I am hearing conflicting stories on the supposed chemical weapons plant discovered recently including a story that claims no chem weapons connections at all were found there. This is odd considering that the plant was apparently manned by Iraqi military, including a general. Puzzling.

Jonah Goldberg at NRO brings up a point that had not occurred to me:

A couple readers make an excellent point about our tight-lipped policy on the chem plant. The thinking is that the Iraqis have refrained from using their WMD precisely because this allows them to contend they don't have them. If we prove they have chem weapons, the propaganda value of not using them all but disappears.

Too convoluted? Or true? It does make a certain amount of sense.