Was the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

[Lucky Luciano]

created by Rove so b*sh would not embarrass himself by saying "nucular?"

[Vickers]

1. I dunno, but I'm reading "A Confederacy of Dunces" and one of the

characters says "nucular" all the time, and it always reminds me of Georgie.

Actually, he says "nucular bums" which is even funnier.

[vetwife]

2. A radioactive Red Skelton character..LMAO

[gulliver]

3. A propaganda term ...

... to hype Saddam. As has been said many times, chemical and biological weapons of the kind Saddam had prior to 1991 (and never had afterward, apparently) are not really "weapons of mass destruction." Or if they are, then so is napalm, etc.

The Bushies started calling chem/bios WMDs. Now WMDs are a political trigger for preemptive attack. And under Bush, the offending regime need not even have chem/bios. A whole war can be started on false premises without anyone paying any kind of price.

Bush's real policy: shoot first and ask questions later.

[DieboldMustDie]

4. I think that would be chemcal and blogcal in Bushspeak.

:evilgrin:

[Eloriel]

5. No. It was in use before Bush & Rove came to Washington

And probably before he was Governor. The term describes well, weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, nuclear -- all of which have been in existence for a while now, and a subject of discussion, study and planning by military forces and governments all over the world.