[My2Cents]

Maybe the Iraqis had not developed a suitable method to deploy the weapons, yet.

That's likely. But the UN inspectors, as I recall, and the Iraq Survey Group found empty artillery shells designed to carry a chemical weapon. If Saddam didn't have, and never had, chemical weapons, what were the empty artillery shells for? There's a major disconnect between what was actually found in Iraq, and what was (or was NOT) reported by the MSM. But I also blame the Bush Administration for not hammering away harder on what was discovered of Saddam's WMD capabilities. What I fear is that the Bush Adm. is hesitant to admit that they know that WMDs went into Syria, because that would prove that the very thing we went into Iraq to prevent -- the proliferation of weapons to terror-friendly states and terrorists groups -- was actually facilitated by the long-delayed invasion of Iraq.

[Preachin']

"If Saddam didn't have, and never had, chemical weapons, what were the empty artillery shells for?"

I don't know enough about any of that.

What I am sure of is that we don't know everything the president knows.

In the end, this will all play to the president's advantage, because the leftists have been saying for all of two years that there were no WMDs.

The left loses big here.

I think that they are using the extended debate on judge Alito to hide this news as long as possible.