Many dissents from my view that the administration did not lie about Saddam's WMDs or even his potential links with al Qaeda. They recklessly oversold dubious intelligence and exaggerated his threat. I don't think this makes them less culpable for the botch-up. This commenter at the Economist captures the point:
Is "lying" the appropriate benchmark?
In the business world the benchmark is "due diligence". In issuing a prospectus, for example, it is not sufficient that it contains no "lies". On the other hand, it is not necessary that the undertaking be guaranteed of success. The required standard is that those responsible for promoting the undertaking demonstrate that they have exercised due diligence before selling it to the public.
It is odd that a country may go to war on a standard of diligence lower than that required to float a company.
Bush lied about torture. He didn't lie about the intelligence on Saddam's WMDs. He just failed to do due diligence.