President George W. Bush, Meet Dee Snider of Twisted Sister

It is one thing for Oliver Stone to make terrible movies that nobody of any human value cares about.

Imagine the possibilities if people with actual talent told the true story.

It is for this reason, that on the silver anniversary of Twisted Sister, I have decided to tell the real George W. Bush story.

For those that do not remember Twisted Sister, just be older. Back when MTV actually played music videos, Twisted Sister created a classic. It starts out with a son listening to loud rock music in his room. The father comes upstairs and asks his son loud, angry questions that forever changes their relationship.

Dad: “Well, Mister Sister…Who are you? Whwere do you come from? What do you want to do with your life?”


25 years later, as Oliver Stone continues to trash all that is decent and right in this world, I have obtained a copy of a conversation between a father and son that forever changed history. The story took place around 1999, extending through 2004, but in 2009 details have finally been released. That music video is below. The movie will be out in good time.

President George Herbert Walker Bush: “Well, Master Bush. Who are you? Where do you come from? What do you want to do with your life?”

Governor George W. Bush: “I wanna Be President.”

President George Herbert Walker Bush: “Why do you want to be President?”

Governor George W. Bush: “I wanna finish what you started but didn’t finish!

I want Saddam Hussein’s head on a platter!


(At this point the elderly realists will be blown out of the room by blaring guitar and flares that take the roof off of the house.)

1) “Tell me don’t invade, well all I can say, when you tell me don’t invade, I say no! No no, no no, no!

Scowcroft and James (Baker), you tell me what they say, well I’ll tell you where they can go! Go go, go go, go!

If you ask Cheney, he and Rummy and Wolfie are ready…

Tell Tommy Franks that it is time to go…


2) Some say don’t invade, we can dialogue and all sing Kumbaya…ya ya, ya ya, ya!

Screw the Carter approach, look what happened when we let down the Shah…Shah Shah, Shah Shah, Shah!

Like Noriega, Saddam needs music shooting through him…

along with a couple bullets through the heart…


3) Let the leftists cry, that is all, they do anyway…Way way, way way, way!

Saddam had chances, 17 of them since 1993…Three three, three three, three!

We can let the liberals serenade to sweet surrender…

Or we can win one for the U.S.A…


4) War is what they wanted, now we can say that war is what they got…Got got, got got, got!

9/11 came, but it was America that fired the last shot…Shot shot, shot shot, shot!

The liberals carped on every little thing that I was doing…

I was saving their candy @sses, whether they liked it or not!


Once again, history will show that I was right where it counted.

The golden age of rock music occurred between 1986 and 1992, with the seeds of greatness occurring in the immediate preceding years.

No President rocked harder and got the job done than George W. Bush.

Saddam Hussein is dead. The world is better off.

It became better off as soon as President Bush picked up that bullhorn and let the world know that the people that knocked down the Towers would hear from all of us.

Saddam Hussein did not cause 9/11. He absolutely was a terrorist. Removing him was 100% right.

He called our President’s bluff, but he forgot that the Democrats had left the White House. The men with their steel boots and balls were in charge.

The leftists were terrified we would lose.

“The Dub” was having none of it.

Saddam Hussein was done the day Dubya banged his fist on the table. It was only a matter of time until Saddam would be found in a spider hole and checked for head lice.

It all started with that fist on the table.

“Who are you?”

“I am George W. Bush, the President of the United States.”

“Where do you come from?

“The right place.”

“What do you wanna do with your life?”

“I wanna save your @ss whether you like it or not.


You got it sir. Saddam is dead. As always, well done.


13 Responses to “President George W. Bush, Meet Dee Snider of Twisted Sister”

  1. thepoliticaltipster says:

    (I had intended to post this on the previous thread)

    Provocative article Eric. Even though, as a non-American I have a certain degree of detachment, I disagree with your idea that the GOP’s problems come down to salesmanship rather than ideology. Some aspects of the Bush years will need to be rebranded, since I doubt anyone will call themselves “neoconservative” again for the foreseeable future (which is a pity because neo-conservatism – along with David Brooks’ idea of National Greatness Conservatism – is one of the political philosophies that will be part of any revitalized GOP). However, the fact of the matter is that the Republican party needs to move to the centre on fiscal matters and immigration.

    I know a lot of commentators in the United States are pointing to David Cameron’s rebranding of the Conservative party in Britain. However, I think the current Tory success in the polls owes more to a Labour government that has been in office for twelve years and seems to lack (after Blair’s departure) any grand vision. Indeed, there is a strong case for arguing that gimmicks like “hug a hoodie” and “Web Cameron” have done more harm than good. In any case, I think the better analogy is with the Labour Party in the 1980s. They completely overhauled their presentation after the 1983 defeat (which saw them come close to losing their status as Britain’s second party). However, they still lost the 1987 and 1992 elections. It was only when John Smith – and then Tony Blair – moved (and in some case dragged) the party towards the centre that they became dominant.

