Good to hear from you Fox,

I agree, my reasoning and rationale would provide the grist for 1001 conspiracy sites and make the 'wag the dog' claim seem to be appropriate.

It is for this very reason that not Rumsfeld, Bush, Fleischer, Powell, Rice or anyone mentions this at all. It would appear to be a cover up or deception no matter how it was presented.

Yes, I believe for an election they will hold on to the results of the WMD searches like an ace being held as a trump card to play when it absolutely has the greatest chance to boost Bush or deflate his enemies.

Is it cynical to think they might like a Democratic opponent to pursue the WMD issue in lieu of the economy, or at least integrate it into their attack rhetoric, so that they can embarass and diminish this opponent's position? For if he is wrong on WMD, might it not make him appear wrong on all his views?

Is it even more cycnical to think that if we REALLY had NOT found any WMD, we would have had loyal covert ops plant some stuff to be discovered, so as to justify the war and validate Bush?

That this has not happened means Bush is:

A) Wrong, but extremely honest and not living in the evil CIA-Saudi-Conspiracy many sem to think he is.
B) Not wrong and holding a lot of stuff back.

Yes, the answers will remain clouded in mystery for now but probably not for more than a few months.

Thanks for responding Fox, it's always nice to hear your views.

SDAI-Tech1