"

""To state that is not correct is contradicting sourced material.""  From the context, it appears that youre trying to contradict me, but I don't see how your comment advances that goal.  That the Resolution did not explicitly assert either claim absolutely is sourced; one need only look at the Resolution to see that.  That critics have not found a claim which is clearly false is a negative claim; do you seriously expect me to prove it?  What else is there?  That critics have claimed the war is based on lies?  You aren't seriously disputing that, are you?  So what, exactly, are you claiming is ""unsourced and incorrect""?  Nice how anything that doesn't fit with your radical leftism is a ""highly biased slant"".  As I have said, the Resolution never claimed that there was a working relationship between SH and AQ.  If you want to claim that the Resolution implied false statements, fine.  But anyone who claims that there is a single statement in the Resolution which is an outright lie is simply being dishonest.  Now, the Resolution cites Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capability.  It does not cite Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.  Therefore, YOUR edit is inaccurate and unsourced.  Since you have been informed of the error, and yet you continue to make a claim that you know is false, your editing is clearly vandalism, and if you continue to remove the word ""capability"", I will seek administrative action.  There is simply no room for disagreement on the Contents section.  When discussing what a document says, we should quote what it actually says, rather than editing it for political convenience.  In the Weapons of Mass Destruction and Al-Qaeda section, you again are restoring unsourced statements.  The ""cite"" for the claim that WMD and AQ were the main reasons is simply an article saying that there were 27 rationales.  It doesn't actually say what any of those rationales are, let alone make any determinations as to which arguments were ""principal"".  It's quite the pot calling the kettle black when you insist on including completely unsourced claims, yet refuse to allow me to present any opposing views on the basis that it's ""highly biased"".  "