That depends on what you are counting as WMD's. I mean a large chunk of Assad's chemical weapons came from Syria, and we found tons of them in Iraq as well.
Would that count as a lie? A lot of British politicians at the time were desperate to avoid another war as most assumed it would be a repeat of WW1 with many vets being surprised by the mere concept of a tank being able to simply refuel at the local petty rather than waiting for the big machines to roll in and pump the juice. Seems more like misguided relief after a fit of paranoia given how the Cons acted in the build up to Churchill's big speech.
Not sure why you're bringing up Assad, but the important thing was that Bush's administration fabricated evidence of specific weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and then failed to produce them after we invaded; once we figured out said evidence was faked, it kinda undermined anything else we might have found in Saddam's arsenal, because it never could have lived up to the expectation they sold us on.
Because the UK wasn't planning for peace Munich was attempt to buy enough time for the UK and France to properly rearm and thus enable them to properly stand up to Hitler. For heavens sake 1939 had conscription well before WWII broke out
Except they kind of were? The entire build up to Churchill's "Never Surrender Speech" was filled with party members threatening to leave so they could trigger a vote of no-confidence and enstate someone who -wanted- to back the peace deal.
They had been arming up since the end of WW1, albeit their heads were stuck in the gutter as war had changed since the breaking of the trench lines in Flanders.
Bear in mind the Japs had been active since the early 30's and that was more than enough reason to get the train chugging and then there was Austria and Czechoslovakia which would've set off more alarms. Preparing conscription in a time of uncertain peace is standard across all nations with the systems present and to assert that such caution and paranoia is a lie is in itself nothing more than a lie. While Chamberlain was certainly no saint or very competent in the build up to the war his actions weren't built on lies outside of not having a panicking populace when they found out their boys could be potentially swallowed up by the German advance before the Dynamo came along. His were the actions of a man wracked with fear and paranoia.
And 'there were totally WMDs' was the 2004 version of 'Hillary didn't acid-wash her emails'; technically accurate, but misrepresentative of the issue at hand. The fact of that matter is that the evidence of WMDs he presented to the American people was completely fabricated; it does not matter that Saddam actually had WMDs, Bush still lied to justify a war we had no business fighting, and that ultimately made things worse for us in the long run.
WWI left a lot of trauma on the people who wrote those definitions
