Was Bush sent the same packaged information as that  sent to Congress?

That's not what I asked. Was he delivered the same packaged intel that Congress received?

It's a simple question, really. It is being maintained that Bush lied. For that to be true, he had to intentionally mislead with intent to deceive. Anything short of that doesn't meet the criteria for a 'lie.'

For me, the reason I don't believe Bush 'lied' is because there is an absolute wealth of information out there about the attitudes of this country and its leaders toward Iraq...years BEFORE Bush (or his special office) showed up.

You don't say! Differences between the elected officials in Government, the Pentagon and the CIA. Astonishing!!

Of course you realize this isn't the first time that's ever happened.

Now, about Saddam's ties to known al-Qaeda terrorist organizations ....... any comments about that?

Notwithstanding these concerns, Hersh reported that "INC supporters in and around the Administration, including Paul Dundes Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, believe, like Chalabi, that any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand." In December 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported that the administration of George W. Bush actually preferred INC-supplied analyses of Iraq over analyses provided by long-standing analysts within the CIA. "Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency.," he wrote. "The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war."

Much of the pro-war faction's information came from the INC, even though "most Iraq hands with long experience in dealing with that country's tumultuous politics consider the INC's intelligence-gathering abilities to be nearly nil. ... The Pentagon's critics are appalled that intelligence provided by the INC might shape U.S. decisions about going to war against Baghdad. At the CIA and at the State Department, Ahmed Chalabi, the INC's leader, is viewed as the ineffectual head of a self-inflated and corrupt organization skilled at lobbying and public relations, but not much else."[13]

"The [INC's] intelligence isn't reliable at all," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counterterrorism expert. "Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. And much of it is used to support Chalabi's own presidential ambitions. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, [creating] cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches."

Yes, quotes fed to you in the MSM as the majority, and by politicians, who knew it wasn't politically safe to tell the truth publically about Saddam.

Yet, around the world the consensus was that the US had gone insane because the claims were just ridiculous.

George Bush Sr. Rejected invasion.

Bill Clinton, approached by the neo-cons, rejected invasion.

Your opinions are directly issued by the Republican party through FOX.

You pretend to be just asking questions, but you elected Bush twice and until he started to look bad, were in the habit of defending everything he does. Now you want to split hairs over whether he was lying.

No question? That is a lie.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Osama bin Laden hated Saddam. Period. Anyone familliar with the mideast knew that.

Alan colmes? LOL! The only "liberal" on FOX? The token liberal. Yeah, he's going to challenge the only people who will pay his check. The very fact you think FOX is not conservative biased shows you bark thier party line.

You want to lawyer Bush out of being a liar by asking, metaphorically, "It depends on what your definition of is is."

He's a liar and an incompetant, who has screwed this country good. Good luck with all your BS.