Election USA 2004 - HL2.net community Vote

[othello]

Yes indeed! His administration has only screwed up your economy

completely wrong.

and consigned your amred forces to an incredibly hostile situation that was based on one of the most severe political lies to come from your country in decades.

completely wrong.

What more could you want from a President? An ounce of intelligence maybe? Oh dear.

Honestly, I really hope Kerry wins - he's not ideal, but at least he's not Bush and that's a start. Well it's like my sig says...

what would be a 'start' is some research into the erroneous claims you are making.

 

[TriggerHappy]

American, already voted Kerry by absentee.

Bush's administration has got an awful environmental record, and Kerry was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental watchdog group.

Also, just getting a new face in the White House is the first step towards repairing our relationships with the rest of the free world.

One more thing. Calling Kerry a flipflopper is such a stupid criticism. Part of being the President is taking new information and adapting to it. That's why we gather intelligence, have debates, etc. The President says we have to be "consistent" in a dig at Kerry, but I'd much rather have an intelligent, adaptable man at the helm of this country than someone who refuses to admit mistakes and won't abandon a losing strategy.

Enough of that. Vote Kerry!

:bounce:

 

[bliink]

Part of being the President is taking new information and adapting to it.

As opposed to someone else who didnt quite adapt to new information

 

[othello]

Bush's administration has got an awful environmental record

hmmm... considering nearly every environmental proposal was backed by democratic (as in, NOT repulican) members of congress, you should really re-think where your loyalty lies.

One more thing. Calling Kerry a flipflopper is such a stupid criticism. Part of being the President is taking new information and adapting to it. That's why we gather intelligence, have debates, etc. The President says we have to be "consistent" in a dig at Kerry, but I'd much rather have an intelligent, adaptable man at the helm of this country than someone who refuses to admit mistakes and won't abandon a losing strategy.

Enough of that. Vote Kerry!

:bounce:

its kinda sad that you've already voted, but oh well... thats the beauty of america. just for future reference, however, changing your view based off new intelligence and information (read: bush) is one thing... changing your view based off what audience your speaking to (read: kerry), is another.

john kerry, the only man with enough courage to take every side, to every issue.

to everyone else, whats imperative in this election, is that you make an informed decision, as so many cleary have not.

 

[Korgoth]

yes an informed decision... When your best defense not to vote for a candidate is because he goes with the popular public opinion (meaning majority rules, which in fact is what democracy is all about) then you don't have much of a defense at all.

But of course when your candidate cleary runs from a surplus into a deficet, loses the most jobs of any president in over 70 years, has an enviromental policy dictated by big buisness, gives tax cuts to the rich while the middle class and lower suffer the burden of an illegal war, and while he flip flops claiming to be a uniter and not a divide when in fact he has managed to split the country nearly 50/50, and also claims no child left behind the cuts education spending... Well, when thats the candidate your defending, you will of course pull whatever you can out of your hat eh?

 

[TriggerHappy]

hmmm... considering nearly every environmental proposal was backed by democratic (as in, NOT repulican) members of congress, you should really re-think where your loyalty lies.

I don't know if that's true, but anyway I voted for Kerry, not for Democrats in congress. And unless the League of Conservation
Voters are liars, he has a very good environmental record, unlike Bush.

its kinda sad that you've already voted, but oh well... thats the beauty of america. just for future reference, however, changing your view based off new intelligence and information (read: bush) is one thing... changing your view based off what audience your speaking to (read: kerry), is another.

john kerry, the only man with enough courage to take every side, to every issue.

I don't know if I fully believe him, I do suspect that Kerry was unsure of what position to take on the Iraq war until recently, but that ad isn't so convincing. Most of those statements aren't contradictory, although they sound like it. You hear him saying that he supported "disarming Saddam Hussein," because he, along with others, thought Iraq had WMDs because of faulty intelligence. But, he usually attacks the way the war was conducted. About the $87 billion.. what he voted for was a measure that would have repealed some of the Bush tax cut, but since that was defeated he didn't vote for the final version of the bill.

