Well, seems the Democrats and their media whores forgot all about the biggest names in the Democrat party claiming Saddam had WMD all the way up to the invasion that they voted for. They didn't have a doubt. Something happened along the way and the media and Democrats had full blown amnesia and forgot that they were making a more forceful case that Saddam had WMD than Bush was.
Lets leave the traitors Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson out of it. Both were conspiring liars.
935 Democrat lies more like...Every "lie" that the shithead Democrats claim were made before Bush got in office by Democrats. From Al Qaeda/Saddam links to WMD, to nuclear war...Despicable leftist scum.
Hey dude! Just listen with a notepad and pen. However, if it wasn't to make Harry mad, I would post it up myself as it is has masterful lyrics more people should hear it, especially Americans.
Maybe if somehow the American people could vote in a real representative of the people who works for the people and tells the truth about what's really going on there wouldn't be these problems. However that is clearly not going to happen when the roster of presidential candidates are being primed many years before elections arrive. You only get deceiver A or B. There is no C until maybe there's a viable 3rd party. That better be the people's mandate next time around. 3 party system. Real hope.
@D3COMO Google The War Card and review the 400,000 word database compiled by the Center For Public Integrity from the public statements of the 8 top officials of the Bush Administration in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. The study compares public statements by Bush and others and compares them to the actual facts that were or should have been known at the time. Your out-of-hand dismissal of the facts is superficial and unwarranted, driven by ideology i9nstead of critical thought.
Obama can only use Bush as a scape- goat for so long. Fact is, before the elec- tion, Obama criticized Bush for his out of control spending, & rightly so. So what's he do once in office? He spends 3 times the amount spent on the Iraq war trying to fix the economy, which by the way wasn't Bush's fault, but the fault of a greedy Wall Street from practices dating back to the Clinton administra- tion. This will only lead to double digit inflation & interest rates as it did in the 70's under Carter.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."—Bob Graham, December 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.
. We know politicians have always lied to us. Please remember this. I want our children out of this phony banksters war. Mothers unite. Get our children out of this war. They need our help.
Afghanistan doesn't have oil like Iraq does. If you remember, it was from Afghanistan that the plans for 9-11. If Bush had remained focused on the folks that actually had killed 3000+ Americans instead of his lust for oil, we might have caught Bin Laden and Obama wouldn't have to be sending more men there. Instead Bush wasted resources going to toothless lion, destablizing the region more, and allowing for another breeding ground for terrorists to be created.
Yeah, too bad President Bush listened to all of the Democrats who lied about the dangers posed by Iraq and their capabilities.
You're right, although Afghanistan's has vast, mostly untapped oilfields, they're much more known for their poppy fields where much of the world's heroin comes from.
Obviously, that's why Obama is sending 17,000 more troops there.
Perhaps, after he steals all of their heroin, he'll bring our troops home.
@mikemck123 If the Neo-Cons did not go to war in Iraq for oil, why DID they go to war? People who reject the financial justifications (and ignore the post-war evidence regarding how the US has used its influence over the Iraqi government to manipulate Iraqi oil contracts in favor of US and UK companies) never seem to provide a convincing alternative explanation and generally claim some wild philanthropic justification that no one, including themselves, actually believes.
@mikemck123 Bush 43 did not "listen to all of the Democrats who, lied about the dangers posed by Iraq and their capabilities" -- Bush 43 and the officials of his Administration were the SOURCE of all of the false information that was repeated by Democrats and Republicans alike who were not in the loop at the top of the Neo-Con power pyramid in Washington. Get your information straight, dude. It has all been extensively researched and organized -- all you have to do is read it.
First of all, 911 was the CIA. The twin towers and bldg. 7 were demolished. Larry Silverstein admitted that bldg. 7 was "pulled" on C-Span. Look it up.
@thatguy820 you know im just speculating here but ,since the whole campaign shifted gears so many years ago, i always wondered whether some kind of oppertunity to kill osama had been put off intentionally. we know the link between osama and sadam was not substantial yet
obviously sadam was more of a priority for bush. i mean how they could they not have found him with all the resources that have been used, its unbelievable, our whole economy is tethered to its vast industry and maybe that was the point.
@thatguy820 I couldn't agree more. There wasn't one valid reason for him to invade Iraq. And for those who say Saddam murdered his own people and was a tyrant, so is Kim Jong Il, so was Pinochet. The US hasn't invaded North Korea, and helped put Allende in power. America never topples dictators on principle, only on politics or commercial interests.
Well, Bush Senior did take the troops back to early after the Gulf War, when the land was not secure, and after that alot of people got slaughterd there, Bush Junior made the mistake of sending troops down there, now they Must protect the country untill it is safe enough there.
Obama knows this, he doesnt care about the oil. He is trying to change all the events the Bush administration has left behind.
Actually, Ulrna, Bush Sr didn't take the troops back "too early". He was bound by the resolution set by the UN. Remember, our job was only to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, not to remove Saddam or stabilize the region.