    If moving to the centre is the solution, then how is it going to be achieved? One of the reasons why I was so enthusiastic about McCain’s chances was that I thought he could win by running against both his Democratic opponent and Bush’s domestic policies, in the same way that Sarkozy ran in 2007 against Royal and Chirac’s legacy. In this way McCain would push the GOP in a more reformist direction (and arrest the development of war-weariness that was appearing within the Republican party). Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton’s defeat moved the general election into more conventional waters, (although Obama was a weaker candidate). McCain also spurned the centre by selecting Sarah Palin (a maverick only insofar that her political positions were close to elements of the base).

    One radical solution would be for moderates to write off 2012, let the “Palin-conservative” fever (which bears some worrying similarities to aspects of paleo-conservatism) burn it itself out in a crushing defeat and hope that the Republican party bounces back four year later under a more sensible leader. After all, after crushing defeats in 1964, 1996, 1976 and 2004 the losing party in those elections managed to recapture the White House. However, Nixon, Carter (and lets be fair, Obama) are not exactly shining examples moderate leaders emerging from the ashes of defeat – rather they were weak leaders (especially in the case of the latter two) were clearly not centrists.

    The only chance for a credible opposition that can keep Obama on the straight and narrow is for the moderates, such as Giuliani, Graham or Ridge, to put forward both a strong foreign policy agenda and domestic policy proposals that can appeal to the centre. McCain’s decision to endorse Obama’s deadline for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, and the general silence on this issue, is disappointing.

  2. Well, it’s apropos you used a Twisted Sister metaphor here. As much as I enjoyed ol’ TS, I certainly took them no more seriously than they took themselves. (As a side note, I have an indirect familial connection with those guys.)

    And it’s not that “leftists were terrified we would lose.” It’s that we understood something Cheney himself understood, but disregarded later, when he was asked as recently as 2000 by Tim Russert, “Do you regret not taking Saddam out nine years ago?,” to wit Cheney said, “I don’t, Tim. It was–and it’s been talked about since then. But the fact of the matter is, the only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we’d done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards–they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad. They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments. So I think we got it right, so suppose it’s one of those things that’ll be debated for some time. But I thought the decision was sound at the time, and I do today.”

    He was standing by the assessment he made in 1994 when he was asked during an AEI interview, “Do you think the US or UN forces should have moved into Baghdad?,” Cheney stated, “No.” When asked, “Why not?,” he answered, “Because if we’d gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn’t have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off; part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim. (They) fought over it for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn’t a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.”

    And again, he was reasserting a consistant position he’d maintained from the start, when back in 1992 to the Economic Club of Detroit “Why didn’t bury Saddam Hussein when we had the chance?,” he replied in part, “But let’s assume for the moment that we would have been able to do it… Then the question comes ‘putting a government in place of the one you’ve just gotten rid of.’ You can’t just sort of turn around and walk away. You have now accepted the responsibility for what happens in Iraq. What kind of government do you want us to create in place of the old Saddam Hussein government? Do you want a Sunni government, or a Shi’a government or maybe it ought to be a Kurdish government, or maybe one based on the Ba’ath Party or maybe some combination of all of those? How long is that government likely to survive without U.S. military forces there to keep it propped up? We would have been in a situation once we went into Baghdad where we would have engaged in the kind of street by street house to house fighting in an urban setting that would have been dramatically different from what from what we were able to do in the gulf… You would have been fighting in a build up urban area, large civilian population and much heavier prospects for casualties. You would have found as well I think the disintegration of the arab coalition that signed on to support us in our efforts to eject the Iraqis from Kuwait but never signed on for the proposition that the United States would become some kind of quasi permanent occupier of a major middle eastern nation.”

    He finally summed it up in the way most of us “leftists” (and now most Americans in general)…

    “If you get into the business of committing U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq, to occupy the place, my guess is I’d probably still have people there today instead of having been able to bring them home…The bottom line question for me was: How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer? Not very damn many.”

    4252 is TOO DAMN MANY. It was NOT “worth” it.

    Not everything Cheney predicted could happen came to be, though much of it as yet could. But the real question at the heart of the matter – the crux of the argument against invading Iraq was simply and bluntly put by Cheney himself when he both asked and answered the only question that really should matter to we Americans: “How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? The answer? Not very damn many.”

