One of the more significant news stories today is the release of the first handful of Iraqi documents seized after the Iraqi invasion. After two years of “conventional wisdom” saying that Iraqi WMDs never existed and that any ties between Iraq and 9/11 were impossible, you’d think there would be a little more curiosity about this new material. Yet, so far there is no mention (that I could find, at least - as of noon on Friday) of these documents in the LA Times or the NYTimes. The Washington Post did run a story at the bottom of their International page – but it was not in the headline section (the top story being about an Abu Ghraib documentary). Even the pro war Washington Times barely mentions the story in its UPI section.
I could very well be reading too much into this delay/omission, but it does seem odd. Are these papers holding back in order to verify authenticity and translations, etc.? Such thoroughness hasn’t slowed these papers down before. I know the Washington Post’s stance on the WMD issue is that they should have questioned their existence in the first place. I’ve always felt that they drew the wrong conclusion. The question shouldn’t be if the WMDs existed so much as what became of them, but that’s just me, a fellow who believes in the quaint idea that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Still with the Post’s stance (something I would assume is shared by the NYTimes and the LA Times), it seems like they would approach this newly released material with more urgency. Who knows what the documents will reveal, but the curiosity should be there, right? What gives?