All Bush Sr did was what the UN told him to do.
The goal was to remove Saddam from Kuwait and so we did and then we left.
Had we gone any further, then surely the Looney Left would be complaining that Bush Sr "showed contempt for international law and ignored the UN".
Mike- There wouldn't be this problem if Bush had done what he said he'd do. But, he didn't did he? Obama will be paying for his inherited debts from the previous administration for a very, very very long time- You are blaming a man that just stepped into the Oval Office. Do you really feel that you're being fair.
Yes, I do feel that I'm being fair. If you're going to condemn conservatives and call them liars, then if you're going to be intellectually honest, you've got to hold your own people to the same standard.
Remember, if it's "lying" when conservatives said it, then it's just as "dishonest" when liberals say it.
I'm not blaming anybody for anything. In fact, if you've ever read my posts here, you'd know that I believe that Bush/Obama/Republicans/Democrats are just two sides of the same coin.
My point isn't to "blame" anybody, but just to point out the hypocrisy of alleged "commedian", Harry Shearer, and others on the left when they constantly condemn one side, but refuse to hold their side to the same standard.
@mikemck123 The Bush Administration misrepresented the facts about Iraq to the American people and deliberately pursued an agenda leading to war. Bush 41 did not proceed into Iraq after Desert Storm because 1. the UN resolutions empowered the Coalition only to eject Saddam from Kuwait, and 2. the Administration itself felt the effort would be prohibitively expensive, would upset the regional balance of power, and offered no viable exit-strategy if successful -- which all turned out to be correct
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.
Mike, what you are missing is that this letter from the Congress to then President Clinton didn't say go invade. It said use missile and air strikes on suspected Iraqi sites. If you recall, President Clinton did authorize from time to time air and missile strikes on Iraq. You would also do well to remember that the democrats at the time of writing that letter in 1998 were in the minority in both house of Congress and every time Clinton tried something, the GOP complained.
Not at all. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Harry Shearer and the Looney Left.
If it's a lie when the Republicans say it, then it's also a lie when the Democrats say it and it's hypocritical and dishonest to pretend that the Democrats have never said the same things, just so you can demonize the Republicans.
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity...
Hey mike, everyone knows you're just a shill for the assholes in power. Please stop spreading lies that have already been proven to be lies! And you are right about the right and the left said the same things. That's the conspiracy. Both political parties are working for the same goal. A "New World Order".
...This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.
I think Ken Lay is still alive. The rulers don't kill their operatives. The corruption and secrecy in this country is staggering! The media is so entangled and responsible, they are in too deep. They must keep the secret or else. So much for freedom of the press. The press is owned by the Rothchilds.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."—Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002.
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."—Joe Lieberman, August, 2002.
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...
...That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons...
...He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."—John Kerry, October 9, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."—Bob Graham, December 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002.
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002.
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."—Al Gore, 2002.
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means...
...We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001...
...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."—Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time...[Saddam Hussein] is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."—Robert Byrd, October 2002.
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. ...
...In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."—From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.
Interesting that he didn't show any of the statements by Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats who made statements about how Saddam represented a threat to us and must be stopped.
I guess they're only "lies" when Republicans tell them.
If you're going to criticize Republicans for saying something, then you should be consistant and be willing to criticize your own party, too.
MalibuKen65 - I seem to remember when conservatives cried foul for a couple of years straight over ONE lie...and the question asked wasn't even really very important. This is obviously worse. But will conservatives remember their own behavior over ONE lie? Apparently not.
You're right, of course. The whole exchange is kind of ridiculous.
I love Shearer. He was fantastic in Spinal Tap, and I enjoy his work on the Simpsons. But this is just an attempt at political assasination. And it's not creative, funny, or entertaining. Harry comes across as a bitter old man. THAT is what I was commenting on ,not the ridiculousness of Clinton's hummer in the W.H. Sometimes stupidity goes beyond political party, wouldn't you agree?
MalibuKen65 Sure and I wouldn't say this was so entertaining either, but the point remains. His statement makes sense. We have to look at results, and a bj is much less of an infraction than an unnecessary war on two fronts.
yes, reagan himself, an aging ex actor developed a missile. Riiiiight. I allowed my accountant to release funds to dyson's attempt at making a super vaccum cleaner. SO... I developed a super vaccum
For more Harry Shearer, go to the Site PublicRadioFan. It has streaming of thousands of NPR stations. It also lists shows on those stations. One is Harry's show "LeShow".
that's retarded. where are all of the DEMOCRATS who said THE EXACT SAME THING? go ahead and blame the president for everything. stick your head in the sand and believe Gore wouldn't have screwed it up, too. why is the DEM controlled congress so INEPT???
