If you could just scroll upwards and take a look at what I'm talking about, you'll realize that I am not talking about that. Perhaps your mind is a little too hostile and conditioned. I'm talking about your assumptions. Would you like me to spray paint that on my large nose? (I have a very large nose, btw. Clowns climb out of it when I sneeze. :lol: )Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Well well well :) Let's take a look at that article again, shall we?
All over the article it talks about just one thing: How various members, influential in the UK political circles have warned Blair about the perils of the war against Iraq. The only flaw here is all the accounts go against the actions Blair took. Is that what hurts you?
Prove to me that I am talking about WMDs in Iraq. Show me where I talked about it in this thread. Did you even READ what I wrote, or is everything about the US to you? Can you not think beyond that?Quote:
Prove your point. Give me a link that tells me there are / were WMDs in Iraq.
Yak yak yak... sidestepping as usual. Tell me, am I talking about this? Go back, and re-read everything I've written. Yes, reading, and understanding. ;)Quote:
And please remember two separate enquiries about Iraq have concluded there were no Iraq - Al Qaeda links, though Bush still likes to believe it. You have David Kay's resignation and the ISG reports that prove there are no "stockpiles of WMD" in Iraq. Are these accounts of fact? Did you actually find stockpiles of weapons in Iraq?
.
Null and void until you read... for now at least.Quote:
One sided article? Makes you draw a conclusion? Does it narrate the facts? Does it distort the facts?
Yes, Yes, Yes, No and NO.
