Thanks but why would the Pentagon suppress this news and why would Bush not use the bully pulpit to expose the liars in the media? ( admittedly tougher than it sounds)
Great questions. Some of it was OPSEC, that is, you don't want to announce a fresh cache find in the middle of a shooting war. Some of it, I've always suspected but cannot prove, was that by the time it was safe for Bush to use the news, the media dismissed it and he just was too tired to fight against that stream of inveterate hostility for nothing more than a reputation - recall that by then he wasn't running for anything.
There is a far darker reason why it remained suppressed after he left office - merely, I think, to keep the lie alive and protect 0bama's reputation and intention to close down the Iraq deployment. Yes, good people suffered for that. The current administration doesn't care, as its disgraceful performance with respect to the VA demonstrates.
It's still entirely possible to marginalize and dismiss the clear proof that Iraq still had a very impressive cache of chemical weapons - that's what this story is all about, that's the bounce it's been spun to take. Just my $0.02.
A theory : At the time the discovery of WMD would have given the UN legal authority to maintain sanctions on Iraq even with Saddam deposed and otherwise interfere in Iraq’s governing affairs. The UN could not use the international agreements meddle without the presence of WMD. And at the time the UN was embroiled in the Iraq Oil for Food scandal and its inspection team was led by the Egyptian el Baradei, who is close to Iran’s regime. He is the arms inspector who later joined with the Arab spring revolt along with the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Mubarak. Anyway, this UN deal was big news at the time as the UN was desperately trying to get a role in the formation of the interim government, etc, and was trying everythin to get a foot in the door.