Posted on

I think everyone knows how the War in Iraq began, with the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and the way the story geared the American Public for war at the turn of the century. The New York Times led the way with Judith Miller’s commenting on the story with them.

Before I go any further, I’d like to share this article from the Ron Paul Institute that was released on June 26th, 2019, the day I wrote this blog post, stating that the New York Times actually admits to sending stories to the US Government, namely national security officials, for approval before publication.

Anyway, this article goes on to state how almost every single US mainstream media outlet works in cooperation with the CIA. Outlets like ABC, NBC, the Associated Press, Reuters, Newsweek, the Miami Herald, and others. This was uncovered by a journalist named Carl Bernstein who obtained CIA documents and revealed that over 400 American journalists over the span of 25 years “secretly carried out” assignments for the CIA.

For more on the sheer correlation between how the media virtually works with the CIA, the US government, national security, and other special interest groups check out Bernstein’s article ‘The CIA and the Media,’ which was originally published in 1977 and has stood the test of time even here in 2019.

This lengthy opening statement of mine will show my readers of this latest article two things:

1) How most of our mainstream media outlets here in the US are practically pushing an identical agenda when it comes to foreign policy, as in the RPI article I linked above, shows both conservative and liberal outlets working with the CIA, mainly to push for war in a specific region.

2) In my Lord of Columbia Series, the reader will start to see beginnings of an alike cooperation between mainstream media propaganda, government agencies, and multinational corporations as early as Chapter One in Northern Knights, Episode I in the Series, where Lira explains to an ignorant, self-absorbed Cain that the Southpoint media is always pushing for war in other areas of the world.

Anyway, now that you have a clear background on how the mainstream media operates, let’s take a look at how they conditioned the American public (and myself at the time) to gear for war in Iraq, and man do I feel guilty cheering when they played the TV broadcast of the US striking Baghdad and excitedly talking about it at school the next day. Sometimes, I wish I could go back and have a word with my twelve-year-old self.

 

Claims Leading to War

US troops boarding a flight in Kuwait. Photo by Joshuashearn.

Anyway, with the media again spreading pro-war propaganda in 2002, the rest of the media fell into line with the WMD claim. In the 2003 article entitled ‘The Great WMD Hunt,’ it’s stated that “by the time the war with Iraq began, much of the media had been conditioned to believe, almost as an article of faith, that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was bulging with chemical and biological weapons’, despite years of United Nations inspections.”

Reporters from NBC Nightly News stated what Iraq and its WMDs were to America while the Washington Post went on record of writing about Washington’s plans for a confrontation with Iraq in January 2003. On February 3rd, Time asked whether Saddam Hussein was making a good faith effort to disarm Iraq’s alleged WMD program.

Despite calls from chief weapons’ inspectors that it shouldn’t be the media’s job to determine whether Hussein was hoarding WMDs, the media continually ignored the plea and instigated its perpetual propaganda.

 

After the Initial Invasion

A few days after the initial invasion, reporters hampered the George W. Bush administration on where the weapons’ were.

On March 23rd, 2003, the Washington Post reported, “Bush administration officials were peppered yesterday with questions about why allied forces in Iraq have not found any of the chemical or biological weapons’ that were President Bush’s central justification for forcibly disarming Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s government.”

That night, military officials told media officials of a chemical facility they located near the town of Najaf in southern Iraq. “I underscore, we do not know what the chemicals are, but it sure has gotten spread around fast,” MSNBC reporter Forrest Sawyer told White House correspondent, Bob Kur.

On the other side of the political spectrum (to my international readers, MSNBC tends to lean liberal while Fox leans conservative), Fox News reported on the same night, “HUGE CHEMICAL WEAPONS FACTORY FOUND IN SO IRAQ…. REPORTS: 30 IRAQIS SURRENDER AT CHEM WEAPONS PLANT…. COAL TROOPS HOLDING IRAQI IN CHARGE OF CHEM WEAPONS.”

Since the war is relatively recent, I’m sure a good deal of you recall this, as I do so myself during my days as a news junkie sixth grader.