Pre-GWB administration the Dems passed a law that getting Hussein out of power was U.S. policy. They all agreed he was a MAJOR threat to us. Kerry, Pelosi, Gore, everyone. With Pres Bush in office they have Bush deragement syndrome and forget that THEY AGREE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH, but they can never say it now because for some reason they don't like GWB. It's sick. And it only hurts this country.
The day that the idiot leader of our country leaves office is the day that the world will throw the biggest party that ever was!!!!The Bush family SUCKS and everyone knows it! How the hell did those republicans get away with that phoney recount? I thought I was having a nightmare when I heard he won!!!! This is proof that money can buy just about anything! Thats really sad! Bye Bye Bush baby!...Bye Bye!
i find it hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job than Bush has. And Gore has done a lot of pretty cool things (like his work on GW) I can't say how he would have been as president, but Bush has been nothing but a disaster.
i don't know where you are getting your facts from but Regan was a nut who wrecked our economy and did a lot of damage to the country. I think it is really sad that the Repulifucks have tried to turn him in to a poster boy of some sort.
Oh my,.. here comes the insults so much for being civil.
Two days after his death, the Wall Street journal ran a lengthy editorial tribute to Ronald Reagan, in the editors' estimation the most important president since FDR. On economic policy, as the journal tells the story, by tying the hands of meddlesome government bureaucrats and cutting taxes, Reaganomics ignited an episode of miraculous economic growth that restored prosperity to the U.S. economy.
There is no doubt that we were given at best dubious intelligence regarding WMD's , but we are commited to this now.What the fuck do you think would happen if we pulled out of Iraq right now? We broke.We bought it.
Where did you here that, I want to see proof. Clinton was by far the most fiscally responsible president we've had over the past few decades (The last one before him was probably Kennedy) and his administration had their eye on Osama Bin Laden. In fact hes been on the FBIS top ten most wanted since 1999, yet under the advisement of Bush and his cabinet Bin Ladens threats were ignored. As for Clintons fabrications concerning the war in Iraq, IT'S B.S.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm guessing you've never taken economics 101 or any political science class.
Learn what the difference is between a surplus (and deficit) and the national debt. Next, look at who is responsible for the budget (Yes, the president signs the budget but he doesn't write it up.)
I don't give a flying fuck liberal/conservative, republican/democrat, but the truth is the truth. When the national debt FINALLY went down (1 qtr), Bush was elected and then 9/11 which crushed the economy + GOWT BS.
I've taken both political science and economics, 911 did crush the economy but Bush blatantly ignored that. Instead of raising taxes to help deal with the devastation and possibly to hunt down the true terrorist, Osama Bin laden, he decided that the upper 10% of Americans needed a tax break and shifted the burden to the middle class. Meanwhile due to his deregulation of business, thousands lost jobs increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Similar to what happened during the Depression
ronpaul2016 - I find it really weird that SO MANY comments left all over youtube, comments that are so often nasty, confrontational attacks like yours, or voice agreement with moronic conspiracy theories like "The World Trade Center is hologram and still stands today," have Ron Paul in their names.
As the "economics professor" you claim to be, you should know that when the gaps of wealth between the rich and poor lengthen, a depression usually follows. Although we are "only" in a recession, Bushes tax cuts to the wealthy (Exxon, the top ten percent of wealth) could easily lead us into one especially with rising oil costs. And by the way I don't smoke pot, I actually go to college so I can learn FACTS not conspiracy theories or COMPLETE BULLSHIT concerning the economy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are a clueless libtard. No big surprise here.
Who puts the squeeze on the middle class. Do you think it the republicans? That's pretty fucking pathetic if you can't see the whole picture. You cherry pick something you don't like with the republicans "TAX CUTS TO THE RICH" and then blame them for everything. What about high taxes from democrats? Local regulations keeping people from making their own businesses, etc. Wake the fuck up, douchebag. The democrats are part of the problem, too.
@ThevanGoghBlues,
Well, seems the Democrats and their media whores forgot all about the biggest names in the Democrat party claiming Saddam had WMD all the way up to the invasion that they voted for. They didn't have a doubt. Something happened along the way and the media and Democrats had full blown amnesia and forgot that they were making a more forceful case that Saddam had WMD than Bush was.
Lets leave the traitors Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson out of it. Both were conspiring liars.
mulhollanddose 7 months ago
I guess GOD did forbid Sadam because he never had any weapons of mass destruction after all lol.
korzon 9 months ago
935 Democrat lies more like...Every "lie" that the shithead Democrats claim were made before Bush got in office by Democrats. From Al Qaeda/Saddam links to WMD, to nuclear war...Despicable leftist scum.
mulhollanddose 1 year ago
LOVE THIS...!
TJTele 1 year ago
BADASSSS!
willwkrueger 1 year ago
does anyone where i can find the lyrics to this song? found none in the internet. thanks
Flockal2000 2 years ago
Hey dude! Just listen with a notepad and pen. However, if it wasn't to make Harry mad, I would post it up myself as it is has masterful lyrics more people should hear it, especially Americans.