    Why you supposed “pro-American” conservatives ignore this essential truism is beyond me.


  3. Dav Lev says:

    Adolph Hitler accused the Russian Commies and (of course) the Jews (all the Jews from the most secular to the most Orthodox, ages 1 week to over 100), of having stabbed Germany in the back (they lost WW1) and combiningg to destroy the good German Volk, with their baby blue eyes
    and blond hare (in the southern part of Krautland, that is).

    It took from Sept 1, 1939 (when Germany invaded Poland) to VE Day (
    victory in Europe), years later, and millions of deaths (most civilian) and the rape of entire countries (and peoples) to end his NWO (New World Order).

    Or as Bill Maher says, we Americans only go to war with brown people,
    oh, except for WW2, when we stopped Hitler from infringing on our territory by taking over the world. That’s Bill for you, the guy who
    believes we all came from the jelly fish..I mean isn’t religion all a myth?

    Except for some Holocaust deniers, most of the planet is thankful that
    the Reich didn’t last 1,000 years. If it had, these same people would
    today be bars of brown soap, in Herr Clinks bathroom. (BTW the Krauts
    had planned to “Administer” parts of the US after they invaded, using
    their 5th column to aid the occupation.

    Are we aware that most Japanese were interned during the war for
    their own PROTECTION from enraged local “Patties” who were just waiting for
    an excuse to aid our marines at Iwo and the Marshalls.

    But getting back to my friend Saddam and his two lovely sons.

    It’s true that the Arab countries did not invade Iraq itself..forgetting
    about Baghad. You see, they wanted US to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait,
    absent which, ALL of them could face similar problems, besides losing control of much of the world’s oil.

    During the 1st Gulf War, Saddam had entire brigades on the Saudi
    Border, ready to invade that “Moderate” country. We know he fired
    32 Scuds into Israel, which was not fighting him, but was in a state of
    war preparations. Fortunately for Saddam, those missiles were not armed
    with bc warheads..or goodby Iraq. (Israel had dozens of nukes at that time mounted on it’s many Jericho Missiles.

    The question is asked, how many US lives were worth taking out Saddam?

    Well, for starters, prior to our invasion in 2003, a test was done on the
    East Coast involving either anthrax or smallpox. This was done by
    several prominent US lawmen. It was shown that within a few weeks, over 1m US citizens would have died (we simply didn’t have the anti-biotics to
    treat every effected).

    We did not invade Iraq JUST to rid the region of Saddam, we invaded
    to preclude another 911 type attack against US or our interests abroad.
    How many times do I have to remind you liberals?

    Our failure was after the initial victory, you know, “Mission accomplished”. I’m sure had Bush know he would not have stood on the deck of the
    aircraft carrier, looking like “A post card” as the liberals and defeatists
    like to say. Oh isn’t this important!

    We freed 50m Afghans and Iraqis…unfortunately, the “progressives” (aka liberal), now have given our enemies a timeline…yup, all they have to do
    is wait US out and pay the Sunnis one shekel more than we have to switch
    sides. You see, these guys are really clever.

    To my liberal, “progessive” fellow citizens……what will you say when
    there is another 911, next time with millions affected?

    But then again, you can watch it all unfold on the Charlie Rose show
    with his interviewees, (the ambassador of Iran, No, Korean, Chavez
    and Castro) shaking their collective heads……pointing the fingers
    to Mossad.

  4. Micky 2 says:

    “Why you supposed “pro-American” conservatives ignore this essential truism is beyond me.”

    Its always beyond you because you’ll only cherry pick relative statements ans situations to your benefit.
    Saddam was a different problem starting in 2001 than he was earlier.
    Plain and simple, thats why your probabl the only one asking that question because most level headed liberals(oyxymoron) know the reasons we went in.
    And they werent the reasons Cheny was asserting in 94.

    So why the long useless post jersey ? Yea, 9 years ago wasnt the right time to invade.
    After breaking 17 resolutions and playing cat and mouse with inspectors making it look like he something to hide it was time.
    After 911 I’ll both my cajones and yours that Cheny had vaild reasons to change his views.

  5. “We did not invade Iraq JUST to rid the region of Saddam, we invaded
    to preclude another 911 type attack against US or our interests abroad.
    How many times do I have to remind you liberals?”

