There IS NO "test for WMD". I think this is just part of the fallacious thinking that is surrounding the debate. They tested these materials and in their chemical makeup they "resemble" pesticides. That's the fact on the table. There are no more further "tests" to do because we know what they are: pesticide-like materials.
There are only two explanations then:
1. They really are pesticides.
2. They are not pesticides, but something else.
You and I both, reasonably enough, reject 1. because the notion that Saddam would have stockpiled so many pesticides in camoflaged bunkers near military outposts is just laughable.
So we are left with 2. then. They are materials based on pesticide-like precursors, stored in drums, near military sites, camoflaged and placed in underground bunkers, but not actually pesticides nor is it at all plausible that they were intended for use as pesticides. But presumably when prepared and delivered by appropriate means, they could kill large numbers of humans. (This is true even of actual pesticides of course.)
That's what "WMD" MEANS! I don't even know what else people think a "WMD" would be.
At the bare minimum these were finds of "WMD" precursors. In other words, stuff that could be mixed with other stuff, or prepared appropriately, to be deliverable "WMDs", but not actually deliverable "WMDs". But to make that distinction is asinine. It's like saying that if you find an empty gun, and a bullet, that's not a weapon. Only if the bullet is in the gun, have you found a weapon. The bullet by itself is just a "precursor" and the gun by itself is just a "precursor". In a sense this is a true way to look at things, but still quite warped.
So we found "precursors" to WMD. We found material which could be used and was meant to be used, if/when the time arose, for WMD. That's good enough for me. Why wouldn't it be good enough for anyone? Who ever raised the bar to this absurd height that, unless we find a "loaded WMD gun", we haven't found ANYTHING? The charge against Saddam was NEVER "he has a loaded WMD gun", it was that he had, and was continuing to make, banned materials. Guilty as charged.
....for the world to say "Ah ha, they had WMD!" we need to find more than this
You are probably right but that's because "the world" has raised the bar to such an absurd height. Which was one of the main points of this article, in fact.
This article makes it sound like we found it all.
Not "it all". From the article: "In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs...". The article is explicit about the fact that there are still things unaccounted for.
Best,