Anyway, I don't claim to know exactly what Kerry is thinking or thought, but I don't appreciate you calling me "uninformed" when I spend far more time keeping up with the news then most people I know. If I'm uninformed, you're setting the bar way too high, and I doubt you're any more informed than I am, especially since your using biased Republican propaganda for your evidence instead of an impartial source.

 

[WillH]

Too young to vote, would vote Kerry.

 

[sublidieminal]

Kerry wins in every category!
Im hoping it turns out like that in real life :/

 

[othello]

But of course when your candidate cleary runs from a surplus into a deficet

well... duh! thats what happens when you inherit a failing economy, multiplied by a horrific terrorist attack, and then have to retaliate. change costs money... :O

loses the most jobs of any president in over 70 years,

and that's directly his fault... how, exactly? like i mentioned, there were obviously circumstances beyond his control that this can be attributed to him. not that he's completely free of blame, but to rest it solely on his shoulders is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, lower than the average of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. we are also exponentially creating more jobs every month. we also have the fastest growing economy in 20 years, and a higher GDP rate over the last 4 quarters then we ever did under clinton.

has an enviromental policy dictated by big buisness,

so now democrats = big busines... ya i can concede that one.

gives tax cuts to the rich while the middle class and lower suffer the burden of an illegal war

yeah, not true even in the slightest. especially when the rich are carrying more of the burden now, then ever... and the war coincides with standing U.S. policy. in 1998 clinton signed the iraqi liberation act into law, which made it our policy to remove/disarm saddam and liberate the iraqi people. anyway, back to the tax cuts for a sec... bush ran on a tax-cut platform in 2000, he won the election fair & square, thus we now have tax cuts. should he have left the wealthy out? then you'd be all over him for financial discrimination lol.

alan greenspan endorses them

again

and again

and again.

facts about taxes from the census

and while he flip flops claiming to be a uniter and not a divide when in fact he has managed to split the country nearly 50/50,

the ignorant are quick to dissent. and who can blame them when the majority of that 'other' 50% rely solely on our blatantly liberal media for their 'news'. no wonder fox is considered so far from the norm, when you got something as far left as cbs, cnn, and nbc... even the middle seems too far to the right lol.

Well, when thats the candidate your defending, you will of course pull whatever you can out of your hat eh?

better than pulling it out of my ass.

 

[othello]

I don't know if that's true, but anyway I voted for Kerry, not for Democrats in congress. And unless the League of Conservation
Voters are liars, he has a very good environmental record, unlike Bush.

well kerry is a democrat and a senator... so...

I don't know if I fully believe him, I do suspect that Kerry was unsure of what position to take on the Iraq war until recently, but that ad isn't so convincing. Most of those statements aren't contradictory, although they sound like it. You hear him saying that he supported "disarming Saddam Hussein," because he, along with others, thought Iraq had WMDs because of faulty intelligence. But, he usually attacks the way the war was conducted. About the $87 billion.. what he voted for was a measure that would have repealed some of the Bush tax cut, but since that was defeated he didn't vote for the final version of the bill.

so what? it doesnt matter if you agree with the war or not, it doesnt matter if you like bush or not. you dont NOT vote to fund our troops. thats almost as bad as stabbing your fellow comrades in the back with a dishonest and exaggerated senate testimony! or forging a purple heart or two!

btw, repealing the bush tax cuts would cost billions more money than it woul allegedly 'save'. besides the tax cuts are working and are beneficial to everyone, mostly the less fortunate, and are partially responsible for us having the fastest growing economy in 20 years.

Anyway, I don't claim to know exactly what Kerry is thinking or thought, but I don't appreciate you calling me "uninformed" when I spend far more time keeping up with the news then most people I know. If I'm uninformed, you're setting the bar way too high, and I doubt you're any more informed than I am, especially since your using biased Republican propaganda for your evidence instead of an impartial source.[/QUOTE]

 

[CptStern]

the election is tommorrow vote while you still can ..in other words: bump

 

[Korgoth]

btw interesting fact, since the packers won, according to the last 17 years, kerry will win the election if that stat holds true tommorow.

