Yes there was a general consensus that Hussein had WMD, but as I said (post#38), by the time Bush was ready to order the invasion, the WMD thing was an issue seriously questioned by intelligence he was getting. Bush could have waited to verify but didn't. He chose to order invasion of Iraq anyway because he just plain wanted to do it for his own reasons IMHO. I think evidence this was the subsequent invention of the so-called “Bush Doctrine.”
That's revisionism, plain and simple. There was conflicting intelligence, some questioning whether there really was concrete evidence. However, this was countered by other intelligence and by Hussein himself, who on numerous occasions refused to say that he DID NOT have WMD., even after 17 UN resolutions. At the time of the invasion France and others thought Iraq had chemical and nuclear weapons programs . Hussein had plenty of chances to stave off invasion, even after dozens of provocative incursions into no fly zones, and so on.
So how does this compare to the phony Gulf of Tonklin resolution? The leftist revisionists have used this phony re-reading of the events leading to Iraq to help elect a neo -Communist to the Presidency.. And then we have you, stating that Bush "lied'. You are a nitwit, nitwit.