"Suspected WMD's" - Too many false alarms?

Great Debates
1

In the face of almost daily reporting of suspected WMD’s found in Iraq, I would like to pose the question:

Is it a good idea to shout each possible find from the rooftops in spite of the fact that (so far) none of them have in fact turned out to WMD’s?

I have been increasingly frustrated lately with this pattern. How about getting a VERIFIED positive id before it goes to the international press? My wife inadvertently provided me with a possible rational for this behavior: While discussing the issue yesterday she was under the impression we HAD found SEVERAL caches of WMD’s, as she had heard it on the news. Apparently she had not realized they were only suspected WMD finds, and had later been discounted. Is that the whole point to this, or is this just a function of the imbedding of journalists (would the Gov. had held this info until verification had occurred)?

2

It makes sense to me to announce things may have been found.

That reduces the chance that someone will say they were planted.

In recent finds, for example, they are left in situ and reporters hover around until they can be gone over with detectors and then moved to secure sites.