1.) The existence of the weapons was not widely know among the insurgency. The administration wanted us to actively look for them but didn't want the insurgents to be looking for them as well.
2.) The liberals had the the upper hand by getting out a head of the debate over whether they weapons existed or not. The administration didn't want to engage in an uphill battle rehashing the debate over the reasons for war and instead wanted to focus on the path forward (the surge, keeping troops there, training Iraqis, etc...)
This seems the most plausible to me. However, why is the NYT reporting this now? It's not to give GWB credibility.
1. Ebola distraction?
2. Early news dump for Obama's/Hillary's failures in Iraq?
3. Excuse to put boots on the ground, AGAIN, in Iraq?
4. All of the above?
I think your theory is correct. It certainly makes more sense than the conspiracy theories being floated on this thread.
Given that the saddam’s 3rd in command survived, that makes less likely the argument that we didn’t want insurgents to know where they were. Al Dhouri is now a lead general for ISIS. He knows.
Probably right on both fronts. No matter what the Bush admin said they would of been called liars and the media would of backed them up on it.