Check this additional information from the Weekly Standard article for a reason on why this news is just now coming to light:

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff." Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq.

There's a lot of other information in the article as well that helps explain (to some extent) why this news isn't getting out as quickly as it should. Some of which again gives the MSM the black-eye it deserves.

Bush planted the story and blackmailed reporters into printing it!

And paid the Iraqi journalists too!

How nice to hear this. I hope that it will be announced from the rooftops. But it won't.

Never is.

The book "Price of Loyalty" by Ron Suskind has Paul O'Neill who was the Secretary of the Treasury during Bush's first term saying, "Saddam Hussein had been slaughtering Islamic fundamentalists for years---al-Qaeda hated him as much as they did the United States…the last thing he’d do was arm them, if he had any arms to give.” A Secretary of Treasury who worked in the Bush administration has more credibility than a Stephen F. Hayes who works for a conservative Weekly Standard. Hayes is spinning this information with the hopes of damaging liberals. I'm not buying this. You'll have to do a lot better. Saddam hated al-Qaeda and there's no way a link existed.

that's the beauty of liberalism, as long as they have their hatred for Prs. Bush, facts don't matter anymore than terrorism does. It's all just scare tactics... right?

i'm gonna offer you pretty much the same thing as i did island dog altho--since your opinions generaly seem grounded in some sorta aspect of reality--i'll put a lil more effort into pointing out a few of the major problems i see with this 'proof'.

1. does it seem likely to you that an administration so needy for something...anything...of substance to justify or validate its decision to invade iraq would discover such a trove of evidence to support its policies but not have teams working 24/7 to vet it in order to: a. improve its performance in iraq? b. force the country (and the world) to see just how right they were?

i mean, what's the most likely reason it's taken nearly 3 years to evaluate only 2.5% of this stuff? what's goin on is exactly the opposite of how it would be handled if there was anything there.

2. then there's this lil gem:

"The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to 'prove' that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we'd spend a lot of time chasing around after it."

if there's one thing this administration does obsessively--generally with more passion than sense, it's spending a lotta time in a constant chase for american hearts n minds.

not this time? gimme a break.

if, in fact, the major reason for not making this information public is their fear the 'facts' may be tweaked, inaccurately reported, by those monsters of the msm...yall are in much worse trouble than even i'm able to imagine,

The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel don't count at all. Until it's on CBS with Dan Rather giving you the scoop using faked documents, or in the New York Times or Washington Post, it's not news, and isn't real, right?!

dan rather, ted koppel, peter jennings, tom brokaw and the rest of the major tv network newscasters/anchors/analysts, reporters were--as a consequence of not actually owning the networks for whom they worked--unable to broadcast any unapproved information or opinion.

same thing goes for reporters and staff writers.

contrast that with publisher kristol who not only owns the standard and therefore can print any damn thing he can imagine or convince himself to be the truth. furthermore, kristol--unlike rather--founded and is a member of several groups with very definite agendae, one of which has been and continues to be pushing america into a war in iraq. in fact, he was the main cheerleader.

for as long as he's able to retain control of his lil publication, you can expect an endless parade of 'proof' he was right. 20 years from now, if he's still alive and lucid, you can be sure he'll be filling the standard with the newest amazing discovery of shocking evidence sure to vindicate everyone who fell under the spell of his 'invade iraq' campaign.

altho--since your opinions generaly seem grounded in some sorta aspect of reality

As opposed to yours?

Well done Kingbee, I had completely forgotten Kirstol was the head of the conservative. Stephen's name rang a bell but I couldn't identify what article he had written. Today I remembered.

Stephen was the man behind Case Closed
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

Who reported on Feith's memo
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe080703.html

And issued a retraction
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20031115-0642.html

I am reminded of Bill Moyer's comments about the guy who kept getting it wrong. I think his latest article has a more than a few similarities with old one eh?