Yes, the Americans were allied with bin Laden and Hussein at one time. So, the proper way to make up for that is to allow them to stay in power? Okey-dokey, then!
By the way, a lie is not merely an incorrect statement, but rather it is an incorrect statement that the speaker knows to be incorrect and states anyhow for the purpose of deceiving. If anyone has any evidence that Bush knew there were no WMD's, they aren't publishing it. We know that the rest of the world thought there were WMDs in Iraq, otherwise what were their reasons for continuing the UN inspections?
The correct reasons for opposing the war in Iraq are that Saddam posed no credible threat to the US, and that the policy of preemption, while understandable as a theory, sets a dangerous precedent. Although Saddam liked to play a little too close to the edge, he never did anything that (he thought) would get himself in trouble. He had America's support against Iran, and asked for Bush I's opinion before invading Kuwait. In the current situation, he was an asshole, but he in fact appears not to have any of the offending WMDs. As for the preemptive policy, yes, it would be better to preempt a strike rather than suffering a blow and then striking back, but you should do so only on the basis of very, very sound intelligence. Of which there obviously was none in this case.
One more question to the anti-Bu... I mean, anti-war zealots: if the Americans had found WMDs, would the invasion have been justified? If not, then the whole WMD issue is irrelevant, isn't it? Idiots. Bush isn't a liar, just a bad strategist.