Clinton and Paula Jones

[DevilsAdvocate]

This just in. Politicians lie.

Nixon lied.
I'm pretty sure that Carter and Ford lied.
Reagan lied.
Bush, Sr. lied.
Clinton lied.
Bush lied.

They are all liars.

How anyone is a big enough lemming to blindly follow any of these assh0les is completely beyond me.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Rumor has it that W and Condi have a little "thing" going on. Maybe they should go on the show too?

Rocky shoals for Bush marriage? Informed sources Inside the Beltway report that First Lady Laura Bush has established temporary residence in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC as a result of a tiff with President Bush over an extramarital relationship involving her husband.

Mr. Bush?s tryst is said to involve Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It is not known how long Mrs. Bush plans to remain at the Mayflower, however, her security detail has been present at the hotel during hours when the First Lady would normally be residing in the White House.

While she was National Security Adviser, Rice, who has never been married, referred to George W. Bush as ?my husband? before she corrected herself and said, ?the president.? Rice was speaking at a dinner when she made her ?husband? remarks.

 

[kage69]

I don't believe that for a second. Kindasleazy may be a disingenuous puppet, but she's not stupid. Bush and his room tempurature IQ are about as sexually appetizing to women as an acne-riddled Santa Claus.





Then again, the moral uprights in government do seem to have a knack for pissing all over marriage whilst advocating otherwise. Regardless, I'd prefer to chalk that up to a slip of the tongue and sheer innuendo. But we'll see I guess...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zebo
- yeah I beleive her Clinton borked anything that moved except square legs he was married to.

Yeah, so he had a healthy sex life outside of his marriage, don't you wish you did??? :laugh:

Never even seriously thought about it. If I did I would'nt maintain a sham of a marriage like Clinton has for at least 20 years.

A fight between the elites!

Anyways, I'd rather have him back in office than the current whackjob. Like I said before, it's a shame people still hold animosity toward Clinton when they should be asking themselves why don't they feel the same about Bush, afterall he is the one that lied about Iraq, has gotten people killed and is continuing to do so.

I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

After you realize you've made a mistake do you continue making that same mistake over and over???

Clinton did and they called it lying? Ooops I had sex with another one.

Bush lies and it's called Mission Accomplished.

 

[zendari]

(Point) I did NOT have sex with that woman! :laugh:

Yup, honest guy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
(Point) I did NOT have sex with that woman! :laugh:

Yup, honest guy.

Thanks for showing front and center for all you would rather have a President lie about WMD and phoney wars over a little extra nookie on the side.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: zendari
(Point) I did NOT have sex with that woman! :laugh:

Yup, honest guy.

Big deal. He was acquitted by the Senate, and he isn't running for anything, get over it.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: daniel49
In his recent memoirs, My Life former President Clinton continues to say Paula Jones lied about him.
Tonight I watched Paula Jones appear on the TV show lie detector
http://www.tv.com/lie-detector/show/33794/summary.html
Where she was strapped to the machine and asked outright if Clinton had exposed himself to her.
The polygraph expert concluded she was telling the truth.
The show has put out an invitation to Mr Clinton as well. Do you think he will accept?

Not a chance in $%#^

Agreed...he's holding out for the DNA taping of the Maury show
Which, of course, is just as useless as this thread

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Zebo
- yeah I beleive her Clinton borked anything that moved except square legs he was married to.

Yeah, so he had a healthy sex life outside of his marriage, don't you wish you did??? :laugh:

Never even seriously thought about it. If I did I would'nt maintain a sham of a marriage like Clinton has for at least 20 years.

A fight between the elites!

Anyways, I'd rather have him back in office than the current whackjob. Like I said before, it's a shame people still hold animosity toward Clinton when they should be asking themselves why don't they feel the same about Bush, afterall he is the one that lied about Iraq, has gotten people killed and is continuing to do so.

I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

After you realize you've made a mistake do you continue making that same mistake over and over???

Clinton did and they called it lying? Ooops I had sex with another one.

Bush lies and it's called Mission Accomplished.

It's a well-known fact that Clinton lied, whereas there's no proof that Bush lied. If there is, please point me to it-- I want to know. If there is no proof, your post is just extra spew on a message board. I freely admit that Bush is a horrible President; I just have never seen proof that he lied.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Engineer
I propose a trade: Clinton takes a lie detector test to see if he lied about the sex and Bush takes one to see if he lied about WMD's/intelligence. Fair trade? :shocked:

draw up the petition, I'll sign it. By the way throw kerry in there, I want to know a little more about his vietnam service.
And Murtha , I would like a little more info on when the fbi filmed him negotiating for a bribe with the fake shiek.

