What lies?
The issue is NOT whether or not Iraq have WMD, the problem many people have question is, US and Coalition went to war because Iraq had WMD. Set aside the
FACT that they did found Chemical Weapon stockpile back in 2008, the authority to use force is
TO LOOK for WMD because of Iraq non-compliance as per Resolution 1441. Meaning the reason for war is Iraq non-compliance to Resolution 1441, not whether or not Iraq had WMD, they could have nothing, but the issue here is they are non-compliant to Resolution 1441, which have all 15 UNSC member agree,
INCLUDING CHINA. You still need to be able to be checked to know they have nothing, that's the issue, not whether or not them having WMD is an issue.
The legality on the other hand, is another matter, there are 2 camps here, one said Resolution 1441 does not give power for allied to invade Iraq (at least a general invasion) and the other camp claim it did. The problem is 1441 said measure can be taken "Any Necessary mean" to uphold and implement resolution 660. Quote the text exactly
Multilingual interface of the UN Official Documents System
documents-dds-ny.un.org
The legal question here is, does all necessary means include military invasion, because the term is so board, ALL NESSARARY MEANS can means anything, it could mean literally anything, which include a war (Which is what the pro-war legal community stands) or it could mean they should complete
ALL OTHER MEANS before going to war, which in itself does not authorise an invasion.
I have no law degree, I am not going to pretend I know more than the best legal mind in the world know, my wife, who had a law degree, said it was ambiguous, which mean it is a grey area. Do you have a law degree do you can make a decision to say it was a "lies"?