Is anyone else upset about the constant misuse of the term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'? It seems like the Media have helped to confuse the issue by constantly bouncing back and forth between talking about WMD and Biological/Chemical weapons. In truth, Biological/Chemical weapons don't really Destroy anything! And in practice, they don't have a Mass effect on anything other than the public consciousness and collective fear of attack. It should probably be understood that biological and chemical weapons (the kind carried by missles--the ones we are looking for in Iraq) have a limited range. It takes a massive concentration of these agents to have much of a serious affect, and they are easily defended by simply avoiding the areas where the weapons have been discharged. In time, nature takes care of the problem naturally, and cleans up the area, disipating the agents to a point where they are no longer harmful in a relatively short time.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of VX Gas attack... it would be nasty. But even if the Iraqi army has bunkers full of nerve gas missles, those missles are not long-range, inter-continental missles that could be launched from Iraq to hit the USA, and they aren't Weapons of Mass Destruction as defined by the DoD. So, what are we going to do? It certainly looks like, at this point, that Bush's use of the WMD scare tactic to drum up support for the war was just that- a propaganda tool to make people feel like we needed to strike Iraq now. I'm not passing judgement on the situation yet because who knows what we will find over there, but I'm skeptical as to the validity of the WMD claim, and I wish more people could understand the failure in the media to make that term understood.