Chris,
It seems you have broken ranks from the Democratic Party and mainstream media and have now defined WMD as only nuclear. Is there a threshold on deaths to quantify when something is a weapon of mass destruction as compared to just a regular weapon of standard destruction? Over the last century, international treaty efforts seem to have specifically gone after chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as WMD. ...Just curious as to your definition? How about a 1000 people in a single shot?
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html is a Kurdish website that could shed some light but it is not for the squeemish.
Also, did you ever figure out why Bill Clinton and George W. Bush seem to have reached the exact same opinion on Iraq and their threat to the United States. Let me refresh your memory with the following:
"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes and its military capacity to threaten its neighbours."
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government - a government ready to live in peace with its neighbours, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."
The previous three quotes all come from President Bill Clinton's speech to the nation, December 16, 1998.
Sounds like a George W Bush speech....?