Astralgroveler 2 years ago
yeah i know it´s easy to understand but i come from germany and because of it is accent i don´t understand everything clearly.
Flockal2000 2 years ago
Maybe if somehow the American people could vote in a real representative of the people who works for the people and tells the truth about what's really going on there wouldn't be these problems. However that is clearly not going to happen when the roster of presidential candidates are being primed many years before elections arrive. You only get deceiver A or B. There is no C until maybe there's a viable 3rd party. That better be the people's mandate next time around. 3 party system. Real hope.
surfmcgoogler 2 years ago 4
This video is such a one-sided load, as
everyone in the our Congress who voted
to go to war, Republicans & Democrats
alike, all saw the very same documents
that Bush & Cheney did before they voted.
Now most Dems (Clinton, Pelosi, etc.)
who voted to go, are now backpedaling,
Big surprise.
D3COMO 2 years ago
@D3COMO Google The War Card and review the 400,000 word database compiled by the Center For Public Integrity from the public statements of the 8 top officials of the Bush Administration in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. The study compares public statements by Bush and others and compares them to the actual facts that were or should have been known at the time. Your out-of-hand dismissal of the facts is superficial and unwarranted, driven by ideology i9nstead of critical thought.
WolverineDeus 1 year ago
D3COMO 2 years ago
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."—Bob Graham, December 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002.
mikemck123 2 years ago
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.
mikemck123 2 years ago
. We know politicians have always lied to us. Please remember this. I want our children out of this phony banksters war. Mothers unite. Get our children out of this war. They need our help.
superbeauthy 3 years ago
Obama has decided to send 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Our young men should not have to die just so Obama can satisfy his lust for oil.
mikemck123 2 years ago
Afghanistan doesn't have oil like Iraq does. If you remember, it was from Afghanistan that the plans for 9-11. If Bush had remained focused on the folks that actually had killed 3000+ Americans instead of his lust for oil, we might have caught Bin Laden and Obama wouldn't have to be sending more men there. Instead Bush wasted resources going to toothless lion, destablizing the region more, and allowing for another breeding ground for terrorists to be created.
thatguy820 2 years ago 6
Yeah, too bad President Bush listened to all of the Democrats who lied about the dangers posed by Iraq and their capabilities.
You're right, although Afghanistan's has vast, mostly untapped oilfields, they're much more known for their poppy fields where much of the world's heroin comes from.
Obviously, that's why Obama is sending 17,000 more troops there.
Perhaps, after he steals all of their heroin, he'll bring our troops home.
No blood for heroin!
mikemck123 2 years ago
You just said Obama will steal their heroin! You are out of your little mind.
Anomaly100 2 years ago
Actually, I was being facetious. I was making an absurd statement to point out the absurdity of claiming that Bush went to war for oil.
mikemck123 2 years ago
@mikemck123 If the Neo-Cons did not go to war in Iraq for oil, why DID they go to war? People who reject the financial justifications (and ignore the post-war evidence regarding how the US has used its influence over the Iraqi government to manipulate Iraqi oil contracts in favor of US and UK companies) never seem to provide a convincing alternative explanation and generally claim some wild philanthropic justification that no one, including themselves, actually believes.
WolverineDeus 1 year ago
@mikemck123 Bush 43 did not "listen to all of the Democrats who, lied about the dangers posed by Iraq and their capabilities" -- Bush 43 and the officials of his Administration were the SOURCE of all of the false information that was repeated by Democrats and Republicans alike who were not in the loop at the top of the Neo-Con power pyramid in Washington. Get your information straight, dude. It has all been extensively researched and organized -- all you have to do is read it.
WolverineDeus 1 year ago
First of all, 911 was the CIA. The twin towers and bldg. 7 were demolished. Larry Silverstein admitted that bldg. 7 was "pulled" on C-Span. Look it up.
prof5759 2 years ago
@prof5759 Please, all we need in this discussion is input from wild-eyed NWO conspiracy theorists and troofers.
WolverineDeus 1 year ago
@thatguy820 you know im just speculating here but ,since the whole campaign shifted gears so many years ago, i always wondered whether some kind of oppertunity to kill osama had been put off intentionally. we know the link between osama and sadam was not substantial yet
willwkrueger 1 year ago
obviously sadam was more of a priority for bush. i mean how they could they not have found him with all the resources that have been used, its unbelievable, our whole economy is tethered to its vast industry and maybe that was the point.
willwkrueger 1 year ago
@thatguy820 IT have area where pipelines plans made in '90s have taken a place.
Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11
PNACATTACKdotCOM 1 year ago
@thatguy820 I couldn't agree more. There wasn't one valid reason for him to invade Iraq. And for those who say Saddam murdered his own people and was a tyrant, so is Kim Jong Il, so was Pinochet. The US hasn't invaded North Korea, and helped put Allende in power. America never topples dictators on principle, only on politics or commercial interests.