(the legend is if the redskins lose their last home game before the election the incumbent will also lose and they say its been %100 accurate for the last 17 years or whatever so I guess we will see )

 

[Korgoth]

well... duh! thats what happens when you inherit a failing economy, multiplied by a horrific terrorist attack, and then have to retaliate. change costs money... :O



and that's directly his fault... how, exactly? like i mentioned, there were obviously circumstances beyond his control that this can be attributed to him. not that he's completely free of blame, but to rest it solely on his shoulders is intellectually dishonest, to say the least. we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, lower than the average of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. we are also exponentially creating more jobs every month. we also have the fastest growing economy in 20 years, and a higher GDP rate over the last 4 quarters then we ever did under clinton.



so now democrats = big busines... ya i can concede that one.



yeah, not true even in the slightest. especially when the rich are carrying more of the burden now, then ever... and the war coincides with standing U.S. policy. in 1998 clinton signed the iraqi liberation act into law, which made it our policy to remove/disarm saddam and liberate the iraqi people. anyway, back to the tax cuts for a sec... bush ran on a tax-cut platform in 2000, he won the election fair & square, thus we now have tax cuts. should he have left the wealthy out? then you'd be all over him for financial discrimination lol.

alan greenspan endorses them

again

and again

and again.

facts about taxes from the census

the ignorant are quick to dissent. and who can blame them when the majority of that 'other' 50% rely solely on our blatantly liberal media for their 'news'. no wonder fox is considered so far from the norm, when you got something as far left as cbs, cnn, and nbc... even the middle seems too far to the right lol.



better than pulling it out of my ass.

Oh and btw you contradict yourself when you say nbc is liberal media and then sight an article on msnbc to back up another one of your claims... So uh, why don't you try again kthnx

 

[Javert]

so what? it doesnt matter if you agree with the war or not, it doesnt matter if you like bush or not. you dont NOT vote to fund our troops. thats almost as bad as stabbing your fellow comrades in the back with a dishonest and exaggerated senate testimony! or forging a purple heart or two!

Awww...someone needs a hug...or a chill pill.

Clarification, Bush didn't properly fund and equip our troops the first time, which was bad enough and reason why we needed that $87 Billion. Furthermore, half of that money was going to a no-contest contract to Halliburton. It also contained a bunch of uselessness such as funds to create an Iraqi postal service with zip codes.

Kerry voted against the $87 Billion to contest the no-contest contracts to Halliburton. No-contest creates higher prices and lower quality. He voted against not giving our coalition and allies a chance for their own businesses to go into Iraq. Do you honestly think Kerry wouldn't protect our soldiers? Do you honestly think anyone would deny our troops body armor?

And with shows like "Hannity and Colmes" and "Scarborough County", don't even start with MSNBC being a liberal junket.

 

[UmbrellaMaster]

Neither deserves my vote IMHO. I figure we've given one idiot 4 years to screw our country up, why not give a different idiot the next 4?

We're at war, our economy has been floundering, jobs are being lost, politics have turned to "He got botox!", "He can't even make a comprehensible speech!" instead of actually arguing the issues. In my opinion, this whole election has made me sick.

I'm neither a registered Republican nor a Democrat. I consider myself tied to no party. I look for the better candidate, and he doesnt exist.

I'm voting Kerry only because Bush scares me with his, "Aggressively hunt down all semblences of terrorism" campaign. Sure we need to find terrorism networks and kill them, but the half cocked way we went into Iraq and the fact that it seems to me that any other country is now fair game to Bush to invade if he believes they "might" be a threat scares the bejezus out of me.

"None but a coward dares to boast he has never known fear."

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh and btw you contradict yourself when you say nbc is liberal media and then sight an article on msnbc to back up another one of your claims... So uh, why don't you try again kthnx

Wow, you really did a great job sidestepping all the issues with this one. Bravo.

 

[CptStern]

Wow, you really did a great job sidestepping all the issues with this one. Bravo.

kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, eh seinfeld?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Clarification, Bush didn't properly fund and equip our troops the first time,

I think Congress might just have something to do with this. Bush cant just wave the magic wand and have equipment appear, especially after the 90s when our military was cut drastically.

And with shows like "Hannity and Colmes" and "Scarborough County", don't even start with MSNBC being a liberal junket.

Hannity and Colmes is FOX bud.

kinda like the pot calling the kettle black, eh seinfeld?

