Not that it has kept many liberals from claiming differently. But today's Washington Post carries an important piece that points out that time and again George W. Bush and members of Congress were following the guidance of the overwhelming majority of the intelligence community in this country and abroad.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

In other words, no lies. What you have instead is the responsible reliance on intelligence provided to the Executive and Legislative branches. Indeed, in 2002 it was Senator Rockefeller himself who said:

"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Did Rockefeller lie? Or did he draw the same conclusion as the President did based upon the same data? Anyone who reasonably considers the issue has to accept that it is the latter -- and that the Rockefeller of 2002 is significantly more honest than the Rockefeller of 2008 who implied Bush lied during his press conference about the report.

WaPo's Fred Hiatt then ends with a point that I have made here and in other places any number of times -- that national security decisions must be made based upon the best evidence you have at the time, and that making the right choice relying in good faith upon what later turns out to be questionable data is not "lying us into war". Indeed, it isn't even incompetence -- it is merely tragedy.