...the burden would be ours to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Frankly, under these circumstances, no jury would have sufficient cause to convict him of possessing weapons of mass destruction, or of having ties with Al Qaeda. The evidence simply isn't very convincing.

So the question isn't whether or not the man is lying. The question is whether or not we have the proof to convict him on the charges upon which the war was based. Given the man is inherently untrustworthy, his word means nothing, so why even worry about it?

Now other charges, such as genocide, might very well stick. My bet is that he will eventually be convicted of genocide and summarily executed - by hanging or firing squad.