KHolt....Reading your message, makes me think you need to go to EVERY newspaper (major ones anyway) and tell them THEY are getting the terminology wrong. Not only WMD wrong, but other items as well.
That would keep them, and you, busy for a good long time.
But you are at least partially correct here: A large part of the problem that resulted in so many people thinking that Bush "lied" was early misunderstanding over the term, WMD. Attributing maliciousness to a simple misunderstanding is not constructive.
First, WMD was ONLY part of the reason we went to war in Iraq. (see whitehouse.gov statements back in 2002)
Second, it was the MSM that picked up the term, AFTER the Dems decided it was a good talking point.
I do have an aside to your thoughts on cemeteries and guns as well...
Several people at a time can (and have been buried)....by your definition of "mass", a few people at a time, isn't really a "massive amount".....BUT the media said that "several" people were buried in "mass graves" after Katrina, because no relatives had been found.
KEY words: "few" "together" "mass graves"....
On guns: Have you ever read a story, or heard a news story on TV that talks about "mass-murders" (meaning 3 or so), or a "massive car pileup" killing from 3-12 or so people???
Think Columbine School....All we heard about for days was the "mass murders/mass killings" that the two kids had done....
BUT all of that aside....IMO, the term "weapons of mass destruction," means just that. The weapon, whether it is something like anthrax, or a nuclear bomb CAN be used as a WMD.
You are talking about "application."
Any of these weapons, be it guns, nukes, anthrax, etc are harmless, if there is NO life around when they are used.
OR if there is never to be life around IF they are used. Weapons by themselves don't kill if there is no one around to be killed.
Chemicals can, and have been used by Saddam, to kill thousands.
Nukes have been tested by the US, and have killed no one. |