Kaalec 1 year ago
@thatguy820 Afghanistan does have well over 1 trillion dollars of minerals.
Downfurlife 9 months ago
Well, Bush Senior did take the troops back to early after the Gulf War, when the land was not secure, and after that alot of people got slaughterd there, Bush Junior made the mistake of sending troops down there, now they Must protect the country untill it is safe enough there.
Obama knows this, he doesnt care about the oil. He is trying to change all the events the Bush administration has left behind.
Ulrna 2 years ago
Actually, Ulrna, Bush Sr didn't take the troops back "too early". He was bound by the resolution set by the UN. Remember, our job was only to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, not to remove Saddam or stabilize the region.
All Bush Sr did was what the UN told him to do.
The goal was to remove Saddam from Kuwait and so we did and then we left.
Had we gone any further, then surely the Looney Left would be complaining that Bush Sr "showed contempt for international law and ignored the UN".
mikemck123 2 years ago
Mike- There wouldn't be this problem if Bush had done what he said he'd do. But, he didn't did he? Obama will be paying for his inherited debts from the previous administration for a very, very very long time- You are blaming a man that just stepped into the Oval Office. Do you really feel that you're being fair.
Never mind.
Anomaly100 2 years ago
Yes, I do feel that I'm being fair. If you're going to condemn conservatives and call them liars, then if you're going to be intellectually honest, you've got to hold your own people to the same standard.
Remember, if it's "lying" when conservatives said it, then it's just as "dishonest" when liberals say it.
mikemck123 2 years ago 2
I'm not blaming anybody for anything. In fact, if you've ever read my posts here, you'd know that I believe that Bush/Obama/Republicans/Democrats are just two sides of the same coin.
My point isn't to "blame" anybody, but just to point out the hypocrisy of alleged "commedian", Harry Shearer, and others on the left when they constantly condemn one side, but refuse to hold their side to the same standard.
mikemck123 2 years ago
@mikemck123 The Bush Administration misrepresented the facts about Iraq to the American people and deliberately pursued an agenda leading to war. Bush 41 did not proceed into Iraq after Desert Storm because 1. the UN resolutions empowered the Coalition only to eject Saddam from Kuwait, and 2. the Administration itself felt the effort would be prohibitively expensive, would upset the regional balance of power, and offered no viable exit-strategy if successful -- which all turned out to be correct
WolverineDeus 1 year ago
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.
mikemck123 3 years ago
Mike, what you are missing is that this letter from the Congress to then President Clinton didn't say go invade. It said use missile and air strikes on suspected Iraqi sites. If you recall, President Clinton did authorize from time to time air and missile strikes on Iraq. You would also do well to remember that the democrats at the time of writing that letter in 1998 were in the minority in both house of Congress and every time Clinton tried something, the GOP complained.
thatguy820 3 years ago
So then, you're saying that these things weren't lies when the Democrats said them?
mikemck123 2 years ago
Hey mikemck, me thinks you doth protest too much. Hit a nerve?
prof5759 3 years ago
Not at all. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Harry Shearer and the Looney Left.
If it's a lie when the Republicans say it, then it's also a lie when the Democrats say it and it's hypocritical and dishonest to pretend that the Democrats have never said the same things, just so you can demonize the Republicans.
mikemck123 3 years ago
I don't want a blog. I just wanted to point out Shearer's hypocrisy. For that matter, the hypocrisy of liberals in general.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity...
mikemck123 3 years ago
dude, one word: blog.
hellololokitty 3 years ago
Hey mike, everyone knows you're just a shill for the assholes in power. Please stop spreading lies that have already been proven to be lies! And you are right about the right and the left said the same things. That's the conspiracy. Both political parties are working for the same goal. A "New World Order".
prof5759 3 years ago
Actually, except in local elections, I've supported mostly Libertarian and independant candidates, not "[people] in power".
Could you please show me what "lie" I've spread? All I did was to quote Democrats. Are you saying that the Democrats lied?
mikemck123 3 years ago
...This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."—Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
mikemck123 3 years ago
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources—something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
Saddam is dead
KonigseggKing 3 years ago
I think Ken Lay is still alive. The rulers don't kill their operatives. The corruption and secrecy in this country is staggering! The media is so entangled and responsible, they are in too deep. They must keep the secret or else. So much for freedom of the press. The press is owned by the Rothchilds.
prof5759 3 years ago
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.
mikemck123 3 years ago
srry disregrd what i i didn't see it was an excerpt sry again!
KonigseggKing 3 years ago
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."—Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002.
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States."—Joe Lieberman, August, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...
mikemck123 3 years ago
...That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons...
mikemck123 3 years ago
...He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."—John Kerry, October 9, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."—Bob Graham, December 2002.
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002.
