The Nitpicker is nothing if not modest (and/or handsome), so it pains me to have to point out that I apparently scooped Newsweek and "US sources" by months, using nothing but the power of deduction. Get me to a think tank, pronto!
U.S. sources say that captured Iraqis insist Saddam’s top strategic objective was to persuade the United Nations to relax sanctions on his regime. So, after Saddam’s son-in-law Hussein Kamel, head of his unconventional weapons programs, defected to Jordan in 1995, Saddam ordered intensified efforts to hide or destroy blueprints, “dual use” technology and any remaining germs or chemicals. Not only was material stashed or obliterated, but records showing what had been destroyed were also pulped. Some U.S. and British intel officials still say stockpiles of chemical or biological agents will turn up. But U.S. Defense analysts are paying more attention to a “working hypothesis,” based on stories told by Iraqi captives, that no live WMD may ever be found. Some U.S. officials even think Iraqi defectors who surfaced before the war saying Saddam was still making WMD were double agents dispatched by Saddam to spread disinformation to deter his enemies. Others say this would have undermined his effort to have U.N. sanctions lifted. (Italics Nitpicker's)
What I said was:
Republicans keep saying that it was up to Saddam Hussein to prove that he had destroyed all the WMDs. Could it be that, after losing Kamal, who had managed the destruction, Hussein simply didn't have anyone left with the knowledge of how, where and when that destruction had occurred?
Not exactly the same thing, but much closer to the ballpark than "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
Let's not forget, though, that the point of my comments in mid-July were that even Hussein Kamal said those weapons had been destroyed, but Bush trotted out Kamal as if his comments supported our going to war.