Some people (and this can be heard in our discussions) still insist that Iraq’s WMD claims were proven or that critics misunderstand the issue. The historical record—including official U.S. government sources—says otherwise. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States government repeatedly argued that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed active weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs that posed an urgent threat. This claim was presented publicly as one of the central reasons for military intervention. For example, on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented intelligence to the United Nations Security Council arguing that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons in violation of its disarmament obligations and that Iraq was actively concealing these programs (Arms Control Association, 2004, UN Story, 2024). However, the evidence presented at that time later proved to be incorrect. Even the George W. Bush Presidential Library now acknowledges this in its own historical materials: “The Central Intelligence Agency initially reported to United States government officials that Iraq was actively seeking to make and acquire weapons of mass destruction. This reporting was in error.” The same source also states: “After the invasion, it was revealed that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the United States government’s allegations thereof had been based on unreliable or misinterpreted intelligence.” After the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group (ISG) conducted the most comprehensive investigation into Iraq’s weapons programs. Its findings were published in what is commonly known as the Duelfer Report. The report concluded: “ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability” (Duelfer Report, 2004).

The deaths of American soldiers deserve respect, reflection and national attention. No one who has served or stood beside those who served would ever argue otherwise. That being said noninterventionist hijacking the blood shed by my fellow soldiers much less while they are still under fire in attempts to “grievance wash” sedition is not the same as “honoring their sacrifices”. Those are two very different things, and they know it. There is a long, filthy historical pattern—Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan—where seditionist try to spotlight the human cost of military action for one calculated reason: to gradually poison public debate / erode national will and make everyone forget the savage strategic threat that started the damn fight in the first place. The result? The entire conversation becomes a one-sided false and performative “sob fest” by defeatists that attempts to dismiss the catastrophic cost of inaction. That isn’t journalism much less care for our fallen. That’s enemy propaganda dressed up as “concern”. Such reckless noninterventionist crap has very real strategic consequences. When Tehran, Moscow, Beijing and every other pack of jackals watch such domestic sedition framed entirely around attempts to weaponize American’s sensitivity to casualties, they hear the same message loud and clear: “Inflict or highlight enough losses and the United States national will collapse.” (1) Craven noninterventionist's attempt to amplify the mullah regime soft power / influence operations doesn’t honor my fellow soldiers; it turns their sacrifice into a cheap messaging tool for political sabotage. My fellow servicemen who volunteer to serve this country do so knowing the risks. What they deserve in return is an honest discussion about the strategic realities they are confronting—not selective, manipulative narrative that co-opts, hijacks and amplifies the tragedy befallen to them by our enemies as a subtext to the defeatist narratives that allow hostile regimes to run wild.

President Trump said something that triggered a lot of people regarding Iran's borders, but you need to stay in control of your emotions. Prime Minister Netanyahu made it very clear that the goal is to liberate Iran, not divide it, and the US and Israel are on the same page. By turning against President Trump now, you are playing right into the hands of the Islamic Republic. They are the ones who are the real threat to our borders. We need to make sure President Trump has the political capital to finish the job. Get us to freedom first. Then, you and I will be responsible for defending our borders.

When American service members die in combat, reporting it is not “trying to make the president look bad.” It is the basic duty of a free press. Pete Hegseth complained that when U.S. troops are killed, the media makes it “front-page news,” suggesting journalists are simply trying to embarrass the president. Karoline Leavitt then backed him up, scolding reporters and defending the administration’s criticism of the coverage. This is an outrageous way to talk about the deaths of American soldiers. When Americans die in war, it should be front-page news. Their sacrifice is not a public-relations problem for the White House to manage. These are human beings who volunteered to serve their country. Treating the reporting of their deaths as political sabotage dishonors the very people the government claims to support. If anything deserves national attention, scrutiny, and reflection, it is the loss of American lives in war. Thoughts for discussion? Sources: C-SPAN: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WBMvalJnBXY CNN: https://youtube.com/shorts/gas4clAq53U Fox News: https://youtu.be/X7yeVfsETeY The Independent: https://youtu.be/06DeDUYX4_M