However, Fox News would release another quote the following days from a correspondent in Qatar, stating, ” “chemical weapons’ facility discovered by coalition forces did not appear to be an active chemical weapons’ facility.” In fact, the Dow Jones Wire would also issue a statement stating, “the site contained no chemical weapons’ at all and had been abandoned long ago.”

 

The Hunt for Chemical Weapons

A protest outside British Parliament. Photo by David Monniaux.

The media would continue their efforts over the next month in their search for chemical weapons’, one time with NPR reporter John Burnett confirming a top, unnamed military official stated, “the first solid confirmed existence of chemical weapons’ by the Iraqi army.”

Supposedly, medium-range rockets containing sarin and mustard gas were found, only for Pentagon Official Major General Stanley McChrystal to state he “had seen nothing in the official reports to corroborate that.”

One day before my twelfth birthday on April 26th, ABC World News reported in an exclusive that “U.S. troops discover chemical agents, missiles and what could be a mobile laboratory in Iraq.” Correspondent David Wright stated the Army had found a dozen missiles and 150 gas masks, testing positive for chemical agents, including a nerve agent and blistering agent. ABC claimed the testing methods used by the Army were 98% accurate, quoting an unnamed Army Lieutenant.

On April 27th, ABC continued the ongoing story, with Carole Simpson stating, For the second day in a row, some preliminary tests have come back positive for chemical agents.”

However, when the US Mobile Exploration Team (MET) conducted its tests, it, “tentatively concluded that there are no chemical weapons’ at a site where American troops said they had found chemical agents and mobile labs.”

 

Aftermath

We now know, as cited by numerous sources, including mainstream ones such as the Washington Post, stated that among findings among intelligence officials that Iraq ‘basically ended its nuclear weapons’ program in 1991.’

As for biological weapons, the same article in the Washington Post said that it was claimed Iraq retained biological weapons’ between the late 1990s and 2003 with the capability to produce more. However, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated that intelligence gaps existed in Iraq’s biological weapons’ program, which the NIE shared in October 2002 that policy-makers never discussed.

Officials discovered that Iraq stopped its biological weapons’ program in 1996.

And finally, we can’t leave out this conversation between former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Bob Schieffer on the television show, Face the Nation.

 

Relation to Raven’s Flock

Raven's Flock, an urban fantasy allegory of US Foreign Policy
Raven’s Flock (coming in 2020) reveals an allegory between Lord of Columbia and modern US Foreign Policy.

As those following my blog already know, I’m taking a lot of real-life inspiration from America’s foreign policy to help shape Trilogy II in Lord of Columbia, starting with Raven’s Flock which will be followed by two more books to be released between 2020 and 2021.

First off, the century-long claim immediate threats to the US, many of which are based at the very least on questionable information, if not lies is a hard topic the reader will see early on in Raven’s Flock, and as mentioned earlier, as early as the first chapter in Northern Knights. A direct allegorical correlation will be made almost immediately.

News propaganda, as well as the frowning upon and outright ridiculing of anyone dissenting mainstream headlines, is showcased as well, which is seen even these days among anyone questioning the mainstream view of our news propaganda. The masses never take kindly to our questioning and truth-seeking, but I’ve always stated that ninety-nine lies can never replace a single truth, which the reader will definitely come to witness in Raven’s Flock.

Again, Columbia is an allegory of the US, and the Lord of Columbia Series itself is an allegory to US history told in an urban fantasy-sci-fi manner.

Next, I’d like to cover the crisis in Syria as well as Libya. If you haven’t checked out my previous articles questioning the mainstream claims to war, here are links to the others:

Part I: Sinking the Lusitania

Part II: Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Part III: Gulf War I

Part IV: Pearl Harbor

Part VI: The Libya Intervention

Bonus: War with Iran

Sharing is Caring!
error

8 Replies to “Over 100 Years of War Lies Part V: The War in Iraq and Its Relation to Raven’s Flock”

  1. Hi! Thank you very much for including the article from the Ron Paul Institute. It seems unbelievable that the US mainstream media outlet work in cooperation with the CIA. But there is clear evidence that this is true. Bernstein’s article will also be an interesting read.

    The War in Iraq and the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction are such an eloquent portrait of America’s foreign policy .

    I have read the five posts in this series and I greatly appreciate your work. It’s worth sharing with friends.

