If even some of the information in this story from one of those awful right-wing magazines is true, then Saddam's WMDs have been found after all ---it's just a matter of how much attention the media gives them.
Not that it's a sport, but it will be interesting to see how slowly and fitfully the anti-war crowd will move the goalposts on this. They (and even a lot of wary conservatives who believe that they are maintaining some pretense of reasonable objectionism in this war) will have to find some other reason to hate the Warmonger in Chief if it can finally be demonstrated that Saddam was as dangerous as advertised. But their obsession with Saddam's "missing WMDs," which they can insist is a discredited casus belli, ignores the truth that war is a multi-causal and evolving endeavor. If WMDs were the only reason to go in, they would have had a technical point in their favor. But, as there have been many good reasons to do what we have done, they are desperate to cling to the most superficial claim of correctness. Well, forget that. An American-dominated Iraq is the best idea for peace in the Middle East in our lifetimes. But don't expect these stupid ninnies to admit that.
Stay tuned.
Oh, and for the psychotogrammarians among us: languages (and I would imagine that this is especially true of English) often adopt peculiar constructions when new terms are introduced. That is to say, an acronym like WMD is almost always construed plurally ---and it is no great crime that a user of this term might apply a plural ending to it (viz., "WMDs"), despite its asyntacticality. Capiche?