In 1992,  9 miles west of Nasiriya, Iraq the ancient city of Ur was discovered under 40 feet of sand. That's right, an entire city under a scant 40 feet of sand sat undiscovered for 4000 years or more only 9 miles from a major city.

Why do I mention this? Because I am tired of hearing how it has been "proven" that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.My thought is this: If we can lose an entire city for thousands of years, is it not possible that some vials of anthrax lie buried in a desert and have not yet been discovered in the mere 5 years we have been there?

Of course, I don't even need that theory, as the fact is, we HAVE found weapons of mass destruction, and components of weapons of mass destruction, but the media and the government have either downplayed it, or classified them in peculiar ways.

First, we found several hundred sarin and mustard gas filled artillery shells. However, as these were "old" they have been largely ignored. Somehow the fact that Saddam had 500 rounds containing substances he was supposed to have destroyed seems to matter little to the left when they start their "Bush lied" chant.

Second, we found all sorts of drums of chemicals in buried bunkers and military bases that tests showed to be chemical agents. Subsequent tests later changed that classification and decided they were insecticides and agricultural chemicals. The fact that these "agricultural chemicals" were stored in underground bunkers on military bases did not raise any red flags, nor did anyone note that the difference between nerve gas and insecticide is very small. So these drums also passed without notice, and we continue to hear how "Bush lied".

Third, there was the trip to Niger. Yes, there was also a forged document, but that forgery does not change the fact that Saddam did send agents to Niger, agents associated with his nuclear program. And if they were not there to obtain uranium, what exactly were they doing there? Just because someone forged a document does not mean there was nothing improper going on.*

Fourth, there were the convoys of trucks and planes into Syria and the subsequent attempted chemical attack in Jordan. To dismiss these as "irrelevant" one must explain why Saddam needed to run so many convoys into Syria right before the invasion, and also where a bunch of Jordanian malcontents suddenly obtained chemical agents. I know Occam's Razor proves nothing, but it certainly does point to the validity of the argument that Saddam moved at least part of his chemical weapon stockpile into Syria.

Fifth, there are those cylinders. Yes, it was "shown" they were "dual use" and could be used for uranium centrifuges OR missiles, but that kind of begs the question. A criminal could buy a gun for crime or hunting, but we usually assume he is buying it for crime. Likewise, why would we assume Saddam wanted those tubes for missiles? Yes, they COULD be for missiles, but they also COULD be for a uranium centrifuge. Given Saddam's history, which seems more likely? Dual-use means precisely that, and assuming Saddam is engaged in the more innocuous use seems to be motivated solely by one's hatred of Bush.

Sixth, we have our city of Ur. Iraq is a massive desert and we have been there in small numbers a scant few years, most of which we have spent pacifying the populace, not digging up every inch of sand. We have found some things, but it is quite possible, even likely, that many things have been buried in that desert that we have yet to find.  If an entire city, well documented, large and immobile, can elude archaeologists for thousands of years, how hard would it be for a few small drums, or even smaller vials, which could even be dug up and moved by sympathizers, could elude soldiers, distracted by the need to pacify the populace, for a few years?

I know none of this "proves" there were weapons. Nor do I intend it to do so.

What I want to show with these topics** is that the idea that it has been "proven" there were no WMDs is foolish. Nothing I have seen or heard has proven Saddam did not possess WMDs and was not actively pursuing WMD research. We may not have enough evidence to convince the left that Saddam did have such weapons, but there is nothing which proves the opposite.

So, please, stop telling me that it has been proven Saddam had no WMDs.***

--------------------------------------------------------------

* Yes, despite my stated dislike for the man, I DO cite Hitchens here. Much as I don't like the fellow, he makes a good case.

** There is other evidence I omitted. Some I dropped as it is strongly debated. Some I skipped as I could not find the original sources, and had forgotten too many details. And some I dropped as they were less persuasive or would require too much space. But there are far more than the few items I listed. Perhaps when time allows I will update this article with a more comprehensive list and some links to source material.

*** The fact that some in government, including our president, have made statements seeming to indicate that they think there were no WMDs does not "prove" anything. Who takes a politician's statements as fact? Many statements made by those in government are made for reasons other than to state the truth. It is often politically more sensible to concede a point, even one of dubious veracity, than fight. So, please, do not throw up quotes from Bush or others to "refute" this. Those 500 shells alone show Saddam DID have WMDs, so any statement that he didn't is obviously not entirely accurate.

-------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATED 02/06/2008

When I brought up the vast expanse of Iraq when commenting on a past article, I was told that "we have chemical sniffers", as if that meant we should have already found every last WMD.

This is a bad argument for several reasons:

1. Chemical "sniffers" only exist for a limited number of chemicals. Some are next to useless as the chemical in question is so common (eg. nitrogen) that it will always be present. But for many of the things we seek (uranium, centrifuges, anthrax spores), we either do not have "sniffers", or those sniffers are no use. (eg. Metal centrifuges can't be "sniffed out", and anthrax can only be "sniffed" if the spores are airborne in some quantity.) In addition many of the things we seek, such as nerve gas, often have other chemicals which produce "false positives" making sniffers less useful.

2. "Sniffers" have a VERY limited range, and for good reason. Imagine a sniffer that could detect explosives at 10 miles. If it went off, how much use would that be? You would know that within a 10 mile radius there were explosives. So what? No, sniffers have a very short range, and so using a sniffer is almost as time consuming as searching by hand.

3. If an object is buried deeply enough, and enough time has passed, a sniffer will not necessarily find it. So, even if the hidden object is something for which we have a sniffer, and we are in the right area, after four or five years, a cache 20 feet below ground may not be detectable.

4. Many of Saddam's WMDs may be kept in component parts, not in assembled final form. If he kept nerve gas stored in the form of two or more component chemicals, they may not on their own trigger a sniffer. That does not mean he doesn't have any nerve gas, just that it is not ready for immediate use. (Would you let a criminal buy a gun kit because it "isn't a gun"? If you say no, then why should we ignore components of WMDs?)

5. If the sniffers we have are so perfect, how do drugs enter the US? Or remain hidden once here? If the poster's view was accurate there would be no more smuggling and no drug market in the US.  However, the truth is that our technology is nowhere near as reliable or powerful as the poster assumed.

So, sorry, but the "chemical sniffer" argument holds no water either.

Maybe a very simple counter argument will help:

If we are so technologically advanced we should have found everything Saddam hid in the 5 years we have been there, why do archaeologists still dig? The treasures of the past were, for the most part, not even intentionally hidden, so they should be even easier to find. So, if we should be able to find a four inch long vial in the sands of Iraq in 5 years, why have we still failed to find entire missing cities?

Sorry, but whatever technology we may have, it still does not grant omniscience, and it is still quite possible for Saddam to hide a lot of sins in the sands of Iraq.