Sorry, I dont respond to articles from progressiveliberal.com

 

[Element Alpha]

I would just like to participate by saying to all Americans who get to vote tomorrow:

IF YOU ENJOY LIFE AND CAN LIVE WITH THE FACT THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE TO ENJOY LIFE ALSO, DON'T VOTE BUSH

Please, please, please.

 

[SubKamran]

Kerry's winning :bounce:

It means sane people do exist! :thumbs:

Personally, I don't like him much, but not as much as I dislike Bush ("hate" is too strong a word). If I could vote, it'd go to Kerry. Since MN is a swing state, I wouldn't vote for Naider. If we were not a swing state, I'd vote Naider.

Isn't it surprising that the people who live in foreign countries can see how Bush really is and some/a lot Americans cannot? ;( I blame it on the media.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I would just like to participate by saying to all Americans who get to vote tomorrow:

IF YOU ENJOY LIFE AND CAN LIVE WITH THE FACT THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE TO ENJOY LIFE ALSO, DON'T VOTE BUSH

Please, please, please.

I would just like to say to all Americans out there:

VOTE FOR WHO YOU WANT, DONT LET SOMEBODY LIVING IN FRANCE 3000 MILES AWAY DO IT FOR YOU. VOTE BUSH IF YOU WANT TO​

 

[Baal]

I can't take anymore of this....just do the damn vote!

 

[genocide604]

One is no better than the other, but if i had too... kerry.. bush is a terrorist..



Not american... its odd how if you look at the stats of the poll so far.. there are still a larger number voting for bush in america vs the larger number who "would" vote for kerry outside of america.. interesting..

 

[Vigilante]

Vote Bush Cheney 04!!

 

[SidewinderX]

I know this is completley out of context, but I just posted this up on another forum, and it's fairly well organized, thought I'd share.

---------------------------
Some people are trying to argue that voting for Kerry just because he isn't GW Bush is bad. Why? Like someone said, better to vote for an unknown, rather than a known.

A few reasons why I wouldn't vote for Bush (If I could vote )

1) Gay Marriage Amendment
-The Constitution is a fairly important document. Gay marriage is a non-issue. Amending the Constitiution to ban gay marrige would be devaluing the Constitution.
-I have -still- yet to hear a logically valid argument against gay marriage. If "Jesus" or "the Bible" is mentioned in the argument.. well != vaild.
-Why shouldn't same sex couple have the right to apply for morgages, recive widow/er benifits, etc?
-The Gay Marriage Amendment (well, and the Defense of Marriage Act), is really a devolution to the early 1950s. In essence, they say "It's ok to discriminate against people who are differnt than you."

2)Domestic Issues
-No matter what stats you rattle off, what reasons you provide, there are fewer jobs now.
-Bush says that he's increasing. That is true, jobs are slowly on the rise. What he's not saying is thatalot of the jobs that have been lost (partially to outsourcing) are $50,000+ salaried jobs, and the jobs we're gaining are near minimum wage jobs at Wal-Mart.
-Bush says "You lost your job? We'll give you money to get an education". Back to the previous point; many of these people who have lkost jobs already have a college education.

3)Enviroment
-Again, no matter what you say, you can't argue that Bush has been helping the enviroment. And his "logic" for allowing abuses to continue amount to "Big buisiness tells me they need to deforest this area, and have plants with emission leverls of xxxx. I like buisiness"

4)War on Terror
-Detour into Iraq. That turned out to be a brilliant idea.
-"We freed the people from a dictator" Very good idea. But there were other targets where we could have similarly saved the people from a dictator, as well as accomplished more on the war on terror, not encourage it.
-Loosing OBL. I think Jon Stewart and The Daily Show put it well with thier video about Bush and Words. Osama != Saddam. We had opportunities to get Osama, and we let him slip through our fingers.
-And, of course, WMDs. Republicans argue that all signs said that there were WMDs in Iraq, everyone thought it was true. Wrong. The UN, who was physically there, said that there were no WMDs. So you can't argue that.

 

[seinfeldrules]

-And, of course, WMDs. Republicans argue that all signs said that there were WMDs in Iraq, everyone thought it was true. Wrong. The UN, who was physically there, said that there were no WMDs. So you can't argue that.

Not true.

Economy....

