How the hell do you know who's telling the truth and who isn't? The scientists lied until 1995, and Iraq only coughed up more data on weapons programs after Kamel blew the whistle on them. If all the weapons programs were destroyed by the U.N. right after the Gulf War--hidden programs the U.N. had been totally surprised by--why the lies until 1995?

So much of this whole thing does not add up, from either side.

Again, the theory of the bogus defectors is raised, as they were in an earlier article. Guys sent by Saddam to the CIA with fake stories about WMD programs. But why would Saddam do such a thing? As they say in the movie business, what's his motivation? Why not just paint a fat target on his own ass? There is also the plausible concept of defectors making stuff up on their own to make them attractive as defectors. But God knows the CIA must get hundreds such. Have they no filters for such things? Standard requirements for additional confirming data?

The "never was any WMD" crowd has to explain why vast amounts of intelligence were collected that sure as hell made it look like Iraq was fiddling with WMD. I've seen the photos, the transcripts, the equipment analysis. If they weren't doing what the CIA said they were, I have no other explanations. Did the CIA lie? All of them? Along with intelligence agencies in other nations? This falls apart like most conspiracy theories because it requires too many people to be in on it. The alternative: everyone was fooled somehow. If the intelligence agencies of two nations had the wool pulled over their eyes, this is unnerving. And given the level of detail, it would also seem to require Saddam to have gone to some effort to make things look like he had illegal arms. Why?

And why was the Iraqi army heavily equipped for gas warfare?

The "Iraq was full of WMD" crowd has to explain where the hell everything went. While the Syria Theory explains the facts, there is no reliable evidence to back it up. Sorry, DEBKAfile. Sure, it could be buried. How do you find it? SOMEBODY had to bury it. If there were programs under way, but nothing had actually been made yet, there would be no nasty traces. Were all the bunkers, trailers, dual-use equipment, etc. still unused, waiting for the heat to go off someday? Plausible, but how to prove it?

The anti-war crowd says nobody found SCUDs, and the current inspectors have never mentioned finding any. Yet in Aviation Week, I have now seen at least two articles showing SCUDs--specifically labeled as such on the aerial photos--being destroyed by air attacks. AvWeek seems to call no special attention to this, any more than other such shots showing other armaments being destroyed. And if anyone knows what the hell a SCUD is, it would be the staff of Aviation Week.

The "WMDs were lost in the filing cabinet" theory is attractive: Iraq destroyed everything but just forgot where and how. Certainly such bureaucratic screwups are par for the course in a totalitarian society. But given Iraq's long and proven history of deception, including this same technique, only an idiot would have believed Saddam before the war. And it still doesn't explain why Iraq acted so suspicously in so many areas. Did Saddam really think he had to pretend to be armed for some reason? Who is he more scared of than us? Was he that convinced we would never attack? Who convinced him? Everybody else on the planet was pretty damn sure Bush was going in.

My "Emperor's New Clothes" theory had some merit: none of the WMD programs after 1991 was really successful, but the scientists fed Saddam what he wanted to hear, sucked up the cash, and kept breathing. Beauty of the theory: during the regime, Saddam acts just like he's packing the Big Heat, and you sure weren't going to hear anything different from the scientists. So what keeps the scientists from admitting to this now? Saddam, still out there somewhere?

Maybe there's another theory. Maybe the truth is a combination of all of these. Wouldn't be unlikely. But Kay's input is vital to figuring this stuff out. Even if he found nothing, it's an important piece of data in this puzzle.