out."

Good job, but a better Beach Boys song to parody for Dubya No would have been Caroline No.

I absolutely enjoyed every line of it; it gets a 5-5-5 from me. Great job!

An overdone theme, but you did it very well, creative and enjoyable...

The saxophone solo in that parody would've been perfect for Bill Clinton.

John Jenkins wants to have it both ways: Either "The Democrats/liberals" have nothing to offer/no ideas" or "We can't allow what Kerry proposes." Be like Bush: Pick a stand, and, no matter how bad it turns out to be, stick with it!

Very nice. The chorus was better than the verses, but extremely solid throughout. 5s from me.

ihate it

Michael, Michael. I compliment your parody, and you viciously attack me for a perceived inconsistency. Concerning John Kerry, it is my conclusion that what he is proposing in Iraq is to get more international cooperation and do a better job than Bush – with very few details. I hope that, if he does get the opportunity, he accomplishes both of these goals; but I do not perceive these goals to be substantive ideas. If you want to accuse me of saying that Senator Kerry has no ideas and then criticizing what he is proposing, that is your prerogative.

There is some truth in Robert Pagliaro’s summary of the Iraq conflict, but my summary would include a few more details. In 1990 Iraq started a war by invading Kuwait. Iraq lost the war and agreed to surrender terms. One of the terms of surrender was to account for WMDs. Iraq has never done this. After 9/11/01, when terrorism became much more of a concern, the United Nations drafted Security Council Resolution 1441 calling for Iraq to comply with the surrender terms or “face serious consequences.” After Saddam Hussein ignored this warning, the United States, Great Britain and the other members of the coalition concluded that Iraq had been given enough opportunities to comply with this and other U.N. resolutions, and the serious consequences should be administered. Part of the thinking was to avoid another 9/11 or other act of terrorism which might have been assisted by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Of course, many nations, including France, Germany, and Russia, had different interpretations of “serious consequences,” which I do not understand. Does the fact that we have not found WMDs mean that none existed or that our efforts to implement regime change were not justified? Those arguments can be and have been intelligently made; but, I think that based on the intelligence that we had at the time, enforcing U.N. Resolution 1441 was our best course of action

Again, good parody, Michael. You might want to consider entering it in the May SOTM contest.

Thanks, John, for some rational thinking and the ability you have to state your views without stooping to the level of some of the narrow-minded people on this site.

That is quite a compliment. Thank you, anon. I hope that you are not referring to Michael Pacholek as narrow minded because, even though I usually disagree with him, his comments and parodies are usually fun to read and frequently witty and insightful.