This story (of nuclear warheads found in Iraq) is so unlikely to be true that I'll just treat it hypothetically.

Let's just suppose that three nuclear warheads were discovered hidden deep in a concrete trench in Iraq. Would it be reported? If so, would the claim then be made that these warheads are now scattered all over the world so what's the big deal about Iraq? Or that Saddam Hussein had them long before? (Never mind before what...) Or, who are we to complain when we have them and Israel has them?

Of course, Bush still lied, because we know he never had enough "reliable intelligence" to know that they were there, hence it makes no difference if they were found -- because Bush couldn't have known!

And in any event, WHAT ABOUT THE TIMING! If there were WMDs, why did they wait until now to discover them? Sounds suspiciously like the questionable timing of the capture of Saddam Hussein to me! (via Bryon at Slings And Arrows.)

After all, the election is just months away!

Is there no shame?

NOTE: I find the timing of this post to be most inconvenient, as I am in the middle of other things. But now that others have raised the timing issue (via InstaPundit) before I did, I have no choice.

I would like to ask one question, though. By what logic are accused defendants heard to complain about the inconvenient timing of criminal allegations?

And what makes Terry McAuliffe such an expert about these things?

UPDATE: Questioning the timing is a popular pastime. (Over 4800 timing questions served!)

Maybe we should all question the timing.....

(Not a bad idea for a bumpersticker!)

MORE: Speaking of timing, former Assistant secretary of Defense Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. thinks that the timing of the Berger scandal couldn't be more appropriate:

...[F]ar from distracting the public from the factors that contributed to the deadly attacks that cost nearly 3,000 American lives that day in September 2001, the disclosure of Sandy Burger’s misconduct would be the perfect introduction to a theme that surely will be a central theme of its report: The considerable contribution made to the worst attacks on this country in its history by the lax attitude towards national security secrets that pervaded the executive branch during the eight years that preceded the Bush presidency.

...Sandy Berger’s alleged theft of classified documents from the National Archives is no more a diversion from the 9/11 Commission’s subject than it is an anomaly. Rather, it bespeaks an indifference to, if not actual hostility towards, the fundamentals of sensitive national security policy-related information and tradecraft that should feature prominently in the Commission post-mortem on the September 11th attacks. Assuming, that is, such a focus was not too embarrassing for Jamie Gorelick – or too inconvenient for the Clinton-Kerry team that hopes the American people will not be reminded of the “bad old days,” and invite a reprise by returning that team to high office.