A reader sends along this little laundry list of nettlesome problems with the absolute assurances of WMDs we got

Some of them (f'rinstance #15) seem rather petty and dumb to me. But a lot of more them are at least troubling. I'm still willing to believe we were playing connect the dots. But how long can you do that before one person's evidence of "connect the dots" becomes another person's statement that "they lied when they said they knew for certain that x, y, and z was true"? How does one persuasively respond to such arguements with my charitable "connect the dots" scenario when face with arguments like this?

Anyone? Anyone? And please, if you have an urge to accuse me of "agendas" and all that crap just stow it. Deal with the arguments, not with trying to read my mind. How does one make a plausible case that Caesar was not lying but was playing connect the dots and (so far) has lost the game?