There was substantial evidence to the contrary to each one of those points. True, there were those in the intelligence community who believed Chalabi. And they would have made all those points, presenting them to Bush in a pretty powerful manner.

And as the "decider", Bush had the obligation to pay as much attention to the contrary information as he did that which met his need for an excuse. There's way, way to much evidence he had made the decision to go to war with Iraq long, long before 9-11. There were many meetings on how to provoke Saddam in order to start one. The "no-fly" zone was expanded to include Baghdad, for instance.

In other words, by his inability to accept information he didn't want to, he was guilty of malfeasance. By presenting only the skinny side of a lopsided case he lied. He lied by omission as well as comission.

Simple.

And I'm beginning to believe you, in your heart of hearts, don't believe he did. Tooth fairy stuff.

Arf