This doesn't make much sense. Revealing documentary evidence would do a lot to silence the critics we're forced to listen to every day.
Personally, I don't trust this Larry DiRita character. He strikes me as being the Pentagon's designated coverup artist.
The problem always revolves around the definition and standard of "proof" or "evidence". The media and the left have raised standards of proof that saddam had wmd's or had a hand in 9/11 that unless he admits it on the stand and can himself show proof that he is telling the truth, they will never accept it.
As for the Czech connection they simply dismiss it by saying the czech intelligence is in the pay of the whitehouse and that the czech government is parroting the whitehouse line in order to keep receiving aid.
In Iraq, unless they find a nuclear bomb assembled, fused and counting down, they will not admit the presence of WMD's.
My daughter is currently an NBC specialist in the US Army. She spent 14 months in Iraq. According to her there was plenty of evidence.
But it's like saying there was a weapon in the house because you foound all the disassembled parts. The left will say there is no gun because it is not assembled, functional and able to fire.
Even after here base was mortared with chemical rounds filled with cyanide, the newsies would not report it. That's a WMD! Fortunately, the shooters had bad aim, the wind was wrong, and assembled the detonator incorrectly so it did not explode. But is not a chemical round filled with cyanide not a chemical weapon?
Water testing in the tigris during the invasion showed the presense of numerous chemical precursor agents.
As for DiRita, I know nothing about him.