As regular readers know, I love conspiracy theories, whether they're true or not. They reveal much about the dynamics of human thinking, not so much because they contaminate thought (which they do) but because they are manipulated in so many ways in order to contaminate thought. Or an idea. Or even a meme.

A lot of this has to do with mob psychology. If you can get a person or an idea tarred with the "conspiracy theory" brush, then the substance and the merits matter very little. For example, once the dispute over the unaccounted-for leg in Oklahoma City (also known as the "169th victim") was labeled "conspiracy theory" it became politically unmentionable. As taboo as Vincent Foster (whose mere name can't be mentioned -- much less his hard drive). As taboo as Watergate Revisionism. Or Pardongate.

As I've said several times, in analyzing these things, I try not to be influenced by emotion, whether mine or anyone else's:

There is no question that terrorism -- whether domestic or international -- always involves a conspiracy. In attempting to analyze unsettled and vexing stories, I try to avoid the following common pitfalls:

the temptation of believing what I want to believe

the temptation of disbelieving (denying) what I don't want to believe

the temptation of clinging too tenaciously to my own conclusions (if any)

the temptation of being adversely influenced by emotions instead of logic (loud and ugly tones, or harsh rhetoric make me distrustful; reasonable tones engender trust and can create illusions of truth)

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Tom Ferrick, Jr. does not think much of Representative Curt Weldon's view that it is possible that Saddam Hussein had WMDs:

Who is the last elected official in America to think there are still weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Delaware County's very own U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R., Pa.).

Weldon told the Delaware County Daily Times last week that the "jury is still out on WMD," and he knows of four sites in Basra and Nasiriyah, Iraq, that have not been searched.

When criticized for those remarks, Weldon's office told the Associated Press that he had gotten his info from "a 21-year-old former special investigator who was a member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations."

"The bottom line is that the jury is still out on WMD in Iraq, and Congressman Weldon continues to exercise proper congressional oversight in investigating this matter," the statement said.

I can't wait for those hearings.

Or does it matter what Weldon said?

Here's the full Weldon quote:

While Sestak said Iraq was "not a clear nor a present danger" because no weapons of mass destruction have been found, Weldon said he knows of four sites in Basra and Nasiriyah that have yet to be searched for biological or chemical weapons.

"I think the jury is still out on WMD," said Weldon, who also believes Saddam Hussein may have smuggled the weapons to Syria with Russian assistance prior to the March 2003 invasion.

Saying "the jury is still out," IMO, simply acknowledges the theoretical possibility that WMDs might be found. It is not an assertion that they have been.

Is the jury still out?

What about this report of the discovery of Sarin nerve agent. Does that count as evidence that might be considered by the jury?

Captain Ed recently discussed a translated memo which "describes not only the disposal of chemical-weapon materials but also where Iraq buried them." Concludes Ed,

These memos being translated by Joseph Shahda at Free Republic have the potential to completely recast the history of the Iraq War. Perhaps this find will allow the Pentagon to locate at least some of the WMD the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies insisted Saddam retained. They should also start working on getting the rest of these documents translated quickly while the information could still be useful.

So, basically Iraq took the step to bury containers of chemicals from its Military Industrial Commission while UN inspectors were in country 2002, and there appears to be concern that said UN inspectors might discover it.

Sounds like a lot of f*ckin' trouble to go through without having WMD in the first place.

The Wall Street Journal?

During last week's congressional debate over the war in Iraq, critics of the Bush administration's policy made three arguments: that President Bush more or less lied when claiming Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S., there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that no progress is being made in the war there.

All three assumptions rest on shaky ground, so it is remarkable how much critics have seized on them with such fervor and certainty--the very vices of which they accuse the war's supporters. Indeed, one wonders how Democrats would react if real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, say the discovery of chemical weapon shells, surfaced. Would they step back and re-evaluate their assumptions, or would they accuse the Bush administration of planting the evidence as part of a Karl Rove-inspired pre-election dirty trick? Far from politics ending at the water's edge, today's partisan battles seem to take on added ferocity when they concern foreign policy.

Well, if such a thing did happen, at least the Democrats could claim (truthfully) "WE TOLD YOU SO!"

Here's more for the jury from the WSJ:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada rose during last week's debate to declare, "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." Not everyone shares his certitude.

The Iraq Survey Group, an investigative commission set up by President Bush to look at the WMD issue, released its last public report in October 2004. While it found no evidence of WMD inside Iraq, it reported that Saddam was preparing to reconstitute his WMD program "as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed." According to the report, Saddam had the capability to start anthrax production within one week of making the decision to do so, and thereafter to produce more than 10 tons of weaponized anthrax a year. The congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimates that if even 200 pounds, or 1% of that amount, were released into the air over Washington, up to three million people would die.

