A Most Conveniently Pliable Weapons of Mass Destruction Definition

The radical Islamists who bombed the families watching the Boston Marathon have been accused of using weapons of mass destruction by the Justice Department of the Obama Democrat Regime.  I have no problem with this as a manifestation of reality.

But is it not most interesting that when a couple of radical Islamists in the United States use a home-made bomb or two, these are weapons of mass destruction, but when Saddam Hussein used anti-aircraft missiles, hundreds of tanks, and thousands of artillery pieces against American and allied forces, he had no weapons of mass destruction according to the same Democrats of the present regime in Washington.

Perhaps the necessary scale for a weapon of mass destruction is lowered when it is used against civilians.  OK, then what about when Saddam used chemical weapons against entire Kurd villages or he used artillery against the majority southern Iraqis he suppressed?

So, Saddam Hussein with many billions of dollars of oil money and the willingness to lavish it on his military of regime supporters to suppress the majority of the Iraqi population had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but two not very rich and not very bright young guys in Boston did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Democrats have a most pliable definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Indeed, they are loaded with pliable definitions.  Who can forget that it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is?  Who can forget that oral sex is not sex?  Who can forget that a leading Weatherman terrorist is just a guy in the neighborhood?  Who can forget that Obama's spiritual mentor had widely known negative opinions of the USA that Obama had never heard about?  Or how about the meaning of you can keep your health insurance plan if you want to?  Or that ObamaCare will bend down the curve of health care costs, in which down apparently means as seen when viewed from an alternative universe which is a mirror image to our own?  Who but a Democrat would have thought to view that critically important issue from the perspective of some string theorist's alternative universe?  Which brings us right back to "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is."  For Democrats it is that which provides them with more power to control our lives or which in any other way is convenient to them.