Recently, I've seen a number of people claiming that BushCo didn't lie to the people in the run-up to Iraq. This is mostly based on the slightly flawed notion that various reports have come out criticizing the intelligence gathering agencies rather than the policy makers using that intelligence.
There's more than a few problems with absolving BushCo of mistruths in the rhetoric leading up to invading Iraq in 2003.
First, is a matter of the shifting story. Initially, Bush tried to tie invading Iraq to 9/11. When that failed, Bush changed tactics and began to wave the bogey-man "Weapons of Mass Destruction" around. By this time, a few people were getting more than a little suspicious that just maybe there was a problem with this concept. Sure enough, following the invasion and demise of the Iraqi government, it became quite clear that whatever WMD's Hussein had were no longer in existence. There were a few other feints made, vague allegations that Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots on various topics, but none of those allegations have ever been demonstrated in any concrete and reasonable form.
If BushCo didn't lie in the run up to Iraq, they certainly changed their story enough times. Politicians are like small children - every time you catch them in a lie, they change their story. Let's suppose for a minute that Bush was telling the "truth" as presented to him by his advisors. Surely, he could have seen through the transparency of the problems with the scenarios being alleged? It's hard to imagine that any nominally sentient being could not see the inconsistencies of the story that they are spinning. If Bush didn't lie, he certainly failed horribly to apply the most basic critical thinking techniques to what was being presented to him by his inner circle.
If he didn't lie about Iraq, his advisors did. In either case, Bush failed his country and launched a war which the world will be paying for in the decades to come.