The Iraq Survey Group report also found that the CIA had "received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved." These reports "were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation"--especially "given the insular and compartmented nature of the [Saddam] regime." The CIA was unable to complete its probe due to instability in Iraq, but it held out the possibility that an "unofficial" transfer of WMD might have been secretly conducted, with WMD material either shipped out of Iraq into Syria or destroyed by another country after being flown there.

Since then, the Iraq Survey Group has been inactive even though a continuing stream of credible sources have come forward with clues of where evidence of WMD material might be. Some administration officials now appear to be reluctant to investigate further, in part out of fear that any fresh discovery might lay the White House open to charges that lax U.S. security could have allowed the insurgents to get their hands on highly dangerous material. Some Pentagon officials have actively discouraged further investigations. But even with no official approval, some U.S. servicemen continue to explore promising leads about possible WMD sites or out-of-country transfers on their own. Many believe such tips will eventually bear fruit.

Then there is a vast trove of untranslated documents, recordings, videotapes and photographs captured in Iraq that have not been examined--partly because of the sheer volume (36,000 boxes) and partly because of foot dragging by career bureaucrats. The few documents that have been examined have yielded some clues. ABC News has reported that 12 hours of captured recorded talks between Saddam and his cabinet officials include Saddam saying, "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before [the 1991 Gulf War] and told the British as well . . . that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction." The Iraqi dictator then added that while he would not authorize such an attack, he speculated that someone else could launch a chemical, nuclear, or biological attack from a booby-trapped car.

Other sources tell me that recently translated captured documents include target lists of U.S. facilities and frequent references to WMDs in Saddam's possession. "He was either being lied to by his own officials, lying to them or he had something," one intelligence analyst told me.

In February, Dr. Sanity linked to an intriguing report of an interview with former Saddam-loyalist General Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti -- who claims Saddam had WMDs and Russian Spetznatz operatives moved them to Syria. There's a lot more background here, and one of the researchers speculates about why it's so difficult to interest members of Congress:

Gaubatz: My sources confirm much of the information that is stated by the individual who claims to be "General Al-Tikriti", but they are suspicious of anyone they can't see or can't hear in their natural voice. Arabic is such a distinctive language that native Arabic speakers can tell a lot about the person by the words, tone, and mannerisms displayed during the conversation. There is little doubt Saddam had WMDs and that the Russians were involved in hiding them and possibly also removing them.

I feel Mr. Loftus, Mr. Mauro, myself, and many others realize WMDs were/are in Iraq, but to convince others is difficult. This silhouette will not do it (again I am not a disbeliever). During the last two months I have had conversations with Congressman Curt Weldon, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, their staff, and even arranged to have three of the original Iraqi sources brought to the Congressmen's office for debriefings (ref:) This still hasn't resulted in suspected WMD sites from being searched in Iraq.

Based on my extensive conversations with the Congressmen and their staff, they are afraid that if they searched the suspected sites in Iraq that I identified, and the WMD has been removed by terrorists, it would destroy the upcoming elections for the Republican Party. If it was done three years ago (as I tried to get done), we would all know. Now politics is involved. We have a tough fight ahead.

At this point there is no way for me to know what the evidence is, whether it's any good, or whether there will be more. I certainly can't claim that WMDs have been found. But under the circumstances, saying "the jury is still out" is hardly conspiracy thinking. To cling blindly to the idea that because something has never been found in a country like Iraq (a fairly large, labyrinth-laced country run for decades by treacherous sneaks with every motivation for concealment), that it absolutely never will be strikes me as only very risky strategy, but poor logic. I think the "NO-WMDs!" mantra has been repeated so long, and by so many people who agree with each other, that it's taken on an aura of untouchability -- to the point where even slight skepticism brings on a charge of paranoid conspiracy thinking.

In terms of history, juries can be out for a long time.

UPDATE: CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ! Roundup here.

Tom Ferrick call your office!

(Considering that Hoekstra and Santorum were in on the announcement, I don't think the answer to Tom Ferrick's question is Weldon.)

Sigh.

I don't think this will put an end to paranoid conspiracy theories, though . . .

UPDATE: Captain Ed has more, and he's staying on top of what appears to be bug news. Michelle Malkin, plus video.

CNS News has another report, Drudge doesn't seem to have anything yet, and Raw Story is urging caution.

Meanwhile, CNN is running an interview with Murtha, who's still calling for a pullout of some sort. (I guess that's news.)