Aw heck, lets just make it standard procedure for all politicians

i've never heard anything about that, care to cite a source? Or is that part of the Swiftboating of Murtha campaign.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
This just in. Politicians lie.

Nixon lied.
I'm pretty sure that Carter and Ford lied.
Reagan lied.
Bush, Sr. lied.
Clinton lied.
Bush lied.

They are all liars.

How anyone is a big enough lemming to blindly follow any of these assh0les is completely beyond me.

You missed one in that list - Carter. I was a good Republican in arms back then, and ridiculed him as a dumb peanut farmer, but I am far from convinced he even knows HOW to lie. My uncle (retired Army Col. from the South) knew him personally fairly well, and had nothing but praise for the man, his intelligence, and his morals.

Future Shock

 

[Zebo]

Carter is a class act man but needed more old testament than new is his religion. A man like that is most dangerous to lead our country though national secuity and social spending issues because he thinks everyone is good natured just like him and would never abuse his good will.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_10...s/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

?On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .It has developed weapons of mass death.?

?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?

Saddam Hussein is ?a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.?

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

?the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . (I)t has developed weapons of mass death.?

re: chemical and biological weapons:

"he?s got them.?

?Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
This just in. Politicians lie.

Nixon lied.
I'm pretty sure that Carter and Ford lied.
Reagan lied.
Bush, Sr. lied.
Clinton lied.
Bush lied.

They are all liars.

How anyone is a big enough lemming to blindly follow any of these assh0les is completely beyond me.

You missed one in that list - Carter. I was a good Republican in arms back then, and ridiculed him as a dumb peanut farmer, but I am far from convinced he even knows HOW to lie. My uncle (retired Army Col. from the South) knew him personally fairly well, and had nothing but praise for the man, his intelligence, and his morals.

Future Shock

Yep. Everything I read paints a picture of a very moral man. It's too bad he can't run for President again, old as he is.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_10...s/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

?On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .It has developed weapons of mass death.?

?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?

Saddam Hussein is ?a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.?

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

?the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . (I)t has developed weapons of mass death.?

re: chemical and biological weapons:

"he?s got them.?

?Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.?

Does that prove it? I'm a little confused about where you're going with those quotes. Nobody ever supposed that the President of the United States actually put his naked eyeballs on WMDs. He has to go on the basis of intelligence he's given, which is usually not 100% accurate. When talking of things that are not absolutely known, everything is an opinion.

Saddam Hussein did aid and protect terrorists, IIRC. As a matter of fact, I've seen pictures of a Boeing airplane body used to train terrorists in attacking planes, somewhere in the neighborhood of Baghdad.

Again, to lie is to attempt to intentionally mislead someone.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_10...s/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

?On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .It has developed weapons of mass death.?

?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?

Saddam Hussein is ?a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.?

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

?the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . (I)t has developed weapons of mass death.?

re: chemical and biological weapons:

"he?s got them.?

?Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.?

Does that prove it? I'm a little confused about where you're going with those quotes. Nobody ever supposed that the President of the United States actually put his naked eyeballs on WMDs. He has to go on the basis of intelligence he's given, which is usually not 100% accurate. When talking of things that are not absolutely known, everything is an opinion.

Saddam Hussein did aid and protect terrorists, IIRC. As a matter of fact, I've seen pictures of a Boeing airplane body used to train terrorists in attacking planes, somewhere in the neighborhood of Baghdad.

Again, to lie is to attempt to intentionally mislead someone.

Ah the purest definition of an Apologist right there above.

Gapeto would be proud.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It's a well-known fact that Clinton lied, whereas there's no proof that Bush lied. If there is, please point me to it-- I want to know. If there is no proof, your post is just extra spew on a message board. I freely admit that Bush is a horrible President; I just have never seen proof that he lied.

I've already done so at least once, in the Modern Mainstream Oxymorons thread, but you didn't respond. Let me try it again here:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It's not screwed up logic. Bush's administration has said (correctly) that they were given information which led them to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Where's the logic problem? He didn't lie, or he hasn't been shown to have lied. I don't want to believe he lied without evidence-- that would make me irrational.

(This has been refuted a dozen times here -- in depth -- but let's do a quick review, one more time.)