    Dan Lev, you can “remind” us of the endless list of excuses the Bush administration used to invade Iraq all you like, but in the end the only excuse that held as even marginally believable and acceptable to the American people was that we needed to establish a functional democratic republic in the Middle East to stem an ostensible tide of Islamic theocracy allegedly spreading through the region. In the Muslim world there are republics, like Turkey and Indonesia, there are monarchies, like the Arabian kingdons, there are failed states, like Sudan and Somalia, and there are variations on military governments, like Egypt and Pakistan, but there is really only one theocracy – Iran. So really, even that excuse does not hold water – and ironically, it may well be the end result in Iraq because of our invasion. Anyone with any minimal knowledge of the Middle East knows that the Saddam and the Baathists avoided anti-American terrorists like the plague. Engaging with these groups would have been playing Russian Roulette with their national existence. So your excuse – “to preclude another 911 type attack” – is bogus, and only a few hardcore righties still believe that today.

    And Micky, a conservative using the wishs of the UN as an excuse to invade Iraq is like Ahmedinejad using the the wishes of Israel to bomb Syria. Ludicrous.

    Cheney didn’t change his mind – he changed his position of power. A lot of money has been made from this war, and Cheney’s friends, and Cheney himself, stood a lot to gain and gained it. Tens of billions in profits for preferred no-bid military contractors, and hundreds of billions in profits for Big Oil. Cheney made a simple calculation: thousands of dead American < billions in profits for his buddies. It’s as obvious as the snarl on his face. You guys have been had by the very worst kind of human being – a murderer for profit.


  6. Micky 2 says:

    Just another 911 trufer conspiracy theory thats been dismanteld a long time ago.
    The evidence against Saddam is a lot more compelling than your argument.

    By the way, I knew you were gonna say thats where a big part of our deficit went.
    You’re all too easy to read.

    “Cheney didn’t change his mind – he changed his position of power. ”

    Regardless of what you think his motives were he still had to change his mind.

    “A lot of money has been made from this war”

    I should hope so, they deserve every dime of it.
    A lot of people worked hard to develop the weaponry and products it took to keep us and our troops safe.

    ” and Cheney’s friends, and Cheney himself, stood a lot to gain and gained it.”
    Cheny wasnt even on Halliburtons board anymore when the war was launched and all his payments were residual from contracts previous to the war.

    “Cheney made a simple calculation: thousands of dead American < billions in profits for his buddies.”

    And you heard this from him ?

    ” It’s as obvious as the snarl on his face.”

    O.K, thats how you figured all this out ? He he. You’re funny.

    ” You guys have been had by the very worst kind of human being – a murderer for profit.”

    Your sick Jersey.
    I think that Clinton was derelict in his duties and that dereliction was partially to blame for 911 and him being able to profit the surplus he established.

    But I wouldnt call him a murderer.
    Sometimes you really lose you place at rational table

  7. Dav Lev says:

    Talk about double talk, get this.

    Tonight on PBS, Baker and Hamilton were interviewed. They
    apparently tesified before Congress.

    We all remember the Baker-Hamilton report, which was an exit
    strategy for US..and a retreat and defeat for our forces, as well
    as the fight against terrorism.

    If I recall, President Bush dismissed the report virtually completely.

    Well, they were now both asked, was it all worth it?

    Their answers, only time will tell., that Iraq is still a dangerous place
    and very erratic.

    Mr. Baker former US Treasury Secretary and pundit on just about
    everything, said that he didn’t say in his report that we must withdraw
    by a definite date, but gave March 2003 as a target (which was
    btw Bush’s target date).

    I mean, what nitwits both these guys are..and part of the reason we
    have been in Iraq for over 6 years with still uncertain definite date
    for both partial and total withdrawal.

    Asked about Afghanistan, they said, well, that’s where the terrorists 911
    came from. So we should be there, but be wary of gradually increasing
    our fighting troops.

    Bill Maher is also a nitwit…in my opinion, but he is at least somewhat

    He said that Al Qaeda are not German’s armies..with generals..planning
    and plotting on a board the movement of fleets of warships. They hide
    in caves…

    In fact, Al Qaeda is in 60 countries…so why not invade all of them

    I thought they attacked US on 911, yet we are still fighting the Taliban,
    while the real financiers of terrorism are in Saudi Arabia.

    But my opinion doesn’t mean much. I voted for McCain…and look what
    we got. Recall McCain was against perks..well Mr. Obama’s had included
    billions in perks saying, they were already in the budget.

    Oh come on, Obama, do you think we are all dumb?

    Thinking about it, well, maybe?

  8. Micky, I am in no way trying to vindicate Saddam Hussein. He was a miserable &^%$#@!@#$%^ and the world is better off without him. I firmly believe Cheney knew that this war would be far most costly in blood, money and time than he let on, because he admitted as much at three times previously as I quoted him above. It is my personal opinion, based on what I find to be overwhelming evidence, that Cheney – not so much Bush – wanted the war in Iraq for the profits and power of his associated interests. I am far from alone in believing this. Many, many people, far more educated, experienced, and credentialed than I, concur with this assessment.

