[SandRat]

Interesting view

[sam_paine]

Well this could certainly explain it. Or maybe not.

[Izzy Dunne]

I have no problem with this. But once it was declassified - they apparently thought there was no more risk to the troops.

So Bush should have been out front, ramming it down Howard the Dean's throat.

[Pete]

I heard a guy on Fox give the following explanation. Prior to the US invasion in 2003, the biggest arms suppliers to Iraq were China, Russia and France. That may have include components for WMD. It is likely that traces on the weapons would lead back to these countries. Right now, the administration does not feel it is in our best interests to rock that boat by making such information public.

[plain talk]

This theory doesn't make sense to me. Finding and reporting WMDs doesn't help the terrorists too much since they won't know if there are any more and, if so, where they are.

The WH should never have allowed the dems to say over and over again "there were no WMDs" without challenging it. The WH could have always placed caveats on its claims but should never have allowed its political enemies to say there NO WMDs.

[RandallFlagg]

Reference point: Iraq WMDs

[mgstarr]

This reeks of spin to me. I also think the definition of WMD has gotten stretched a bit over the past few years.

[RandallFlagg]

Can I sue for them stealing my ideas?

RandallFlagg: WMDs = Cheese ^

[Bob]

The U.S. government has taken a beating for supposed failures to find weapons of mass destruction in the press, and from political opponents.

I don't see any point in making a distinction between "the press" and "political opponents". They certainly don't.

[Jim Noble]

The revelation that Coalition forces have discovered about 500 shells containing chemical weapons (mostly sarin nerve gas and mustard gas) since 2003, most of which are pre-1991 Gulf War vintage, leads to the question as to why the U.S. waited so long to reveal this.

Because it is meaningless.

[BIGLOOK]

MI ping

Plausible.....or we didn't want to embarrass our Russian and Frog friends...?

[shield]

CHECK THIS OUT

[NonValueAdded]

A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have ... caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front. Au contraire, a successful chemical attack would have galvanized American public opinion as if it were September 12th. "Bush Lied" would evaporate like a phart in the wind. Kerry, Murtha, and company would go into tearful hiding, their political careers over. The pressure to take out Syria and Iran would be palpable.

[DAVEY CROCKETT]

Ping and binny boy is dead?

[Candor7]

Great Article, the truth comes out.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Headlines across the nation should read, "BUSH PROVED RIGHT. WMD FOUND IN LARGE QUANITIES."

Since the entire opposition argument repeated by Democrats and other anti-Americans was based on the single claim that there were NEVER ANY WMD in Iraq the finding should have been made right away.

[LowOiL]

Good find, Freepers were right on this reasoning from the beginning I noticed.

[Rembrandt]

"It seems like everyone in the Western World has forgotten that the U.S. discovered an advanced MIG fighter buried under 20 feet or so of sand in Iraq. Is it likely that Air to Air missles were also buried under the sand? Sure. What about Air to Ground missles? Sure. What about other weapons? Hmmmm. This entire debate is mierde de Toro."

[stboz]

...The revelation that Coalition forces have discovered about 500 shells containing chemical weapons (mostly sarin nerve gas and mustard gas) since 2003, most of which are pre-1991 Gulf War vintage, ...

Is this simply sloppy journalism, or are we missing something? What can be said about the others? Newer? Older? Foreign? French?

[Prost1]

SOP (Standard Operation Procedures) military.

Classify what you suspect the enemy can use against you (MSM)!