Let's see if I have this right. Two unnamed CIA agents have information that proves Saddam did not have WMD in 2002, but they wait until the summer of 2007 to come forth with the information. And when they finally come forth, they don't go to a media outlet such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, or NPR. Instead, they go to Sidney Blumenthal, who carried water for the Clintons in the past and will probably do so for Hillary again in the future.

Sorry, but something about this story just doesn't smell right.

I also would like to hear Blumenthal's theory concerning how Bush got Bill Clinton to lie about Saddam's WMD for eight full years. Clinton kept sanctions on Iraq because of that lie, which resulted in the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children age five and under. Osama responded to those deaths by saying he would send Clinton "messages with no words," (e.g., the bombing of our embassies in Africa, the bombing of the USS Cole, and 9/11).

It appears to me that Blumenthal is attempting to smear Bush after a new CIA was released that showed Bill Clinton had told several lies about his efforts (or, more accurately, non-efforts) to combat al Qaeda.

terith:

"If we don't at least start the proceedings, what does that say to the rest of the world? That prosecuting a President for a dalliance with an adult White House intern is more important than impeaching a President who started what appears to be an unnecessary war?"

I think the Democrats are concerned that any effort to impeach Bush would be seen as merely politics. There is a way to avoid this.

If it was a lie to say Saddam had WMD, then Bill Clinton also clearly lied. His administration left office in January 2001 still claiming that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the U.S.

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm

http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm

The Clinton administration keep sanctions on Iraq for eight full years because they claimed Saddam had WMD. The UN FAO reported that those sanctions killed 567,000 Iraqi children age 5 and under. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" in response to those deaths. See the final page of this PDF: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/binladenintvw-cnn.pdf

In other words, Clinton's sanctions on Iraq ultimately led to 9/11.

If Democrats want to demonstrate that they are more interested in justice than politics, they should first sanction Bill Clinton for his lies regarding Iraq and the terrorist attacks that resulted from those lies. After they have done that, they can begin impeachment hearings on George W. Bush.

Anonymous:

"That should say 'The sanctions were NOT Clinton's'"

They most certainly were. Since the sanctions were put into place by the UN Security Council unanimously, they needed to be lifted by the UN Security Council (which occurred under Bush) unanimously. Other members of the UNSC (esp. France and Russia) wanted sanctions on Iraq lifted. However, Clinton refused to go along with that and he had the power of the veto. At that point, they became Clinton's sanctions on Iraq.

Another complaint from al Qaeda was the presence of U.S. troops on the Arabian Peninsula. In 1993, there were just 950 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. By 2000, Clinton had increased that number to 7,053. (Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1995 and 2002)

Of course, those troops were there to enforce sanctions on Iraq because Clinton said Saddam had WMD.

Looks as if many liberals are being snookered by Sidney. Sidney's story does not add up. For one, if Bush and Tenet knew Saddam had no WMD, why were no WMD planted after the invasion? After all, if you're going to deceive Congress and the American people, why fail to carry the deception all the way?

What this is is a fabricated story by Blumenthal to give Hillary some cover on her 2002 vote. It allows her to say she was given bad information from Bush (this despite the fact that she earlier acknowledged talking to her husband and others in his administration about Saddam's WMD before casting her vote). Why would two CIA agents break their silence after five years and pick Blumenthal to be the one to share their message? If you really wanted to get the truth out, you would pick a partisan operative who writes for an online publication with an audience a fraction of the size of one of the networks?

You liberals are being snookered by Team Clinton yet again.

LeCastor:

"It was Salon.com that broke Abu Ghraib, less well-read publications do break stories on occassion."

60 Minutes II was the first to report on Abu Ghraib, followed by Seymour Hersch in The New Yorker.

I suspect the reason this bogus story appeared on Salon is because the Hillary Clinton campaign fed it to Blumenthal in order to give Hillary cover concerning her 2002 vote to authorize military force against Iraq. Of course, her own husband left office in January 2001 still saying Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the U.S. They apparently believe no one in the media will report that inconvenient truth.