I do as well. The spin the article imparts is that this information was "suppressed" by the government and the Pentagon but in fact very little of it was actually classified. It was, however, ignored or dismissed by the media.
As several have already pointed out, this is not new news. It is truly amazing how the incessant pounding of the "Saddam never had WMDs" meme has resulted in that entirely erroneous conviction taking hold within the American public, especially that part of it that wants hard to believe "Bush lied, people died" because it's easier than the more complicated truth. That is the effect of successful propaganda, and is another black mark on the ledger of the MSM.
If one does buy this story one is left wondering why Bush would cover up what is clearly exculpatory evidence. Some of it falls under OPSEC, to be sure, inasmuch as you don't want to point out freshly discovered weapons caches in the middle of a hot war. But in large measure, he didn't cover it up. Media such as the NY Times did for their own political reasons, and now are attempting to blame the victim.
That's the reason this story is appearing when it is. Presence of chemical weapons in Iraq can no longer be dismissed as old, outdated, trivial, or nonexistent. But the media who spiked the stories then can still pretend that they didn't know and blame Bush for that. Never mind that the dates in the story are 2008, 2011, etc, and "the government" and "the Pentagon" who supposedly suppressed the information were firmly in the hands of the 0bama administration. People with a vested interest in believing the Big Lie will not notice that. And apparently they haven't.
I just sent this article to a very liberal friend who’s mantra has been,”Bush lied,people died”.
The response,if I get any,should be interesting.
.