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."—Al Gore, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means...
mikemck123 3 years ago
...We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001...
mikemck123 3 years ago
...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs."—Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time...[Saddam Hussein] is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."—Robert Byrd, October 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.
mikemck123 3 years ago
Hey, Harry, here's another "lie" you forgot:
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. ...
mikemck123 3 years ago
...In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."—From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.
mikemck123 3 years ago
You forgot a couple of "lies, Harry:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998.
mikemck123 3 years ago
Interesting that he didn't show any of the statements by Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats who made statements about how Saddam represented a threat to us and must be stopped.
I guess they're only "lies" when Republicans tell them.
If you're going to criticize Republicans for saying something, then you should be consistant and be willing to criticize your own party, too.
Otherwise, you're just another liberal hypocrite.
mikemck123 3 years ago
Harry should have added two and called the song "937 Lies"...it seems like it would flow better with that extra syllable.
SickVictor 3 years ago
You need to watch it several times to get it all. If you're reading the lies, you can't listen to the words of the song, which are "eeexcellent"
prof5759 3 years ago
is he trying to sound like tom waits?
TheodorBjork 3 years ago
I was wondering the same thing.
IronGums 3 years ago
Principal Skinner can sing! Heehee
hillaryperson 3 years ago
it isn't comedy it is real life, more of a tragedy actually. good work.
wayindie 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not very funny. Not good.
t01880 3 years ago
There were a lot of lies, but I think there was a lot more incompetence.
culwin 3 years ago
incompetence based on zionist propaganda.
inachu 3 years ago
any questions?
topangapan 3 years ago
This is great!
DarthandDirtyCheney 3 years ago
I love it. Mr. Shearer's voice is excellent. I love the lies about pies. Yum.
OscarLewis 3 years ago
lol lies about pies
Theman14234 3 years ago
DirtyDick Cheney needs more oil! Drill now or profits are lowered!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago
Thanks for confirming that you are superstitious.
monkeyblood68 3 years ago
I like Harry, but this is corny.
LLLLLLLLP3 3 years ago
wow.Harry Shearer hates Bush?! I'm shocked!
shame on you for mimicking Howlin Wolf,too.
hihats 3 years ago
Bitter liberals....that's funny. Just about every "conservative"
I ever met is a superstious, skiddish, goat.
monkeyblood68 3 years ago
Maybe... but we know how to spell superstitious!
MalibuKen65 3 years ago
Man... for such a rich celebrity, he has some nasty teeth.
Bitter liberals are funny!
MalibuKen65 3 years ago
MalibuKen65 - I seem to remember when conservatives cried foul for a couple of years straight over ONE lie...and the question asked wasn't even really very important. This is obviously worse. But will conservatives remember their own behavior over ONE lie? Apparently not.
aajoeyjo 3 years ago 4
You're right, of course. The whole exchange is kind of ridiculous.
I love Shearer. He was fantastic in Spinal Tap, and I enjoy his work on the Simpsons. But this is just an attempt at political assasination. And it's not creative, funny, or entertaining. Harry comes across as a bitter old man. THAT is what I was commenting on ,not the ridiculousness of Clinton's hummer in the W.H. Sometimes stupidity goes beyond political party, wouldn't you agree?
MalibuKen65 3 years ago
MalibuKen65 Sure and I wouldn't say this was so entertaining either, but the point remains. His statement makes sense. We have to look at results, and a bj is much less of an infraction than an unnecessary war on two fronts.
aajoeyjo 3 years ago 2
The difference is what makes a president important, as opposed to what makes a president great.
rfillingh 3 years ago
DirtyDick chenoid wants his oil NOW! Shoot a tasty load across his tonsils!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago
Reagan developed a missile that could bring down an incoming missile.....Clinton shot his load at Monica
timray99 3 years ago
yes, reagan himself, an aging ex actor developed a missile. Riiiiight. I allowed my accountant to release funds to dyson's attempt at making a super vaccum cleaner. SO... I developed a super vaccum
lxzander 3 years ago
For more Harry Shearer, go to the Site PublicRadioFan. It has streaming of thousands of NPR stations. It also lists shows on those stations. One is Harry's show "LeShow".
dianasatyr 3 years ago
any questions? yeah... why didn't you use one of your cool voices
timefilm 3 years ago
that's retarded. where are all of the DEMOCRATS who said THE EXACT SAME THING? go ahead and blame the president for everything. stick your head in the sand and believe Gore wouldn't have screwed it up, too. why is the DEM controlled congress so INEPT???
crockinl 3 years ago
Gore might not have decided to go to war in Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan and bin Laden.
badger5079 3 years ago
Pre-GWB administration the Dems passed a law that getting Hussein out of power was U.S. policy. They all agreed he was a MAJOR threat to us. Kerry, Pelosi, Gore, everyone. With Pres Bush in office they have Bush deragement syndrome and forget that THEY AGREE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH, but they can never say it now because for some reason they don't like GWB. It's sick. And it only hurts this country.
adventurechick1 3 years ago 3
Heh heh heh , Do'h !