    1. Thanks, Henry, and definitely feel free to share away. There are so many people out there like me but of course, we will never garner mainstream attention due to our viewpoints regarding the destruction of the military-industrial complex and foreign policy reform. 

  2. You certainly have a motherlode of information to pull from for inspiration with your series based on the information that you have covered about the real way that the public has been manipulated by the press and governments. We were all duped and for the most part, much of it was brushed under the rug and they have tried to have us forget (but we will not).

    This situation is ongoing but the public is not as gullible these days and there is little appetite for yet another war that the people that have not even served want – they will have the young men and women fight. The hypocrisy and double talk and lies continue…

    In your series, this will make for a lot of intrigue as the lies are exposed, and the alliances and the under the table deals are made, both ones known and unknown or suspected. I totally agree that the 99 lies do not replace one truth, and in your book as in real life, we need truth.

    Does the current President of the USA offer any food for the coming adventures? There is another gold mine of material that can add a lot of color and drama to your storyline. Most certainly I have not experienced anything like this in my 63 years of life.

    1. Hi, Dave, I think President Trump is offering plenty of hype for a war against Iran, which Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (I happen to be a fan of hers despite my Libertarian viewpoints) states will be worse than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. I agree to an extent, because I’m willing to throw Vietnam into that container as well.

      I really don’t think Trump personally is a neoconservative warhawk, however with the administration he has surrounded himself with, such as John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, to name a couple, it’s hard to believe War with Iran will eventually occur and when it does, nothing good will come of it from either side. 

  3. I am not sure how to comment but, I will try. I agree that the mainstream media does influence the opinions of the non thinking minions who watch and read the mainstream media. I also agree that the ongoing conflict that the U.S. is involved with was perpetuated under dubious circumstances. I think the U.S. would be better served with policies of isolation. Let us  secure our borders and control immigration. If a person wants to live in the U.S., let them enter our nation through legal channels. Having said that the immigration policies must be revised as well to reflect a more conservative ideology. 

    Here is my question: Why do people from third world countries want to live in the U.S. but, once here they want to drag down the U.S. to third world conditions?

    Example: When my Uncle confronted his neighbor about condoms thrown out the car window at the curb in front of the neighbors house, (the neighbors daughters were servicing man in the car). The neighbor told my Uncle “We are not U.S. citizens, so we do not have to obey U.S. laws.” 

    Enough said.

    1. That’s a good question, Tom, and Europe faces a similar issue from displaced Middle East migrants, which US foreign policy has affected. Here’s what I think, and again, I haven’t done adequate research just yet, so take my thought regarding your question with a grain of salt:

      I think these people, these caravans and the mass immigration at the Southern border are being sponsored. One name that sticks out is George Soros, whose political ideology plus riches tells me he can definitely afford to sponsor this. I have zero evidence to back this claim at the moment, but it’s mere speculation. 

      I don’t think they intend to really become US citizens, but instead are looking to enhance the welfare state and expect handouts, which I am wholeheartedly against, and even some of my liberal friends break from the liberal ideology here. 

      For me, from a Libertarian standpoint, which I believe America’s Founders were, would involve getting rid of welfare and allowing private citizens to secure the border via private armed security, fences, walls, whatever they want. While government does have the power Constitutionally to secure the border, property rights must also be respected as well, so I would even be cool with government-private cooperation in this sense due to the gray area, Constitutionally. 

  4. Wow another great article on war propaganda! That The New York Times and other publications send articles to the government is pretty disturbing considering that freedom of speech is declared pretty clearly in the United States Constitution. I would call this a violation of the Constitution and I think that the founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson are rolling in their graves. I remember as a kid during Desert Storm all you’d see on TV was video footage of missiles launching. I like how you mold Lord of Columbia around events such as these. I started reading your book and will continue to do so. Keep doing what you’re doing, representing free speech, well done!

    1. It was a very disturbing article and the Ron Paul Institute released it while I was busy writing this one, but I wanted to tie it into the grand scheme of things. I’d call what the NYT has done as a massive violation to the Constitution, and even further if government is threatening the press behind everyone’s back. I think the Founders are all rolling in their graves at this point in time. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *