- because I believed the experts who questioned the 'official' line and they were proved right.
Which experts questioned the official line?
As I said, I think you're revising history.
But hey, I'm sure you've been an active poster during the lead up to the Iraq War, wouldn't be too difficult to simply confirm your claim with a post or two confirming what you say or simply quoting which expert disagreed and claimed Iraq had no chemical weapons.
Which experts made that claim? Come on, I'm sure you can google and find someone and say you believed their claims back in the lead up to the war.
believe those who said AT THE TIME it was a over-blown, hyped threat.)
Which is it? It was overblown or experts claiming
Iraq had no chemical weapons?
You change your story with every post.
The experts I agree with say that the threat is over blown - they use the official EU stats that I quoted which back up their argument.
The first part of your sentence says it all. You fish for people who agree with you. Your own official EU report doesn't agree, so you need to ignore their analysis and go trawl for someone who does.
'nuff said.