loid, well-written if clearly Canadian (isn't that a porduct of some sort?) - the thing is, Iraq DID have WMD, just not recently (or so it appears), so the statement that people believe Iraq had WMD needs more detail to be able to tell what these people are actually saying.

And, seriously, there is more to it than abject stupidity - swear. Thanks and welcome!

Loid,

Thank you for that refreshingly shallow parody of a thoughtful, well-written post.

Let me first point out that you too are an "Merican." Even though we here in the US always call ourselves Americans -- in actual fact, that is what we are -- that does not mean that others living on this continent are not Americans themselves. You are.

Furthermore, most US Americans (I'll make this distinction for you so you don't feel left in regards to the 'American' label) believe that Saddam has WMDs because, in actual fact, he did. Not only did he have the weapons, he even used those weapons against both Iran and his own people.

As for your selective quotes above, what you do not mention because, of course, you are simply a liberal parrot echoing back what you hear from the spinmeisters of the left, is that David Kay went on to say that, in many ways, Saddam was more dangerous than we thought. As well, the Duelfer report also affirmed that Saddam was in clear and constant violation of UN sanctions, had facilities in place to allow for a fast recovery of WMD programs if and when sanctions were lifted, and that Saddam was an active supporter of terrorists organizations and causes.

So, Loid, perhaps before you go using a big complicated word like "stupid" no less than 10 times in the same post, you should take a quick look in the mirror and ask yourself these questions...

Did I take the time to fact check the information given to me by fellow liberals and/or found on liberal Bush-bashing sites on the Internet? Did I at least try and exercise a moment of independent thought on this topic before simply buying into what I was being told, or did the information SO jibe with my personal worldview that I just HAD to run with it?

Loid, Thanks for telling us what we already know. People in the country are becoming increasingly stupid, lazy and when they are not either of the aforementioned, they are simply mislead by our media. As bloggers we have a huge task ahead of us. I would like to think it will make a difference.

This is what we need...more canadians telling us how to run our country...you need to go wait in line for some of that state sponsored welfare type mental health you folks seem to like so much!

You should try staying out of American politics and go kiss the queens ass some more!

Whoa! Easy big fellas! Netaloid merely offers a little satirical humor to ease the pain on the left. Surely after your man's bracing victory you can shoulder the burden a couple of barbs produce, eh?

Loid is right. Yensid is right. Andy Marsh is ignorant. I too think that stupidity is a reason for Bush's victory. If you talk to some average people about politics, some of them reveal their ignorance on these issues. People (at least in America) tend to belive solely in the media and even more in the government when in fact these people are liars that decieve the American people and manipulate our fears of another terrorist attack to fight an unjust war that's clearly oil-motivated. I think that its good for people from other countries to comment on our actions. After all, we are the most influental country in the world.
Also, I believe that David's viewpoint is flawed. The war in Iraq was one of the worst decisions I've seen a president make. Yes, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction--back in the 1980s. They weren't even nuclear. They were chemical and biological weapons that aren't nearly as dangerous as a nuke. Also, didn't the U.S. back Iraq in that war with Iraq? Hmm...
Iraq doesn't have WMD nor were they in the process of making WMD. The government either lied to us (most likely) of acted too soon on their evidence. So, why did we go to Iraq? Well kids, Iraq has a lotta oil. Oil in these days basically means world domonation. The plan was to replace the Saddam Club with some American-friendly Iraqis who would sell us oil cheap. So we sent ill-prepared soldiers into a foreign country and now look what happens: we have a huge insurgency and there is a high deathtoll in Iraq due to warfare.
Yes guys, Bush isn't the oh-so-friendly friend you think he is. Iraq never attacked us on 9/11, bin Laden did, and it is undeniably egregious and morally wrong for the leader of the free world to decieve his people into believing that.
Fuck Bush.

and this a-hole calls me ignorant???

ooh, you forgot that the US (along with other western countries) also sold Saddam much of the components he needed to get his WMD programs started. Yeah, it was way back in the early eighties. As was the time he actually used them on his own people.
Yes, Saddam used to have WMDs, a decade or two ago. Bush must be feeling glad he no longer has to say "Saddam HAS WMD" because now no-one can say he's lying about it, technically.

Where, exactly, is "Ottowa" located? :-/

"didn't the U.S. back Iraq in that war with Iraq?"

