More Info on WMDs?

Not surprisingly, the Old Media is playing down the story about the discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq. The finding of these older, but still potentially very dangerous, chemical weapons doesn't provide conclusive evidence about the scope of the Iraqi weapons program at the time of the 2003 war. But the information disclosed last week was only a tiny portion of a larger pile of still classified documentation that could shed light on the WMD situation.

Michael Ledeen at NRO argues for releasing all of the documentation.

And we should demand they honor their calling, we should demand that the whole document be declassified and released, so that we can evaluate it ourselves, and decide how important it is or isn't. Because we know that the fourth branch isn't going to give us the facts, unless they fit their agenda.

Declassify the WMD document now. We'll tell you what it means.

And while you're at it, how about producing the other Iraq documents, the stuff from Saddam's files, that you promised to give us? We haven't seen much of that of late, have we? I wonder why...

I tend to agree, with the caveat that information that might allow still hidden WMDs to fall into terrorists' hands or endanger informants be withheld, as described in this Strategy Page article.

If the United States were to have announced WMD finds right away, it could have told terrorists (including those from al-Qaeda) where to look to locate chemical weapons. This would have placed troops at risk - for a marginal gain in public relations. A successful al-Qaeda chemical attack would have been a huge boost for their propaganda efforts as well, enabling them to get recruits and support (many people want to back a winner), and it would have caused a decline in American morale in Iraq and on the home front.