He inherited a recession and 9/11, what do you expect in that situation?

Loosing OBL. I think Jon Stewart and The Daily Show put it well with thier video about Bush and Words. Osama != Saddam. We had opportunities to get Osama, and we let him slip through our fingers.

General. Tommy Franks (the commander) said we had the right amount of men for the job, the intel was just bad.

 

[SidewinderX]

not true? The UN weapons inspectors said that there were not WMDs in Iraq. Do you remember that? Before we invaded?

Re: Economy
Anything. Something. An effort to better the situation. FDR inherited the Great Depression!

 

[Shakermaker]

Not true.

/sigh

for the last time:

Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction, nor did it have the capability to make WMD's.

This is really getting old.

 

[SubKamran]

Not true.


He inherited a recession and 9/11, what do you expect in that situation?

And the fact that there isn't WMDs now? And now Bush is all, "Um... well... you know, THEY WERE TAKEN BEFORE WE GOT THERE. ... America. September the 11th. The Economy Is Strong(tm). Terrorists."

Stupid.

 

[seinfeldrules]

not true? The UN weapons inspectors said that there were not WMDs in Iraq. Do you remember that? Before we invaded?

They were allowed in for what, 1 or 2 months before we invaded? They inspected a country the size of Cali. in that amount of time?

Who would you believe, the Russian Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and MI5 or a few inspectors on the ground for a few months?

And the fact that there isn't WMDs now? And now Bush is all, "Um... well... you know, THEY WERE TAKEN BEFORE WE GOT THERE. ... America. September the 11th. The Economy Is Strong(tm). Terrorists."

Refer to above. He made the right decision based on the information he had.

Re: Economy FDR...

Remind me again how long it took him to even come close to fixing it? We were still under the Depression's spell as WWII began. It was also borderline unConstitutional what he did. He actually suggested the removal of the Supreme Court.

 

[Shakermaker]

They were allowed in for what, 1 or 2 months before we invaded? They inspected a country the size of Cali. in that amount of time?

Who would you believe, the Russian Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and MI5 or a few inspectors on the ground for a few months?

I believe the CIA. It stated, before the war, that Iraq did not have WMD's. And after the war, they didn't find any trace either.

THERE WERE NO WMD'S

 

[SubKamran]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=qw1097103961409U262&click_id=2813&set_id=1
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/10/07/56461.html

And what more do you want than: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20041007-1451-us-iraq-weapons.html Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

They spell it out for you.

Pwned.

 

[Neutrino]

Well those weapons inspectors were right and those intelligence agencies were wrong.

Additionally, as I've said in the past the evidence for WMD's was not nearly as conclusive as Bush made it out to be.

Iraq quickly agreed to "deal with" the U.N. resolution and to allow inspectors into the country, even while criticizing the resolution's "iniquitous contents" and the "bad faith" of the United States and Britain in seeking it. Iraq did not explicitly say it would grant inspectors full access, and indicated that it would supervise inspectors' conduct to ensure that it would be "lawful and professional." It then submitted a 12,000-page declaration on December 7, and allowed weapons inspectors back into the country for the first time since 1998.

The Bush administration immediately cast doubt on Iraq's cooperation and on the ability of weapons inspectors to prove compliance with disarmament obligations. Even as weapons inspectors began their work and gave reports indicating some cooperation and indicated that their work could prove successful with time, the Bush administration continued to make its case for war and gathered its forces in the Middle East.

Bush outlined a case for war with Iraq in his 2003 State of the Union address, in which he said Hussein had shown "utter contempt" for the United Nations in terms of his cooperation with weapons inspectors and that the United States would take action to disarm Saddam Hussein if he did not fully do so.

Secretary of State Colin Powell then made a presentation on February 5, 2003 to the United Nations about what Powell called clear signs of Iraq's non-compliance and non-cooperation with inspectors. "My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not, so far, taking that one last chance," he said.

Such efforts did not manage to sway over some longtime allies in the Security Council, such as France, Germany and Russia, which announced on March 5 that they would oppose any new Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Such efforts also did not stop worldwide protests against the impending war.

Weapons inspectors reported for what would be the last time on March 7 that Iraq had been cooperating more fully, that even immediate cooperation would take months to verify, and that they had found no indication that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program or had attempted to import uranium.

