[Miss Marple]

That is the most reasonable explanation I have heard. Peach, please read this gentleman's post I am responding to.

One reason I think you are right is that we had lots of reports in the news in the 6 months after the invasion about WMD's being found, and then they were ALWAYS discounted or retracted. I think it unlikely that every single report was wrong. We also heard from private sources that things were being found...Mike was it you that heard that from a relative?

And David Kay also did a switcheroo on what he said was found. I am almost sure that happened.

The only thing that makes sense is that the WMD finding was being kept quiet for security reasons.

A secondary reason may have been that we had evidence of the culpability of certain elements of the Russian or Chinese government (or, of course, the French).

I don't think President Bush's PR failures account for this. Most of the press seems to be puzzled about this and aren't sure why this news would have been held back.. which leads me back to Republicanus's explanation.

[Peach]

I just read and re-read that post, MM, and it could be correct.

It would make sense to keep the WMD finding quiet for security reasons.

What I don't understand is the reluctance to talk about the Iraq/AQ connection. It was the second big reason for the war in Iraq.

[jwalsh07]

There is no reason for those countries to be embarrassed by chemical shells made in Iraq unless components of those shells were purchased from said countries in which case they should be publicly embarrassed.Movement of WMD prior to Shaock and Awe day is another matter but the Bush Administration can declassify the parts that don't cause embarrassment if that is their choice.

I think there is another reason and I have no idea what it is. It may be beyond the bounds of common sense.

[nannaj34]

Read post #70 and 264...David Kay is an enemy of the president!!!

[MJY1288]

:-)