text: is there anybody with a phyical or mental age over 14 who can give one valid reason why "bush lied"? without using the same, tired rhetoric that we always hear from you people ... you know, that stuff you heard from al franken that you repeat here without realizing that it didn't actually make sense when he said it.  hint:  if your posts are usually incomplete sentences filled with random, disjointed thoughts and crammed with spelling errors and annoying abbreviations, you are not the person to answer this question. no, bush did not deceive the american people. please consider the following information as reference:  iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. like swallows to capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; saddam hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the middle east was a postwar rationalization. the problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. let me examine each in turn:  the president misled americans to convince them to go to war. "there is no question [the bush administration] misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in iraq," according to ted kennedy. jimmy carter charged that on iraq, "president bush has not been honest with the american people." and al gore has said that an "abuse of the truth" characterized the administration's "march to war." these charges are themselves misleading, which explains why no independent body has found them credible. most of the world was operating from essentially the same set of assumptions regarding iraq's wmd capabilities. important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.  let's review what we know. the national intelligence estimate (nie) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. the 2002 nie provided a key judgment: "iraq has continued its [wmd] programs in defiance of u.n. resolutions and restrictions. baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of u.n. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."  thanks to the bipartisan silberman-robb commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the president's daily brief (pdb) and the senior executive intelligence brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the nie" (my emphasis). we also know that the intelligence in the pdb was not "markedly different" from that given to congress. this helps explains why john kerry, in voting to give the president the authority to use force, said, "i believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." it's why sen. kennedy said, "we have known for many years that saddam hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." and it's why hillary clinton said in 2002, "in the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that saddam hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."  beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed saddam had wmd. even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed iraq had wmd: just a few weeks before operation iraqi freedom, wolfgang ischinger, german ambassador to the u.s., said, "i think all of our governments believe that iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."  in addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. it is not as if the wmd stockpile question was one that wasn't g