Talk about sending mixed messages!

"Fuck Bush."

Deep Thoughts...With Jack Handy...

Hey, fuck you too RJ. And if you read my comment again, you would realize that that would make sense in the context of the passage.

P.S.: When I say "fuck you", I'm saying something like "go to hell", or "die bitch". There's no sexual connotation to that when I said it.

Sit down, in other words, and shut up.

That's the message. And, the Justice Department is, as we speak, plotting ways to help some of us shut up and give us a place to sit. People who think the new Bush administration is about reconcilation should head en masse to their nearest mental health facility -- which, unfortunately, would be overwhelmed.

Yesterday, I began seeing 'Impeach Bush' bumper stickers. I wonder where people are getting them.

Mac- Probably from the same supplier that's been selling them for the past four years!

Loid, US Americans are paying for and providing you with your basic defense, which also allows you the moral luxury of not having to make hard decisions and do mean things.

Rather than this faux-sophisticated sniping, a simple thank you would suffice.

OK, thanks so much for protecting me from the architects of 9/11 (oh, wait, bin Laden's still on the loose). And from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (oh, right, there weren't any after all, my bad). And almost needless to mention, those responsible for shutting down Congress and killing private citizens with anthrax letters were never caught.

The misguided American military adventure in Iraq has killed about 1,200 young Americans and somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 Iraqis. Those 60,000 have extended families. Just through those killings, let alone resentment at the lack of basic infrastructure and no hint that allied militaries are leaving any time soon or later, has likely caused a tremendous surge in recruitment amongst the so-called insurgents.

In other words, U.S. military interference in Iraq has acted like fertilizer, growing a fine crop of angry new terrorists. Great. Thanks a lot for the protection.

And now I see Bush's new man at the CIA is running off the most experienced officers there.

And the military telegraphed their attack on Fallulah for so long that andy "insurgents" who cared to had plenty of time to leave beforehand and set up terror outposts elsewhere in the country, which they've obviously done as evidenced by the increase in soldier deaths north and south of Bagdad.

And countries still can drive big ocean-going vessels into virtually any American harbor without fear their cargo will be x-rayed or checked.

So sure, Al, thanks for all that protection and ace strategy. I think we'd probably be a lot safer if you'd trade geographic places with Mexico to give us a buffer zone.

Loid, perhaps you've been confused by the news reports. It's Islamic jihadists who are out trying to kill everyone, not US.

Despite 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, perhaps you somehow think that if we just don't swat at them, they will leave us alone. Perhaps you've missed the reports of thwarted terrorist plots here every few weeks since the 9/11 opening salvo.

Perhaps you think that imam in Albany wouldn't really have set up a huge assassination at the UN like he was caught trying to do. Perhaps you don't think that Somali jackass would really, really blow up a mall in Columbus, OH. Or perhaps you simply don't care.

More generously, perhaps it's just that you do not HAVE to care, because the US is taking the responsibility for stopping the bad guys. It's much easier and more gratifying to bitch about how the US is doing the job than to have to be the one responsible for actually doing it.

As to WMDs, we actually have found some scraps. Article in the LA Times a couple of weeks ago cited 58 WMD items, mostly apparently old shells with bits of nerve gases. At least one was used against some of the new Iraqi police in August. That's not the big stockpiles we had every reason to expect, but it's a lot more than nothing.

It's unfortunate that we haven't gotten the dreaded UBL yet, but we've sure slowed him down. He's not been able to take another bite out of the Big Apple.

One thing's for certain, though. When some of these people reach up to kill a couple of Canucks, y'all will be demanding that Dubya DO SOMETHING.

America, F*&% yeah!
Coming again to save the motherf*%&ing day

Again, a sincere thank you would be in order.

on just one point: I totally reject the "fertilizer" argument about Iraq. While surely the death of friends and relatives has pissed off many an Iraqi, the bottom line is by demonstrating our reslove and willingness to fight on the ground in the heart of Islam, we have removed bin Laden's charges of weakness against us, which, along with our presence in Saudi Arabia, also made unnecessary by our efforts in Iraq, has removed the two fundamental excuses for al Qaeda's behavior. I would say this has made us much safer in the long run. ANY military action will generate opposition: the positives outweigh the negatives.