The problem is the Bush administration did NOT merely limit its claims to "we suspect Iraq still retains some WMD capabilities." Instead, it loudly and repeatedly insisted as unquestionable fact that Iraq had "massive stockpiles", "thousands of liters", a "reconstituted nuclear weapons program", a fleet of UAVs ready to strike the American mainland, aluminum tubes "only suitable" for use in an enrichment centrifuge, and an imminent danger of a "mushroom cloud". There was Rumsfeld's "We know where they are." and Powell's "These are facts, not assertions."

The truth, however, is that our intelligence agencies were NOT presenting these claims as unquestionable facts. They presented a wide range of estimates and speculative worst-case scenarios, loaded with caveats and qualifications. BushCo cherry-picked the worst of those, further exaggerated them in some documented cases, ignored all the footnotes and disclaimers, and publically declared their speculation as fact. BushCo engaged in blatant fear-mongering, knowingly and willfully misrepresenting both the extent of and their certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. In short, BushCo lied. Period.

The only reason Bush has not been held accountable is because the Republicans control Congress and have squelched any attempts for a full and independent investigation. Hell, they have yet to even deliver their partisan "investigation" into possible Bush administration misuse of intelligence data -- the Phase II report -- something they initially promised to deliver two years ago. The Republicans' single greatest nightmare right now is Democrats with subpoena power. That's one of the reasons I expect them to do anything and everything to maintain control in November.

A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. The Bush administration intentionally deceived America about both the quantity and quality of their case against Iraq and their evidence supporting it. They intended to deceive us into believing their case was far, far more solid than it was, and that the threat posed was far greater than was supported by their own analysts. In short, they lied.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
[ ... ]
Saddam Hussein did aid and protect terrorists, IIRC. As a matter of fact, I've seen pictures of a Boeing airplane body used to train terrorists in attacking planes, somewhere in the neighborhood of Baghdad. ...

As a matter of fact, you haven't. While that disinformation was floated for a while on Fox (and perhaps others), it was false. The fuselage was actually used for counter-terrorism training. This was also discussed here at the time.

 

[theeedude]

GOP is a national disgrace. Impeaching such a great president as Clinton over nothing, while allowing Bush's lies to destroy this country's standing in the world, and 3K soldiers lives, and $1T in national wealth.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It's a well-known fact that Clinton lied, whereas there's no proof that Bush lied. If there is, please point me to it-- I want to know. If there is no proof, your post is just extra spew on a message board. I freely admit that Bush is a horrible President; I just have never seen proof that he lied.

I've already done so at least once, in the Modern Mainstream Oxymorons thread, but you didn't respond. Let me try it again here:

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
It's not screwed up logic. Bush's administration has said (correctly) that they were given information which led them to believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. Where's the logic problem? He didn't lie, or he hasn't been shown to have lied. I don't want to believe he lied without evidence-- that would make me irrational.

(This has been refuted a dozen times here -- in depth -- but let's do a quick review, one more time.)

The problem is the Bush administration did NOT merely limit its claims to "we suspect Iraq still retains some WMD capabilities." Instead, it loudly and repeatedly insisted as unquestionable fact that Iraq had "massive stockpiles", "thousands of liters", a "reconstituted nuclear weapons program", a fleet of UAVs ready to strike the American mainland, aluminum tubes "only suitable" for use in an enrichment centrifuge, and an imminent danger of a "mushroom cloud". There was Rumsfeld's "We know where they are." and Powell's "These are facts, not assertions."

The truth, however, is that our intelligence agencies were NOT presenting these claims as unquestionable facts. They presented a wide range of estimates and speculative worst-case scenarios, loaded with caveats and qualifications. BushCo cherry-picked the worst of those, further exaggerated them in some documented cases, ignored all the footnotes and disclaimers, and publically declared their speculation as fact. BushCo engaged in blatant fear-mongering, knowingly and willfully misrepresenting both the extent of and their certainty about Iraq's remaining WMD capabilities. In short, BushCo lied. Period.

The only reason Bush has not been held accountable is because the Republicans control Congress and have squelched any attempts for a full and independent investigation. Hell, they have yet to even deliver their partisan "investigation" into possible Bush administration misuse of intelligence data -- the Phase II report -- something they initially promised to deliver two years ago. The Republicans' single greatest nightmare right now is Democrats with subpoena power. That's one of the reasons I expect them to do anything and everything to maintain control in November.

A lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. The Bush administration intentionally deceived America about both the quantity and quality of their case against Iraq and their evidence supporting it. They intended to deceive us into believing their case was far, far more solid than it was, and that the threat posed was far greater than was supported by their own analysts. In short, they lied.

Ah, so you're lumping Bush in with "BushCo" now just to drag up that old thread. It doesn't prove that Bush intentionally misled anyone. Neither does the failure of a Congressional inquiry to proceed.

Prove that Bush lied. It's very simple-- prove that he intentionally uttered falsehoods and I'll shut up. You haven't done it yet, which means that you won't do it now.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_10...s/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

?On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .It has developed weapons of mass death.?

?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?

Saddam Hussein is ?a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.?

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

?the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . (I)t has developed weapons of mass death.?

re: chemical and biological weapons:

"he?s got them.?

?Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.?

Does that prove it? I'm a little confused about where you're going with those quotes. Nobody ever supposed that the President of the United States actually put his naked eyeballs on WMDs. He has to go on the basis of intelligence he's given, which is usually not 100% accurate. When talking of things that are not absolutely known, everything is an opinion.

Saddam Hussein did aid and protect terrorists, IIRC. As a matter of fact, I've seen pictures of a Boeing airplane body used to train terrorists in attacking planes, somewhere in the neighborhood of Baghdad.

Again, to lie is to attempt to intentionally mislead someone.

Ah the purest definition of an Apologist right there above.

Gapeto would be proud.

An Internet search on the term "Gapeto" turns up nothing of note. Your cultural knowledge and mordant wit has fought me to an absolute standstill. You win, Dave-- who can argue with you?

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: senseamp
GOP is a national disgrace. Impeaching such a great president as Clinton over nothing, while allowing Bush's lies to destroy this country's standing in the world, and 3K soldiers lives, and $1T in national wealth.

Not over nothing. Clinton's numerous peccadilloes made the news every single week, right up to the immoral pardons as he left.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_10...s/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

?On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .It has developed weapons of mass death.?

?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?

Saddam Hussein is ?a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.?

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

?the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . (I)t has developed weapons of mass death.?

re: chemical and biological weapons:

"he?s got them.?

?Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.?

Does that prove it? I'm a little confused about where you're going with those quotes. Nobody ever supposed that the President of the United States actually put his naked eyeballs on WMDs. He has to go on the basis of intelligence he's given, which is usually not 100% accurate. When talking of things that are not absolutely known, everything is an opinion.

Saddam Hussein did aid and protect terrorists, IIRC. As a matter of fact, I've seen pictures of a Boeing airplane body used to train terrorists in attacking planes, somewhere in the neighborhood of Baghdad.

Again, to lie is to attempt to intentionally mislead someone.

I think I hear your swan song:

I'm so dizzy my head is spinnin'

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
[ ... ]
Saddam Hussein did aid and protect terrorists, IIRC. As a matter of fact, I've seen pictures of a Boeing airplane body used to train terrorists in attacking planes, somewhere in the neighborhood of Baghdad. ...

As a matter of fact, you haven't. While that disinformation was floated for a while on Fox (and perhaps others), it was false. The fuselage was actually used for counter-terrorism training. This was also discussed here at the time.

Okay, you're right. It looks like it was probably the result of a global misinformation campaign by an Iraqi expatriate group. It's not the fault of George Bush that he believed false information, though.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I asked before, and nobody every managed to post a link to an authoritative source showing that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. In order to lie, you have to know you're lying-- you know that, right? Otherwise it's called "being mistaken".

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_10...s/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

?On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . .It has developed weapons of mass death.?

?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.?

Saddam Hussein is ?a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. . . . [A] true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.?

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

?the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . (I)t has developed weapons of mass death.?

re: chemical and biological weapons:

"he?s got them.?

?Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.?

Does that prove it? I'm a little confused about where you're going with those quotes. Nobody ever supposed that the President of the United States actually put his naked eyeballs on WMDs. He has to go on the basis of intelligence he's given, which is usually not 100% accurate. When talking of things that are not absolutely known, everything is an opinion.

Saddam Hussein did aid and protect terrorists, IIRC. As a matter of fact, I've seen pictures of a Boeing airplane body used to train terrorists in attacking planes, somewhere in the neighborhood of Baghdad.

Again, to lie is to attempt to intentionally mislead someone.

I think I hear your swan song:

I'm so dizzy my head is spinnin'

You must be delirious after all those posts. Get a life, a job, something.