HomerSimpsonOfficial 3 years ago
building 7
jazzmaster1972 3 years ago
mmmm, tasty oil! DirtyDick cheney wants a mouthful!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago
Is this why "The Simpsons" sucks now?
trublgrl 3 years ago
So now i suck ? Do'h !
HomerSimpsonOfficial 3 years ago
I Think Family Guy and South Park set the bar a little higher.
mikeprath 3 years ago
The day that the idiot leader of our country leaves office is the day that the world will throw the biggest party that ever was!!!!The Bush family SUCKS and everyone knows it! How the hell did those republicans get away with that phoney recount? I thought I was having a nightmare when I heard he won!!!! This is proof that money can buy just about anything! Thats really sad! Bye Bye Bush baby!...Bye Bye!
medusalvamp 3 years ago
Dude, the media even recounted the ballots and Gore lost get over it.
ele12957 3 years ago
Good thing the trusty media checked for us.
Agnotastic 3 years ago
Every recount showed GWB won!
The media wished it had gone the other way. LOL!
ele12957 3 years ago
i think everyone with any intelligence what so ever wished it had gone the other way.
halo2994 3 years ago
Al Gore would have been a total disaster and made a bigger muckup of things.
ele12957 3 years ago
No, no no.
Creationismsucks 3 years ago
He is a global warming pimp and he even got that wrong.
ele12957 3 years ago
i find it hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job than Bush has. And Gore has done a lot of pretty cool things (like his work on GW) I can't say how he would have been as president, but Bush has been nothing but a disaster.
halo2994 3 years ago 2
Time will tell, libs said the same thing about Regan and today he is regarded as one of the greatest presidents to have ever lived.
ele12957 3 years ago
i don't know where you are getting your facts from but Regan was a nut who wrecked our economy and did a lot of damage to the country. I think it is really sad that the Repulifucks have tried to turn him in to a poster boy of some sort.
halo2994 3 years ago 2
Oh my,.. here comes the insults so much for being civil.
Two days after his death, the Wall Street journal ran a lengthy editorial tribute to Ronald Reagan, in the editors' estimation the most important president since FDR. On economic policy, as the journal tells the story, by tying the hands of meddlesome government bureaucrats and cutting taxes, Reaganomics ignited an episode of miraculous economic growth that restored prosperity to the U.S. economy.
ele12957 3 years ago
he's the voice actor of Mr. Burns from The Simpsons, he also does Mr. Smithers, Ned Flanders and Skinner, to name a few..
DiDDEliNUSS0N 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FUCK YOU LEFT WING FUCKS!!!
angeltech1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FUCK SHEARER!
angeltech1 3 years ago
That's my Bushy! C'mon $5 gas!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago
If u think GWB has anything to do with the gas price ur a looney.
ele12957 3 years ago 3
It's a Bushy business! DirtyDick cheney loves that oil!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago
There is no doubt that we were given at best dubious intelligence regarding WMD's , but we are commited to this now.What the fuck do you think would happen if we pulled out of Iraq right now? We broke.We bought it.
trock6693 3 years ago
TubeComments.(INFO) post 1000's of comments a day So friggin awesome!
Angie38009 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
tthis guy is amoron
8data 3 years ago
The Dickster cheney, gotta give it up for Helliburton!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago
Those lies so damaged the US and killed so many people that a "funny" song about them only helps inure us to the crimes committed by the liars.
ivyshoots 3 years ago
이명박 거짓말쟁이 시발놈은 개패듯이 패서 청와대에서 끌어내야 함 !!!!
시체는 불에 태워야 함 !!!!
Victory0404 3 years ago 3
Waits wannabe.
kywhitne 3 years ago
When you're claiming a statement is a lie you should make sure you know what constitutes a lie first.
JonGonZyb 3 years ago 2
Oil! It's bushterrific! The Dick cheney goes to 11!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago 2
Wow... nice work!!! Great satire! :-D
Thanks for throwing down this particular gauntlet. You know, the rabbit hole only gets deeper... sadly...
DawnAkemi 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What about all the "lies" from the democrats during the Clinton administration as well?
ronpaul2016 3 years ago
I don't recall any that led us to a national debt and a war.
AshiriKagee 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are a dumbass, obviously. The "lies" about Iraq were actually made by members of the Clinton administration as well... Iraq had/wanted WMD, etc.
National debt increased under Clinton even, you do understand...right? War? Sure, a couple of those too... Nothing as big as Iraq.
I'm not here to support the war in Iraq, just tell the truth that the so-called "lies" started in the Clinton administration.
This is Bush Derangement Syndrome at work.
ronpaul2016 3 years ago
Where did you here that, I want to see proof. Clinton was by far the most fiscally responsible president we've had over the past few decades (The last one before him was probably Kennedy) and his administration had their eye on Osama Bin Laden. In fact hes been on the FBIS top ten most wanted since 1999, yet under the advisement of Bush and his cabinet Bin Ladens threats were ignored. As for Clintons fabrications concerning the war in Iraq, IT'S B.S.
