To state that is not correct is contradicting sourced material From the context it appears that you re 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