Help me out here...WMDs?

Let me get this straight:



For years we've heard the left, the media, and even some from the center/right excoriate Bush because there wasn't a single "WMD" or weapon of mass destruction found in Iraq after Sandbox II.



Now our federal government is prosecuting the Chechnyan kid in Boston for using a "weapon of mass destruction"--a pressure cooker bomb.



Did I miss an update to the lexicon, or did we seriously not find Saddam in possession of anything as potent as a pressure cooker filled with nails and ball bearings? Maybe we should ask our soldiers who still encounter up to 400 IEDs a month in Iraq what they think.



I'm not trying to vindicate Bush here. It's just another example to me of how we seem to be manipulated/terrorized by our own government and how they use words. 10 years ago, a WMD was understood to be a biological, chemical, radiologicial, or nuclear device meant to kill masses of people. It's used then to motivate a nation to war. Now, apparently it includes not only grenades, but homemade fragmentation bombs with a kill radius of <15 feet, and I'm sure legislative/executive assaults on our freedoms will follow to protect us all from pressure cookers and gunpowder.

Don't forget knives and rocks. By the way, when I was a kid working in the amber waves of grain, I was told that grain elevators sometimes blew up when dust from the grain was at a certain density and there was a spark. In other words, there are a huge number of things that can and do blow up.

This WILL turn into more freedoms lost for law abiding citizens.



I'm also afraid that bombing may soon become more frequent than shootings. After all, bombs are much more effective in killing/inflicting damage than a rogue shooter with an "assault rifle".

Good questions but it all is in the details and context. With Iraq we knew what WMD the Bush Administration said were there and none were found. As for the Boston bomber if Congress has defined a pressure cooker bomb as a WMD, will then I guess it is but because of statute not because the terms were being used the same in the two different settings. And if people don't like what Congress has done, vote them out. For me a device that kills people and seriously injure almost 200 people-- whether it is a WMD, I don't know but it is worthy of the death penalty in my book

BroncoBot wrote:
This WILL turn into more freedoms lost for law abiding citizens.



I'm also afraid that bombing may soon become more frequent than shootings. After all, bombs are much more effective in killing/inflicting damage than a rogue shooter with an "assault rifle".

Don't tell the gangbangers in the President's hometown of Chicago that. They might get the attitude that guns are for children, but IEDs are for the big dawgs. :~(

Sno - you have hit the nail on the head here with a curious problem of "word smithing" from the Obama administration - and the MSM (mainstream media).



1. The term "War on Terror" was first used by George Bush back in 2001 (after 9/11/2001). Obama eliminated that term - we now call it the "Overseas Contingency Operation." Word smithing and spin. Why?



2. Then we have the terrorist attack / mass murder at Ft. Hood in 2009 by 39 year old U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan. He walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, shouted "Alahu Akbar" and started shooting every soldier that he could. He killed 13 and wounded 30. Obama and the Dept. of Defense classify this as "workplace violence." They refuse to call it an act of terrorism. Word smithing and spin? Why?



3. Benghazi - Sept. 11, 2012 that killed U.S. Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans. During the 2nd Presidential Debate a controversy arose over whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama swore he did. Mitt Romney said he did not. The moderator Candy Crowley wrongly ruled for Obama - which she later retracted and said she was wrong.



It took Obama 14 days to admit and finally call the Benghazi a "terrorist attack" under tremendous pressure from the media, politicians and the American people.



The Washington Times "Fact Check" showed Obama did not call the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack the next day in the Rose Garden - he lied about it during the debate.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/16/green-factcheck-obama-did-not-call-benghazi-act-te/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Here is video of a 60 minute interview where Obama refused to call the Benghazi attack a "terrorist attack."



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/05/cbs-releases-previously-withheld-60-minutes-interview-segment-in-which-obama-refuses-to-call-benghazi-a-terrorist-attack/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Why the word smithing and spin? Why the lying?



During Obama's press conference of the Boston terrorist bombing, Obama again did not call it terrorism. He instead called the terrorist bombers "perpetrators."



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/15/Obama-speech-Boston-attack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



So, this comes full circle Sno. Why is the media so quick to skewer Bush, yet so easily looks the other way for Obama? Why the word smithing, spin, and dishonesty?



Go figure.

Note - in addition - Charles Krauthammer just said: "The lengths to which Obama will go to avoid telling us about the enemy is becoming comical."



http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2013/04/23/krauthammer-lengths-which-obama-will-go-avoid-telling-us-about-enemy-becoming-comical?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FoxNation+(Fox+Nation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)



There is such a compilation over the past 5 years of Obama and his Administration making a concerted effort to not call terrorism, terrorism - to distort, hide facts, stonewall, and ignore the obvious truth - it is self evident. The question is - why? To what end?