[Darkwolf377]

I think we're all wondering that. I can't think of a good reason. Bush has been struggling to defend his decision to go to Iraq, and it's long past time for it--fatally so. The myth that Bush lied to get us into Iraq is now part of history. Every history book from now on will begin talking about Iraq as a war that divided the country, that "to this day" is questioned as no war has been other than Vietnam (which isn't really questioned anymore).

Had he brought all this data out when it was discovered it would have brought HUGE dividends, politically and historically.

So I have my doubts that these documents are very damning at all.

[lawnguy]

I wonder if they will release them during the trial.

I must admit there is a part of me that says all of his reasons were perfectly rational, and frankly the burden of proof is on the revisionists. Screw em' is a thought I have fairly frequently ;)

[cookcounty]

"I have my doubts that these documents are very damning at all. "

That's my take as well. Even though they've translated only 2%, you can be sure they were not translated randomly. They've pretty much got all that's there and while circumstantially an argument, a good argument, can be made, that is not good enough for the press. They would require a smoking A-bomb, or maybe two, in case the first was just a fluke.