The Media’s Lie About The September 11 Disaster

By Faruk Arslan

The mass media function is to serve the large propaganda requirements of the elite who want to control and dump down the majority of the population by producing lies, and in particualar, the misused and abused lie about the September 11th disaster since 2001. Nearly 3,000 people were killed when 19 Arab hijackers organized by the al-Qaeda flew airliners into New York City’s World Trade Center, and the Pentagon had caused a crash in the Pennsylvania countryside. The American Congress established a commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the attack.  In fact, the former 9/11 Commission members are nearly all in bed with Mr. Bush, and do his bidding as well as mass media. Many lies were told and shoved through our faces to make us run for cover, and to make us tell ourselves that all the killing and carnage in Iraq and in Afghanistan were perfectly okay. Due to this collaboration, the American media did not inquire the historical background of the September 11th disaster, the Bin Laden-CIA relation, the business relations between Bush and Bin Laden families, the US collaboration with old-fashioned, feudal and military dictatorships, and the fact that globalization produced poverty everywhere except in capitalist developed countries. The American media did not object the censorship to break up with the administration. A few journalists attempted to write the truth, but by way they were treated, they’d had to write accordingly as their bosses had said. The media had failed to accurately portray the real truth and what was behind of this tragic event to the public, playing instead the subservient role of a propaganda machine for elite interests. The media conventionally believed to be critical of the establishment and behaved in a way that conformed to the false picture presented by the government and the corporate elite of their own policies because of its establishment. To begin my research analysis, I will discuss five major lies with a propaganda model of the mass media that was proposed by Edward Herman (Professor Emeritus of Finance at Wharton School in the University of Pennsylvania) and Noam Chomsky (the Institute Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at MIT), both of whom are leading critics of the US foreign policy. (1) Herman of Wharton and Chomsky of MIT lucidly have documented their argument saying that America’s government and its corporate giants exercise control over what we read, see, and hear, including September 11th event’s fictions and lies with their the national media’s propagandistic help.

First of all, after September 11, the broadcasts of the American televisions related with war and terror were censored by the US administration. Bush’s administration, the inheritor of the tradition of burning the whole town for a fist, considered it a “war case” and declared war on all countries that were thought to support terror. A volunteer censorship period for the media was therefore started, in order to help the administration make it easier. The chary approached on the first days left its place to the expression “America is in War”. September 11’s attack was broadcasted as an “Attack on the US” in the first hours, then towards the evening “a common pool” was constituted. All the channels started to give the news almost in the same way,  broadcasting the pictures taken from each other without  permission. The remarkable point is that there were no speculations or sensation races between media corporations. In the afternoon though, Bin Laden’s name was already pronounced, and the channels abstained from judging. In the sensitive athmosphere caused by the attack, the Media made the whole society captured by a sense of revenge, but without feeling the necessity of inquiring the background of the attack. It was simple for the American media to get used to the censorship. The troubles occured between the soldiers and the journalists during the operations that the US Army had in various countries, in which were removed by a treaty after the Gulf War. According to this treaty, signed on March 11, 1992 between the media and Pentagon, a pool was constituted and the news and informations about the war were going to be gathered in this pool. The news was used by everyone only after being checked over. The American media faithfully obeyed this treaty after September 11. The journalists and writers who disobeyed were either warned by the White House of Pentagon directly, or were forced to act accordingly by their colleagues. Those who attempted to criticize the fact of giving up freedom in the name of “security”, for instance,  a famous and well known journalist named Peter Ernett, were considered as traitors.

How much ever the American media supports Bush administration’s policies through censorship, autocensorship and disinformation, and how much ever is the saying “truth is the first victim in war” is absolute to the media, which  could not completely manage to keep the realities in darkness forever. The saying “The realities one day will come out” was also confirmed by the American media. The media that supported the insanitary war policies of the White House unconditionally failed in their mission with the news broadcasted by the CBS on May 15, 2002. The news revealed that president Bush and his team were given a top secret briefing on August 6, 2001, that’s to say one month before the 9/11 attack with the title “Al Qaeda is decisive to hit America”. In the report, it was also mentioned that Al Qaeda had plans for hijacking planes. (2) After this news, the Bush administration, that had 90% of the public’s support with the contribution of the media, for the first time came face to face with the necessity of giving account. Also, the American press supporting the war policies unconditionally remembered its habit of inquiry. “Flash” news came one after the other. The Media started to examine the September 11 process. The American public’s opinion, also supporting the revenge operation of the Bush administration with the portion of 90%, along with much pain caused by the attack and the instinct of protection, did not give the same support to the media. The American public mostly accused the media of being irresponsible!

According to a poll held by the Los Angeles Times on November 10-13, 2001, 48% of the American public’s opinion was considered the way of giving news about the Afghanistan War by newspapers called “irresponsible”. The rate of those who thought positively about the media decreased to 48 %, the other side was high according to the media workers. (3) The majority of those who blamed the media objected the news which then “gives harm to the US” for the sake of “giving true news” and had said that they believe that such news would “help the enemy”. In other words, during the process of Sept. 11, the American public criticized the media not for giving biased and directing news, but for giving harm to the revenge of war with it. After they’d started to investigate the flabbiness of the Bush administration and the intelligent services before Sept. 11, Americans started to lose their trust and belief in war policies and war news.

