Was there a lot of opposition to the Iraq war in the American media pre invasion?

All we found was cans of nerve gas that was well past its expiration date.

Was suppose to be disposed of.

Then Assad did his thing and suddenly no one knows where the old cans of nerve as came from.

Assad never gassed his own people. It was a propoganda campaign paid for by interests that want to overthrow the Assad Govt.

Its the same formula they used for Iraq.

Why would a guy who just won a civil war do the one thing that would get other countries involved?

He wouldn't. It was obviously the 'moderate rebels' aka al-queida.

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/10/07/...ex-opcw-chief-attacked-by-us-uk-french-at-un/
 
that's why they're mad at trump
they want their wars back
 
I was a lot longer back then and didn't watch the news as much. For those of you that remember that time more clearly, was the media mostly for or against the invasion? I'm pretty sure Fox news was for the war, what about CNN? Was there 50/50 balanced coverage or was the media more pushing one side or the other? What do you guys remember with regards to the main stream media's take on it? I'm talking between 9/11 and the invasion in 2003.
No, there was almost none.
 
I think your example is way off. Saying your against BLM might get condemnation from the left of center but that’s it. Saying you were against war with Iraq got you heat from all sides.

"Saying you were against war with Iraq got you heat from all sides."

That is literally what I've been saying for like 5 posts in this thread lol. It was much worse than BLM backlash as support for the war during it's peak was universal.
 
I've fallen for several propaganda campaigns...this was one of them.

regrettably I fell for:

1) They violated so many UN Resolutions!!!
2) Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people!! (this is partially true, but there is a lot more nuance to this claim)
3) Saddam has invaded his neighbors before!!!
4) Saddam might get an WMD!!!


all ridiculous and stupid arguments.

Don't forget Iraq's "mobile WMD facilities" which was the reason they couldn't find them on sattellite pics. That one was the most shameful one for me and should have been seen for what it was by a lot of people.

18 labratory sites being put on wheels so you cant chase it with sattellites? Laughable.
 
Bush had a lot of leeway because of 9/11 I wouldn’t say cnn really supported the war but there was this thing back then about not criticizing him too much because of 9/11.
There were protests a pretty big one, so anyone saying there wasn’t opposition is wrong there was plenty.
 
Everyone wanted blood after 9/11. All news media outlets wanted blood.

So lucky that the terrorist passports where found unscaved on the street below building 1 & 2. I mean... so people quickly knew who did it. Such a lucky coincidence.

Here is one. Lucky it didn't get burnt.

Satam_al-Suqami_VISA.jpg
 
Don't forget Iraq's "mobile WMD facilities" which was the reason they couldn't find them on sattellite pics. That one was the most shameful one for me and should have been seen for what it was by a lot of people.

18 labratory sites being put on wheels so you cant chase it with sattellites? Laughable.

Lmao, forgot about these.
 
This is pretty much 911/Iraq war in a nutshell by south parks wonderful creators.



Also it ends with the general at some point saying "Bad intelligence... Thats a very bad intelligence."
 
I would also like to note that I have tons of sympathy for people whom have a hard time accepting that the Iraq war was in worst case a big fat scam.

Especially if you as soldier put in your blood, sweat and tears overthere. I can understand that this sucks.

But who can justify the Iraq war in hindsight? It simply wasn't justifyable and some people just took advantage of 911 to push for the war.
 
I wrote a paper on media manipulation of the Iraq war narrative when i was doing my history degree. Here is one example i found, during the clinton admin the US sent UN inspectors to Iraq and the Iraqi hosts were uncooperative but did not hinder the inspectors. The inspectors left saying they couldnt finish their work. All major media outlets reported the the UN inspectors left Iraq on their own accord but frustrated at the iraqi government. Fast forward to the run up of the Iraq war and the same major media outlets were all reporting that the UN inspectors were "kicked out of Iraq by Saddam" during the Clinton admin.

A very small change from "left on their own accord" to "kicked out." However it completely changed the perception of what happened during the clinton admin. The point being that all major media outlets were changing language depedning on the desired outcome....and the desired outcome was war with Iraq.
 
Google "Office of Special Plans". This outlines how certain powerful factions falsified the intelligence for war.

There was some debate in Australia in the run up to war, however after war was declared there were very little critical analysis.

The embedding of Journalists and the control of information via briefings was also cleverly managed to maximise the good PR
 
Google "Office of Special Plans". This outlines how certain powerful factions falsified the intelligence for war.

There was some debate in Australia in the run up to war, however after war was declared there were very little critical analysis.

The embedding of Journalists and the control of information via briefings was also cleverly managed to maximise the good PR

One big problem is that when we have concluded that the WMD narrative was bullshit (main selling point for Iraq war), then it would be sane to really question the source and foundation of that intelligence. It lead to a war and countless deaths after all.

Who's fault was the shitty, shady intelligence? CIA? Who.
 
"Saying you were against war with Iraq got you heat from all sides."

That is literally what I've been saying for like 5 posts in this thread lol. It was much worse than BLM backlash as support for the war during it's peak was universal.

I am sorry if I miss understood your post. It seemed to me from reading it that you were equating being against the Iraq war and being against BLM as the same when in historical context it wasn't.
 
The establishment Rs of the time used a great tragedy to push personal interests and lied to people at a time when they were at a heightened emotional state.
 
Most democrats voted against it actually (126 against - 81 for, plus independent Bernie voted against it). I was on the impeach Bush wagon before the invasion was even approved.

The thing is at the time Fox News had more viewership than CNN and MSNBC combined. Mainstream media was strongly in favor of invasion but only because mainstream media was far right at the time.

But most independent media and Hollywood and so on were strongly against it. Even country music group The Dixie Chicks were vocally against the war. But Fox News had poisoned so much of the public that a majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11! Total madness within the mainstream media.

I’m sorry, doing too much at once, misunderstood your post.
 
Last edited:
"Saying you were against war with Iraq got you heat from all sides."

That is literally what I've been saying for like 5 posts in this thread lol. It was much worse than BLM backlash as support for the war during it's peak was universal.

It wasn't universal, though.

Someone else posted this:

https://www.politifact.com/iraq-war-polls/

Consistent with the idea that on the right, there was near-total support, and on the left, there was majority opposition but more division. That adds up to a majority overall, but it certainly wasn't universal.

As for the media, the first Gulf War pretty much made CNN as a force. The Iraq War did the same for Fox, which was gung-ho for it. More mainstream sources were more divided.
 
Back
Top