I never used to care about these words, but they have been drummed into my head so many times they have lost all meaning, heh, it reminds me of a simpsons episode where Milhouse has to say ‘jimminnyjeleckers’ about a thousand times…is anyone else getting sick to death (no pun intended) of WMD or chemical or biological weapons being mentioned all the time?
Yes.
So, what do you want to call the stuff? Thingy? You can’t make it go away by refusing to pronounce the words. You might as well say that President Clinton got into big trouble for lying about his dog.
they can have a good amount of words, rather than boring the public to death by repeating and repeating the same word half a dozen times…
Politically Expedient Fabrication (PEFs)? Vapor Scare (a la Vapor Ware)? An illusion? A Will o the Wisp? A fabrication? A Farce?
What? I’m just saying is all…
I believe the guy at the White House (what’s his name again?) is sick and tired of so much talk about WMD and would be more than happy if they were never mentioned again. Ever.
I agree, If Bush would only produce the proof that they ever existed, we wouldn’t have to keep mentioning them.
not just ‘existed’ - but existed in present day in sufficient quantities and w/existing appropriate delivery mechanisms that constituted a direct threat to the United States citizens on our own soil.
since it’s already been seen that they didn’t exist in sufficient quantities and w/existing appropriate delivery mechanisms that made them a threat to United States citizens on Iraqi soil, I’m not holding my breath.
I’m sick of all the goofy-assed euphemisms the Bush Administration keeps tossing out:
[ul]
[li]“regime change” – because “assassination” or “overthrow” would scare the voters[/li][li]“patriot act” – because if you oppose it, you must not be a patriot![/li][li]“coalition forces” – because “American forces” would point out how alone we are in this war[/li][li]“homeland security” – too frightingly close to “fatherland” for my tastes[/li][li]“weapons of mass destruction” – a constant reminder of how evil this stuff is, it’s destructive![/li][/ul]
And to get back to the OP, just plain ol’ “chemical or biological weapons” would be fine. Or “NBC weapons,” if you want to use the geeky nonclemature.
Whle we’re at it, let’s stop using the words racism, murder, rape, torture, illness, and death… A clever linguistic trick could make this a wonderful world. 
I was in England for two weeks in the middle of April, and I didn’t get much news. When I came back to the States, I had a two hour layover in Detroit. I was watching the news (on mute, with closed captioning), and they kept mentioning that the Eight of Diamonds had been captured. I was SO CONFUSED. I hate the little cutesy-poo shit.
Oh, and the Middle East Peace “roadmap.” That one grates on me, too, for no specific reason. Again, it’s just a little too… erg, “homey” for something which should be a Big Fuckin’ Deal.
Since you missed the point, december, I was complaining about the overuse of “clever linguistic tricks.”
If they don’t come up with a buzzword for it which everyone understands, then they whole exercise is moot come You Decide '04.
As a copy editor for a daily newspaper, we changed the phrase - except in direct quotes - to “banned weapons” in most instances when it related to those Iraq supposedly had in its possession. Of course, that doesn’t work when you’re talking about those in U.S. possession. Or French. Or Indian. Or Pakistani. Or Canadian…
Nope, not getting sick of them at all. The more they are mentioned, the more conspicuous their absence becomes, and the more it reminds people how flimsy the justification for war was. I’m sure Bush would love for everyone to forget all about it, but I, for one, don’t believe that he should get away with invading a sovereign country on drummed-up charges. It would be good if the whole mess blew up in his face, but unfortunately I fear that there are too many voters who don’t care about “details” like justification for war, and will re-elect him anyway. (Or I should say elect him for the first time.)
rjung, to your list we can add “enemy combatant and /or unlawful combatant” which seems to mean “uncharged political prisoner held incommunicado.” See, euphemisms serve a purpose.
Shout the words from the rooftops. Make the warmongers running our country cringe every time the word is mentioned.
Sounds like 84’ double speak to me and I don’t (well didn’t) mind them using WMD or chemical or biological weapons but when they keep tirelessly repeating those words over and over it gets a little annoying
I wish that were true, Blowero, but I think that there are many less well informed than yourself whose reaction to hearing about WMD over and over is not to notice that their absence is conspicuous, but to assume that since everyone talks about them as if they exist, they must exist.
The Bushistas are very very careful to always phrase their comments such that existence of WMD is an unspoken assumption (they never say anything along the lines of “We have not yet found any WMD” they always say something like “We have not yet found Iraq’s WMD”).
I submit that instead of WMD, we start using the phrase “Weapons Opposing Our Political Supremacy”, hereafter referred to as “WOOPS”.
Unless you by WMD you mean Wolfowitz, the Media Distraction. That one is still lurking about.