"Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a euphemism created to encompass Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons. It's a convenient umbrella category for warmongers to use. Now you can't ask "is there any reasonable chance that SH has nuclear weapons?" anymore, because nuclear weapons is subsumed in the WMD category. Instead, they can argue that because Saddam Hussein has mustard gas and some germs, he must be attacked because those things are somehow in the same category as a nuclear bomb. This is a wonderful example of the kind of verbal sleight-of-hand that politicians love; all countries everywhere have access to chemical and biological weapons, but they won't tell you that. Just that Iraq has "WMDS."

This reminds me of the New information Rumsfeld is offering: that Iraq must be attacked because there is evidence (what evidence? Never mind, he's not telling!) that Al Qaeda terrorists have been in Iraq in the last few months. Are we bombing Manila? Frankfurt? No, but Al Qaeda terrorists have been there. Will we bomb Riyhad? Tehran? No. But somehow this is sufficient reason to bomb Baghdad. Beggars belief....