    As for Clinton, he did the same thing Bush 41 did, so then you must be assterting that Bush 41 too was “derelict in his duties.” And I’d love to hear what you then must think of Reagan, who’s administration was more than friendly with Saddam’s horrific regime. I smell a hypocrite.


  9. Micky 2 says:

    So what if you quoted him on statements from 94 ?
    Dont you get it ?
    After 8 years of watching him brutalize his country and attack us and the Brits, wrap Clinton around his middle finger, play games with inspectors, kick them outta the country, 911, he changed his mind.

    “Cheney – not so much Bush – wanted the war in Iraq for the profits and power of his associated interests. I am far from alone in believing this. Many, many people, far more educated, experienced, and credentialed than I, concur with this assessment.”

    So what ? Its just your opinion against a slew of other countries and democrats in this country that saw what needed to be done.
    Good god man of course a million people saw the opportunities for profit in the war but theres just no way you can prove or make sense in your assertion that it was all just strictly for profit.
    And I’m sick and freaking tired of you liberals thinking that just because someone is smart or educated that automatically makes em right.

    Your comparison of Bush to Clinton is incredibly weak and it sucks big time.
    Bush defeated Saddam, along with the allies and the UN was responsible for setting up the surrender treaties, sanctions and resolutions. he was not derilict, he gave peace its chance by giving Saddam the rope neccessary to either make something out of his country or hang himself.
    Had Saddam started shooting at us in no fly zones, abusing oil for food resolutions, financing homicide bombers, gassing Kurds and doing all that other crap on Bushs watch would not of sat by getting a hummer and do nothing about it like Clinton did.
    Clinton was complacent and derelict while Saddam was actually shooting at us. What, he invaded Bosnia nd blew up an Iraqi pharmacuetical plant ?
    Gimme a break.
    Besides that, my point was that no matter how derelict I think Clinton was or what he was percieved to gain by being derelict…
    DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERECE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Like I said about Cheny I will say about Reagan.
    Saddam was a different component when Reagan was in office who was not the level of threat that Iran was.

    I smell an opportunistic liar who wants everyone to believe that we should of attacked Saddam during Reagans term.
    Thats just stupid.

    Your accusation that Cheny used the deaths of our soldiers for his associates profit is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever heard you say.
    It is also an argument that every delusional code pink trufer moonbat was throwing around in the early stages of the war and has since then been largely ignored and/or forgotten along with “911 was an inside job”.

    Theres pratically no evidence whatsoever out there to back your assertion that cheny was in it for profit.
    If he was so hell bent on profiting off an invasion he probably would of suggested it sooner while he was still on the board or stayed on during the Bush term, or negotiated contracts earlier so he could collect commisions or whatever up until now.
    The only thing that holds water in all this is that fact that you’re a contemptuous deranged childish hate filled moonbat with nothing more than a handful of weak unprovable accusations.
    The more you keep it up, the dumber you look.
    But hey, keep it up, you’re just making yourself look like the poster boy for all the reasons you guys shouldnt be in power and have no business going near a ballot

  10. Micky, Cheney was saying the same thing as of 2000, as you can see from my quotes above. 9/11 didn’t change anything as far as Iraq was concerned, except that the Bush administration used it as an excuse to invade.


  11. Micky 2 says:

    “except that the Bush administration used it as an excuse to invade.”

    “Reason to invade” not “excuse”

    Theirs a huge difference in the words and how they are used.

    We had valid reasons to go into Iraq based on documented facts.

    Yours is an excuse becuse you have nothing but delusional conspiracy theories and hate to back your claims.

    Still as much as I’ve disliked many presidents I never called them murderers.
    You have no proof of the murders or lies you charge these men with.

    You loose.

  12. Micky 2 says:

    Oh, and by the way, you make my point for me when you use the 2000 timeline.
    As soon as Bush came into office problems with Saddam were already coming to a head, 911 was the last straw, this is when Cheny realized that his previous positions were no longer applicable.
    Sorry man, the stage of events and positioning of Chenys statements and actions dont support your theoretical delusional hatred.
    If he was out to make money off of war with Iraq he would would of started ramping up the rhetoric against Sadam and making the case for war much earliere. He stood to make less money by holding the positions you claim as long as possible up until the last minute and then previously taking himself from the baord earlier.
    If he was so hell bent on making a buck there were much easier and diabolical methods and timing he could of used.
    What you assert and what happened dont jive, the pieces dont fit.

  13. […] President George W. Bush, Meet Dee Snider of Twisted Sister | THE … […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.