UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/03/world/americas/trump-maduro-juan-orlando-hernandez.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

This is an attempt at Regime Change, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Libya. But to this point is more like Panama. I expect there will have to be a military occupation and it could easily devolve into a quagmire or worse.

a narrative to justify the taking another country’s resources for the benefit of USA then in essence tell us how bad, if not worse the D party is or would be.

Typical MAGAstorytelling. - make up a bullshit story about a nonexistent fact, then create a justification. Or simply, Cognitive Dissonance.

On a side note.
It is unlikely a Harris government would ever act as a thief using US military, so we as Americans wouldn’t have to defend the untenable which most (in your not factual future) us of wouldn’t do.

Madura isn’t Bin Laden.

What is comparable is the lies told by the DJT administration are directly similar in style to the lies told to us by WBush administration for the invasion of Iraq.

Stop with the MAGAnonsense.

No, the Bush administration did not lie about Iraq having WoMD. Out intelligence agencies were fully convinced they had them as the USA Today article I'm linking to shows.

Where you and I are in (likely) agreement is this war never should have been waged. I am against starting a war against a country on what they potentially maybe might perhaps possibly do someday, which was the Bush administration's justification.

4,300 dead and 10,000 maimed-for-life US service members later, we got a completely destabilized Middle East along with 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, and it only cost us $2 trillion for the privilege. You guys think Donald Trump is the worst president in modern history? Not even close to the damage W did. Trump's a piker compared to George W. Bush.


Link: https://ridemonkey.com/threads/usatoday-a-desert-mirage-how-u-s-misjudged-iraqs-arsenal.74427/

have them.

Excerpts from NYTimes :

“ The New York Times' coverage of Iraq WMDs evolved, initially reporting US claims but later publishing major investigations revealing no active programs, only old, abandoned chemical weapons found by troops who were sometimes injured, with the Pentagon keeping these findings secret for years. The paper acknowledged its earlier reporting was flawed, relying too much on suspect intelligence, and in 2014 published extensive work by C.J. Chivers on the secret casualties from these old munitions, contradicting the pre-war justifications for invasion.”

Media:

Pre-Invasion (2002-2003): The Times reported U.S. intelligence claims of Iraq's intensified pursuit of nuclear arms and WMD programs, but also noted UN inspectors' lack of findings.
Post-Invasion (2004): The NYT issued an editor's note admitting its coverage was not "as rigorous as it should have been," relying too heavily on questionable sources about WMDs.
2014 Investigations: Major reports by C.J. Chivers revealed U.S. troops encountered thousands of old chemical warheads, leading to injuries, but the Pentagon classified these incidents and the discoveries, a story the Times brought to light.
Conclusion: The investigations confirmed the U.S. went to war based on claims of an active WMD program that didn't exist, finding instead remnants of past programs, leading to the paper's own critical retrospective on its role.


Your article was in 2004 in support of WBush claims that USAToday later claimed were false.

USAToday:
Yes, USA Today reported on findings and UN reports confirming no stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) were found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, echoing findings by U.S. inspectors like David Kay and Charles Duelfer, who concluded Iraq had destroyed most such weapons by the mid-1990s, despite pre-war claims to the contrary.
Key Points from the Reports & Coverage:
UN Report (2004): A UN report, discussed by USA Today, indicated Iraq likely possessed no significant WMDs after 1994, contradicting pre-war intelligence.
U.S. Inspector Findings:
David Kay (2004): The initial U.S. weapons hunter admitted "we were almost all wrong" about Iraq's pre-war WMD capabilities, acknowledging an illegal program but no actual weapons.
Charles Duelfer (2004): His final report found Iraq began destroying WMDs in 1991 and had none by 1996, further undermining pre-war assertions.
Post-Invasion Reality: Investigations by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) confirmed no WMD stockpiles existed in 2003, though some intent to restart programs was noted.
Official Conclusion: The U.S. intelligence community acknowledged its pre-war assessments were incorrect, based on flawed information, but not necessarily intentional distortion.
In essence, reports covered by USA Today and other outlets confirmed that the primary justification for the Iraq War—the presence of WMDs—was unfounded, as the weapons themselves were never found. “

As I said back then and I’ll say again it today. All evidence Iraq had WMD’s and that Saddam Hussein was in league with Bin Ladin were manufactured to invade Iraq. I said it before the invasion, during and after. You were all suckers then as you are now with DJT.


Link: From the Guardian

(no message)

reports saying in fact there were no WMD’s in S H’s possession after 1996? I’m willing to alter my take on this subject if you can. However, all evidence says there were no WMD’s in Iraq that weren’t either completely degraded or completely destroyed in the mid 1990’s.

There were no aluminum tubes to make a nuclear arsenal, no abilities to project them if they did, there was no yellow purchases, no viable chemical weapons. But then if you have valuable information, please provide it.

Thanks in advance.

PS:
WBush knew this but told the nation and the world SH had these capabilities and we know this because he sent Colin Powell to the UN to do his bidding. Something Powell regretted. I don’t know how we could see this in any other way than Bush lied.

That doesn’t mean that there was a good reason to invade. But pretty much everyone believed those weapons existed.

Nukes, no. But they didn’t claim there were nukes.

They didn’t lie. They were just horrible strategists (and human beings).

“No smoking gun”. At the U.N. he noted there was constant interference in the inspection of Iraqi sites by Saddam’s Guards at sites based on US intelligence and US sources. After constant badgering by Bush administration he said he “couldn’t definitively rule out their existence”. Later found to be correct by the US military.

Okay so that can be seen as somewhat ambiguous.

On Bush’s claim Iraq had an active arms program and was purchasing or had purchased Yellowcake Uranium was false. He knew this to be false because Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame’s husband otherwise known as Ambassador Wilson) hired by WBush to investigate the Nigerian Yellowcake to Iraq told Cheney and WBush there was no truth to that claim. In an OpEd piece in the NYTimes he famously penned “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” this after WBush continued his assertion Iraq was pursuing weapons grade Uranium from Niger. Hence Bush and his administration were lying about a nuclear arms program in Iraq.

And most important - WBush and Cheney and their cronies not only implied but gave direct statements Saddam Hussein was directly involved with al-Qeada implying their involvement in the 9/11 attacks in the US. They were unrestrained in their efforts to show the two were in league. We know this was untrue when they said it because they were incompatible in their beliefs. It was a made up story to play on the anger of Americans and citizens globally.

I’m not sure who those 15 of 16 intel agencies were/are but knowing what I knew then and now it sure appears there was and is no myth about WBush lying.


Link: I’m having trouble with the word myth

26 million lives saved. That dwarfs the Iraq deaths.

Not trying to justify the war, which was the biggest FP mistake of my lifetime. But Trump wanted to kill PEPFAR, which would have doomed those people to slow deaths.

So let's not be so hasty to put him ahead of Bush.

Are we incapable of thinking without facile comparisons?

Do I really have to explain the difference?

You can argue it out with him if you'd like.

If he doesn't, then he is not any sort of expert on anything.

(no message)