>Exactly. It's off the list now, isn't it?

But it would have been off the list 10 years sooner if Israel were truthful.

>Exactly. Now Iraq is anybody else's worry, not theirs.

But Iraq wouldn't have been anyone's worry 10 years ago if these countries were truthful.

>All sides are plotting, I presume. To me it would make sense that they'd all prefer that CIA et al be occupied with the Iraq mystery instead of diverting resources to their territories. Not that they would be expecting a real war, probably not.

But again, your explanation has everyone plotting and all these conspiracies and plots work and are all synchronized and... no way... maybe in a soap opera... but in the real world? Nah, just don't buy it. Most agencies can barely tie their own shoes without tying them together, let alone plot this way. That's why I believe the simplest explanation. Fewer coincidences, fewer loose ends that have to tie up just right. Fewer people in on the multiple conspiracies.

>To me this is the simpler solution - requires fewer resources, and there's not much of a secret to keep: only the fact that there are no significant weapons. For the rest, just hint there's something they shouldn't know. Their imagination and wish to impress the bosses will do the rest. Headology, as Terry Pratchett would say.

But my explanation has *no* secrets before the invasion... and probably not many afterward. Especially when the people who moved the WMD probably moved with them. And moved into friendly territories. I liken it to trying to track IRA members in Northern Ireland in the 80s. Rotsa ruck.