Grungejesus90 3 years ago 5
Oh Sorry, in response to "ronpaul2016"
Grungejesus90 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm guessing you've never taken economics 101 or any political science class.
Learn what the difference is between a surplus (and deficit) and the national debt. Next, look at who is responsible for the budget (Yes, the president signs the budget but he doesn't write it up.)
I don't give a flying fuck liberal/conservative, republican/democrat, but the truth is the truth. When the national debt FINALLY went down (1 qtr), Bush was elected and then 9/11 which crushed the economy + GOWT BS.
ronpaul2016 3 years ago
I've taken both political science and economics, 911 did crush the economy but Bush blatantly ignored that. Instead of raising taxes to help deal with the devastation and possibly to hunt down the true terrorist, Osama Bin laden, he decided that the upper 10% of Americans needed a tax break and shifted the burden to the middle class. Meanwhile due to his deregulation of business, thousands lost jobs increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Similar to what happened during the Depression
Grungejesus90 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You were too busy smoking weed, obviously. Since that damages your memory, my guess is: YOU DID NOT LEARN SHIT ABOUT ECONOMICS.
What you said doesn't even make sense from an economists point of view, but it sure makes sense to a fucktard liberal.
ronpaul2016 3 years ago
ronpaul2016 - I find it really weird that SO MANY comments left all over youtube, comments that are so often nasty, confrontational attacks like yours, or voice agreement with moronic conspiracy theories like "The World Trade Center is hologram and still stands today," have Ron Paul in their names.
digitalshark 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Welcome to the internet, dipshit. Is this your first day on it?
ronpaul2016 3 years ago
As the "economics professor" you claim to be, you should know that when the gaps of wealth between the rich and poor lengthen, a depression usually follows. Although we are "only" in a recession, Bushes tax cuts to the wealthy (Exxon, the top ten percent of wealth) could easily lead us into one especially with rising oil costs. And by the way I don't smoke pot, I actually go to college so I can learn FACTS not conspiracy theories or COMPLETE BULLSHIT concerning the economy.
Grungejesus90 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are a clueless libtard. No big surprise here.
Who puts the squeeze on the middle class. Do you think it the republicans? That's pretty fucking pathetic if you can't see the whole picture. You cherry pick something you don't like with the republicans "TAX CUTS TO THE RICH" and then blame them for everything. What about high taxes from democrats? Local regulations keeping people from making their own businesses, etc. Wake the fuck up, douchebag. The democrats are part of the problem, too.
ronpaul2016 3 years ago
ronpaul2016 - thank you for confirming my observation.
digitalshark 3 years ago 2
Yeah ,I have a question !
These lies cost millions their lives.Why present these lies in entertaining way?
If Hitler presented his speeches through the songs Nazis should never get power.
mojoboy1984 3 years ago
ok, now do skinner
colemckelvie 3 years ago 4
okay okay. We get it. They lied. What politician hasn't? If your candidate didn't win, you didn't do your job. Quit cryin'.
ArlowCain 3 years ago
Spinal TAP!!!!!
bassque 3 years ago 2
I have a question- How'd you get to be such a tool?
bungalowpetee 3 years ago
2 questions: can anyone translate the arabic @ 2:13? And why does Harry make his top teeth so yellow?
cateliper0114 3 years ago
Tra-tra-trillions! Halliburton wants their gas back!
Mmmmmbushy!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago
I'm sick of the liberal BS. I'm not a conservative by any means, but this kind of video makes me wanna vote Republican. e,e
I'll be unsubscribing now.
KoriGurlBrat 3 years ago
we're...all humans after all.
Peace4evaV 3 years ago
dude needs a shave
pankratz1 3 years ago
Sn4tchbuckl3r spooned a man.
mpoertner 3 years ago 2
lol
ladfemax 3 years ago
$5 gas invasion, thanks Bushy!
ShaxomophoneLuver 3 years ago
Wait just a minute...are you insinuating that the Bush Administration fabricated information to make their case for the invasion of Iraq?
Where the hell do you liberals come up with this stuff?
elljay68 3 years ago
Ohh, nice vid. And check out his website. Very good!
vbennich 3 years ago
Thats it! Where is Donnie? This was just awful. No Donnie? Unsubscribing.
wopwoman 3 years ago
Donnie died, remember?
ripthepanda 3 years ago
ripthepanda-NO! Say it isn't true. Last video I watched,he escaped from the Swat team coming into his house. When and how did he die?
wopwoman 3 years ago
Oh did he escape?
I thought he got shot...
ripthepanda 3 years ago
ripthepanda- No, when the swat team entered, he was gone. They couldn't find him.
wopwoman 3 years ago
Ohhh, he disappeared into the vanishing point with the train, didn't he?
ripthepanda 3 years ago