maybe not suppressed but just not reported on because no iron clad evidence. so now we invaded Iraq and also want to invade Syria. the "war for oil" accusations would have run rampant. because now GWB is starting a war with Syria and you know...he's from oil.
Evidence is evidence. If they had paper trails from the logistics of manufacturing, transportation, storage and deployment that would be hard evidence. And a case might have been made that they went to Syria.
Further more, during the 2004 election while many were questioning the reasoning for the invasion and the subsequent mishandling of the occupation, showing we invaded for "legitimate reasons" would have been golden for the GOP and Bush.
Additionally, reporting that kind of news would have been a boom for a news station.
So i don't think this stuff was simply "not reported or suppressed". Instead the story is probably false or simply rumor. Until actual verified evidence is brought forth, which we have had 10 years of nothing except a few shells (which in itself discredits your theory because that story should have not been reported too) its safe so say,
based on present evidence or lack there of there were no WMD's in Iraq.