Most of your argument is spin control. In order to legitimize your argument you twist rather than deny.
These are useless sentences. Where's the substance?
The statement: "What was that again" pretty well sums up your argument and reasoning.
huh?
You know what the mistruths and exaggerations were.
No, I don't. Tell me. If you can.
It does you very little good to try to win an agrument by ignoring the issue and concentrating on word play.
I'm not.
I ask again: "Where are the WMD's" that Bush stated were the reason we had to go to war to eliminate.
Actually I've looked at all your posts on this thread and that's the first time you've asked this (so you're not asking "again"). On a similar note I can't figure out who you're quoting. But very well.
You ask me, Where are the WMD? Here's the answer: I don't know and I would like to find out. In particular I'd like to keep that dangerous stuff out of the wrong hands.
Um, so what's your point?
"Where are the WMD", like the rest of your post, is not an argument for anything. It's not the same thing as saying "there were no WMD" for example, because as you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.