Authoritative sources 'debunked' it? In which alternate reality did that happen. They started with 'Iraq has mass wmds and is a danger to civilized world', wit

Authoritative sources 'debunked' it? In which alternate reality did that happen. They started with 'Iraq has mass wmds and is a danger to civilized world', with CNN even upping the ante most by putting in talking heads who claimed that Saddam 'had intercontinental missiles which could hit US eastern seaboard and he is planning "something"'. The scarce 'contrary' article in NYT would start with "Are we being too hasty", then would conclude by saying "but the risk of not taking action is too great". That was the breadth of 'contrary'. Even 1-2 years after the invasion when the smell started they tried selling 'Iraq had SOME wmds'. When people didnt buy it, they started to defer blame by whitewashing the 'intelligence community' by blaming 'false reports by Iraqi contractors'. Then when it didnt work they started claiming that 3 letter agencies 'misinterpreted' evidence. When that also didnt sell, they just stopped talking about it. What part of that is 'debunking'. They didnt debunk anything. They SOLD it, just like how they sold the original Iraq War lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony I bet you didnt even have the slightest idea about the above until now. You probably never heard about it. That's how it works. Original iraq war lie. Second iraq war lie. Syrian govt. used chemical weapons lie. Islamist terrorists in Syria are actually freedom fighters lie. China has concentration camps lie. and now China is doing genocide lie. They JUST keep selling lies over and over and over and people like you SO easily trust them. That's what enables this entire setup to keep going on. No. I dont need any of those 'authoritative' sources. Nobody does.