It's immaterial whether he lied or not. What did he was decide in advance what he wanted to do in Iraq, rejected any fact that contradicted his decision, grasped desperately at any rumor that supported his decision, and, in the grand tradition of other demogogues, tried to stoke hate and fear in the US public as much as he could--with marvelous success.

Even anybody who read the Wall St. Journal would have known that the ties between Al Queda and Saddam were tenuous at best.

It is also obvious to all thinking individuals (which seems to exclude a few on this thread) that the UN never authorized the invasion of Iraq. So it would be appreciated if the towering intellects who still want to employ that argument would go bark up another tree.

Very few people here deny that in 2002 and early 2003 there was a widespread conviction, including most politicians and a good portion of the US public, that Saddam had WMD's. The main question was how to deal with it. Invasion of Iraq was not the preferred solution for most of the US public--until Bush's propaganda campaign.

OK--so you say that many presidents have made the facts fit their theory. Fine--but I'd prefer somebody who wants to starts a war to have a modicum of intellectual honesty, (admittedly intellect at all is perhaps not a reasonable request for our current "leader".)
Don't bother to cite FDR--the Japanese played right into his hands by giving him the justification he needed. And Hitler obligingly declared war on the US, as he had agreed with the Japanese he would do.

Saddam never gave Bush the excuse he needed, so he fabricated one.

Therefore every death direct or indirect, caused by the war, can be laid at Bush's door.

That's not the kind of leadership a person with any sense of morality would want.