In apparent recognition that Resolution 1441 had not authorized the use of force, the United States and United Kingdom pushed for a new Security Council resolution that would authorize the use of force against Iraq. But given the clear opposition by other Security Council members, Bush decided to withdraw the resolution from the United Nations and issued an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, calling for Hussein to step down as leader or face military action.

"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it," Bush said.

Two days later, the United States initiated military action against Iraq with a massive bombing attack.

 

[SubKamran]

And if you need more evidence: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Iraq+WMDs&btnG=Search+News

 

[seinfeldrules]

I believe the CIA. It stated, before the war, that Iraq did not have WMD's. And after the war, they didn't find any trace either.

Tenet, the Director of the CIA, told Bush the WMD case was "Slam Dunk". Dont just pull that large of a 'lie' (i know it was unintentional) out of you know where.

And what more do you want than: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/...aq-weapons.html Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

They spell it out for you.

Pwned.

We obviously now know they probably didnt have weapons, it is what they thought before hand that I am talking about.

Pwned? Are we in 3rd grade here?

Additionally, as I've said in the past the evidence for WMD's was not nearly as conclusive as Bush made it out to be.

Slam Dunk?

 

[SidewinderX]

They were allowed in for what, 1 or 2 months before we invaded? They inspected a country the size of Cali. in that amount of time?

Who would you believe, the Russian Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and MI5 or a few inspectors on the ground for a few months?


Refer to above. He made the right decision based on the information he had.

A few inspectors who had been involved with the country for more than a decade. Contrary to popular belief, you can hide a centrifuge under your mattress. The UN inspectors knew what to look for, where to look for it, and they didn't find it.

Remind me again how long it took him to even come close to fixing it? We were still under the Depression's spell as WWII began. It was also borderline unConstitutional what he did. He actually suggested the removal of the Supreme Court.

Ah, your ignorance shows here.
1) He never suggested the removal of the SC. He threatened to add more justices to tip the balence in his favor, yes. But never to remove them.

And the recession/ 9/11 was harley the great depression. The world economy wasn't in shambles when Bush took office...

 

[Vigilante]

They were allowed in for what, 1 or 2 months before we invaded? They inspected a country the size of Cali. in that amount of time?

Who would you believe, the Russian Intelligence Agency, the CIA, and MI5 or a few inspectors on the ground for a few months?


Refer to above. He made the right decision based on the information he had.

Remind me again how long it took him to even come close to fixing it? We were still under the Depression's spell as WWII began. It was also borderline unConstitutional what he did. He actually suggested the removal of the Supreme Court.

you kick ass...vig likes seinfeld rules, even though he doesn't really like seinfeld!

 

[SubKamran]

Tenet, the Director of the CIA, told Bush the WMD case was "Slam Dunk". Dont just pull that large of a 'lie' (i know it was unintentional) out of you know where.


We obviously now know they probably didnt have weapons, it is what they thought before hand that I am talking about.

Pwned? Are we in 3rd grade here?


Slam Dunk?

omfg j00 r teh l4m0r lololololololz :rolling:

And what they thought beforehand was wrong anyways. So what exactly is your point again?

The UN, who was physically there, said that there were no WMDs. So you can't argue that.

Not true.

They did not find any WMDs, there were no WMDs, there is no WMDs.

But anyways, I'm tired of this thread, it's why HL2.net is going down the drain.

 

[seinfeldrules]

A few inspectors who had been involved with the country for more than a decade. Contrary to popular belief, you can hide a centrifuge under your mattress. The UN inspectors knew what to look for, where to look for it, and they didn't find it.

Involved with in what manner? Why do you think Saddam kicked them out for nearly a decade?

And what they thought beforehand was wrong anyways. So what exactly is your point again?

Based on the intel they gave Bush, it was the right move. Even Kerry agrees with that.

omfg j00 r teh l4m0r lololololololz

This is why HL2.net is going down the drain.

 

[Neutrino]

Slam Dunk?

You really like that quote don't you? Sorry, I prefer the actual intelligence reports at the time over one comment. That comment does not reflect the opinion of the intelligence community at the time so it is mostly irrelavant.