It isn't "they did it too" under the premise you have drawn.

The premise: Bush is either a liar or an idiot.

If you show a set of facts to a hundred people and most of them come to the same conclusion, you cannot pull one person out of that crowd and claim that he is somehow stupider or more crooked than the rest of them for coming to an identical conclusion.

If only an idiot or a liar would have come up with this answer, you would have to submit that the U.N., European leaders, most of our Congress, and the Clinton administration were and are all either liars or idiots or both. There are, of course, more reasonable alternatives.

That these leaders and others were not idiots, and neither is Bush, and that the data was such that any intelligent person would have probably concluded the same things too. Worst case: a mistake made by an intelligent and competent person. Of course, this is inconceivable to you, so you're left with the unreasonable alternative.

This is why how others interpreted the same data is an important factor.

Any questions?