<<the many countries referenced in their intelligence conclusions have been consistently mentioned long before the invasion, and long before Bush even contemplated running for President. >>
Well of course that's the first flaw in your argument. At one point in time, Saddam DID have WMD, mainly poison gas. And so "long before Bush even contemplated running" there was obvious truth in the allegations at the time because the gas was used in the Iran-Iraq war (with the enthusiastic blessing and support of the U.S.A., one might add) but Bush lied in maintaining the allegation long after the truth of it had become stale-dated.
<<no one has EVER said that EVERY Intelligence agency made those conclusions, just a vast majority of them, including those of England, France, Germany, Russia, Poland, Austrialia, Spain I believe, Israel, the NIE, even the UN's own folks, just to name a few.>>
Poland? Australia? Who gives a shit what their intelligence agencies think? Who knows where they got their info? Given their limited resources, probably a good part of what they know comes from the U.S. anyway. Where is your source for what they "knew" of Iraqi WMD and when they "told" the U.S. of their "knowledge?"
The desires of Bush and the men around him to invade Iraq, made public in the PNAC material published long before Bush's Presidency by men as closely aligned with him as Cheney and Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz and Perle, made it inevitable that every single one of the intelligence agencies you referenced, unless they were staffed entirely by illiterates and morons , would have known of Bush's hard-on for Iraq. What were their motives in feeding this little fascist exactly the kind of information they knew he was lookling for? And why do you assume that they had no motivation other than the search for truth or the advancement of American interests and the protection of the American people? That's quite an assumption. They could very well have seen an advantage in catering to the criminal interests of the Bush administration and told Bush what they knew he wanted to hear. Not because he would believe their lies any more than he believed his own lies, but simply as cover for future criticism, so idiots could say, as you are saying now, "Well it wasn't only Bush who believed that."
Here's a scenario for you to try on for size. Bush wants to invade Iraq. Wanted to for a long time but never had the excuse and knew the American people wouldn't buy into it. Then 9-11 happens. Now the American people will buy into a lot of crazy shit that they wouldn't have bought into before. They're cowards and easily panicked. All Bush needs now is an excuse - - any excuse. WMD is selected - - it's as good as any other, better than some because it's based on fear and it's pitched at cowards.
Foreign intelligence agencies - - right-wing swine, most of them, but that's beside the point - - know what Bush is up to, and have enough common sense that they can see right through him. Iraq a threat to America? Come on man, what have you been smoking? But they have a choice to make: they can tell Bush in public or in private, "Ha ha man, you're a fuckin' joke! This is the LAMEST con job we've ever seen." What's that gonna get them? Bush's undying gratitude? OR - - they can tell Bush what they know he wants to hear - - ""shitload a WMD in Iraq, man. Fuckin' shit-load." And they know, sure as God made little green apples, that there's a big favour just accumulated in the Big Favour Bank for their agency and for their nation. Bush can use their "opinions" any way he likes - - go public with it whenever he chooses, or save it till he needs it - - when the lie's exposed and the shit hits the fan, he pulls it out and covers his ass.
You know - - or should know - - that the foreign intelligence agencies are under NO obligation to tell America the truth. They deal in lies and deception and misinformation on a daily basis, and if they're at least uncorrupted, then they will act in their own national interest, not in America's.
<<Not "every", simply most, with the caveat being the slam dunk reference by our own Clinton hold-over running the CIA. As you keenly forget Tee, the Intelligence gathering community is NOT science, it is their "best guesses" (as you should be well awareof), based on the intel they've gathered, thru all sorts of various means. The concensus of their conclusions is a fact, as opposed to Gore's lie about the supposed concensus of Climatoligists regarding the man-made crisis of Global Warming. >>
I'm not getting into Global Warming here, sirs. Sorry. The "consensus of their conclusions" will never be known to you or to anyone else because they don't confide in you as to what they truly believe and how or to what extent it differs from what they tell others they believe. It's the height of naievete to believe that what they tell others they believe is always what they really believe. And you have yet to produce a source to show which ones told the Bush administratio that they really believed - - at the time that Bush was using WMD to sell America on war - - that Saddam had WMD and that these WMD were a realistic threat to America.
<< . . . you can keep pleading ignorance, claim "no one really knows", (your famous validation of Tee-leaf proclaimations based on the actual lack of evidence . . . >>
WHAT? Are you gonna tell me that YOU really know? That's worse than BS, that's insanity.
<< . . . your template of how Bush, and Bush alone lied us into war>>
I could be wrong. Show me another country's intelligence agency that used an American forum to lie the American people into war. Just one.
<< . . . was able to convince every other Government agency to support his lie>>
That is not too hard. It's called the employer - employee relationship. I'm sure even conservativves have heard of it. When you're a government employee and the boss has decided Iraq has WMD, it's not considered smart to cross the boss you work for and say somethign different.
<< and convince every one of the Committees formed to look into the validity of the conclusions mand and if any manipulation of intel was found, which included most every Democrat in DC to also lie and claim Bush never lied . . . >>
Uhh, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most of the Democrats fall for the lie, or go along with it? So what are they going to say? The guy lied brazenly to our face, and we, the opposition party, were so chickenshit scared or sold out to Israel and/or the oil business so we went along with it? We want your votes cuz we're so different from those bad Republicans, but vote for us anyway even when we admit to being in bed with the bastards? Is it surprising that the Democrats on the Committee would join in the whitewash? Only to an idiot whose imagination couldn't rise to the level of a flea's. Everyone else can recognize a CYA move when they see one.
<<so that you can keep ironically claiming "see, Bush lied, everyone knows it because......well because we didn't find any and because......Bush is a moronic version of Hitler. How so?....Because I said so, end of story", hit enter, declare victory>>
Remember what I said before about you not seeing what you don't want to see? You know that my argument is a little more substantial than the lying parody of it you just presented - - that for example I did not ask anyone to believe that Bush lied because I say so. You know that I spent a lot of time setting out the reasons why I think Bush lied whether you agree with them or not. But you lie about almost everything I posted.
For instance: "Bush lied because we didn't find any WMD." YOu know God-damned well I said Bush lied because of the circumstantial evidence of Prior Expressed Intent, Improbablility of Casus Belli (that WMD even if found would be used on America); Use of Forged Documents to Build a case - - in any event, you know by now ALL of the dots that I say connect up to prove that Bush lied. You may disagree with how I link them up. You may disagree that there IS a link at all. But that's not what you did, because you are intellectually dishonest. You won't even admit that I postulate dots and try to link them, rightly or wrongly. You say that my argument is: that the mere failure to find WMD is proof of a lie. Sorry to go on about it, but I hate lies and liars, and you are lying about what I say.
<<Bush is a moronic version of Hitler. How so?....Because I said so, end of story>>
There's another one of your lies. Bush IS a moronic version of Hitler. And a cowardly version of Hitler. That's true and it's also true that I say so. But it's not true that I say "Bush is a moronic version of Hitler because I say so." That's another one of your fucking lies. It's a lie because I always gave my reasons for calling Bush a cowardly and moronic version of Hitler. I never asked anyone to take that on my say-so only.
I enjoy debating with you, sirs. Tell you that straight out. And I really don't give a shit whether it's mutual or not. But I don't enjoy being lied about or seeing my posts grossly misrepresented. If you can't keep the debate honest, I can't afford the time to rebut each one of your misrepresentations with the detail that's required.