The information given to Bush by the Clinton administration, who also believed that Hussein had, or planned on making, nuclear weapons; comments by Hussein himself, and Husseins generals; reports from other international sources saying Hussein had WMD's, not necessarily nuclear weapons; and the very fact that the UN itself believed Hussein had WMD's, are all indications that Bush did not lie. While he may have been deceived by those who were supposed to have greater knowledge of the subject, that is not proof he lied.
As to why we attacked Iraq, I believe there were some 21 reasons given. And while one can argue the reasons for invasion, something I did not personally support, to say that Bush lied is not a rational argument when one takes in all of the evidence, and the history of events. Most people do not realize that the intent to occupy Iraq for its oil did not begin with Bush. It actually began in 1919 with Britain.
However, a rational, and logical, argument is not possible with the likes of you.
http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html
Just as a side note, I would have preferred the arming of the Kurds, and the Shi'ites, to remove Hussein as Bush41 promised to do, and then reneged on the promise when the uprising occured. It would have cost the US about 40 billion dollars, and had better results.
