A word on rhetorical strategy
I know this has been mentioned before in several places, but it gets mentioned infrequently enough to bear reptition.
"Weapons of Mass Destruction" is an ingenious phrase for lumping together chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. It has allowed supporters of the Iraq war to continue to justify the war by saying (as McCain did on the Daily Show the other night) that Saddam had "acquired and used Weapons of Mass Destruction in the past".
Anyone in the media (esp. on 'our side') who is subjected to this should immediately point out the qualitative difference between these weapons. Particularly, that nuclear weapons are categorically different.
A chemical or biological attack in a major city would be devastating, of course, but a nuclear attack would effectively destroy it. It would be immearsurably greater in terms of lives lost and economic impact. This may sounds callous, but stay with me: a chem or bio attack in L.A. would kill many people, horribly, but a nuke in the Port of L.A. would hurt America much more.
This should not be used to minimize the threat of chemical or biological weapons in the hands of terrorists or rogue states, but to emphasize the nuclear threat as the much greater risk that it is.
Parrying the WMD rhetorical device in this way also serves as a good seque to criticize the war based on the (nuclear) threats of Iran and North Korea that we are now ill-equipped to deal with, and also to criticize the "selling" of the Iraq war (ie Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice, Powell's B.S. UN presentation)