     The first major lie was as “evil of axe” and Saddam, the former president of Iraq, supposed of threatening the US with the nuclear weapons he’d owned. On Sept 7, 2002, Bush’s speech in the UN explained that Saddam certainly had nuclear weapons. But in his speech in Cincinnati on October 7, upon changing his statement, he claimed that if Saddam was able to steal as much uranium as a ball, he could produce a nuclear weapon in less than a year. After this explanation, the support for Bush reached up to 70%. This “big-white” lie was relied on a document of the British intelligence. They declared that Saddam had bought uranium from the Niger. On the March of 2002, the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) sent Joseph Wilson, who’d worked in Iraq and Africa for 20 years as a diplomat to the Niger, searched a British document, though Wilson denounced the claim that his report was hidden. On the June of 2002, Wilson was asked why his report was hidden. The British document was fake because the Niger’s foreign minister who’d signed the document for the sale of uranium to Iraq was not on charge at that time. The director of the International Atom Agency Mohammad Al-Baradei, who did inspections  for the UN in Iraq for two months, gave a speech saying that, to the UN Security Council, there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. With the aluminium pipes bought from the Niger, only a rocket could be made. After the Washington Post and Newsweek was published, the explanations of Baradei, Bush came out to be a complete liar. These productions are bought by everyone through the internet. Despite all the contradictions, Bush still went on his claim that Saddam bought raw material from Niger to produce nuclear weapons in his speech on January 28, 2003. Vice president Cheney spoke to the press on March 16, 3 days before the Iraq War started, and had repeated that Saddam for sure produced nuclear weapons.  On the spring and summer 2003, after the Iraq invasion, Bush depicted that there were some wrong informations. Now the blame was on the CIA president, George Tenet. Tenet had to explain that he trusted the information given by the Service, but the 16 sentence-report sent to the White House was not for President Bush to read. Condoleezza Rice and Stephan Hadley certified the texts that the president has used. Bush, stating that he was the responsible for the words he’d uttered, defended his team on June 30, 2003. (4)

Secondly, a remarkably large amount of the information the public receives is controlled by a very small number of media sources as well as many profitable corporations. The Freedom House records that within states, “out of 187 governments, 92 have complete ownership of the television broadcasting structure, while 67 have part ownership US.” (5) Ownership of the world’s media sources is similarly increasingly concentrated in a few giant corporations. Thousands of other sources do exist, but in comparison their influence is negligible. The leading American media analyst Ben Bagdikan, noting that despite more than 25,000 media entities in the US only “23 corporations control most of the business in daily newspapers, magazines, television, books, and motion pictures”, concludes that this endows corporations with the extensive power to exercise influence over “news, information, public ideas, popular culture, and political attitudes”. (6) The result today is that about twelve corporations dominate the world’s mass media. In his study of corporate leverage over the media, “Megamedia, Dr. Dean Alger – who was fellow in the Joan Shorenstein Center on the press, politics and public policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government – lists this ‘dominant dozen’ as follows in order of power: Disney – Capital Cities – ABC; Time Warner – Turner; News Corporation; Bertelsmann; Tele-Communications (TCI) – AT&T; General Electric – NBC; CBS Inc.; Newshouse/Advance Publications; Viacom; Microsoft; Matra – Hachette – Filipacchi; Gannet” (Bagdikan, 2006). In the US, the channels that are mostly watched and are everywhere and are directed by about 15 families and through 24 companies (Chomsky, 1998, 1991, 1992, 1994). They’re (Chomsky 1998, 1991): Advance Publications (Newhouse Family), Capital Cities (State-Run, SR), CBS (SR), Cox Com (Cox Family), Dow-Jones (Bancroft-Cox Family), Gannet (SR), GE (General Electric), Hearst (Hearst Family), Knight Ridder Family, News Corp (Murdoch Family), New York Times (Sulzberger Family), Reader’s Digest (Wallace Family), Scrippes-Howard (Scrips Family), Storer Corp (Storer Family), Taft (Taft Family), Time Inc. (Mixed and SR), Times Mirror(Chandler Family), Triangle (Annenberger Family), Tribune Co. (McCormick Family), Turner Broadcasting (Turner Family), Fox Broadcasting (Fox Family). Today in the US, no truth is revealed without permission of both the secret-deep state and these families.

All of these knowledgeable people with advanced technologies had watched the second major lie and fiction stating that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons that had come out before and after Iraq was invaded. Bush in his speech on October 7, 2002, started to blow the lie wind stating that Saddam had given directions to his commanders to use chemical and biological weapons. Colin Powell, while going further, claimed that Iraqis can produce chemical weapons even in a vehicle. Powell in his speech at the UN, without feeling shame, told and spread the lie that Iraq had 7 mobile biological weapon factories. They were in an area covered by palm trees out of Bagdad, according to Powell. But they were moved to another place to get away from the controls. Iraq also “had 500 tons of chemical weapons loaded on 16 thousand rockets ready for a command to attack”. Bush was very happy when he explained on June 5, 2003, that they found 2 mobile chemical weapon units. But the truth was that the British had found two Lorries in the Northern Iraq and they were definitely not chemical weapon laboratories. But despite all the failures, Bush and his collaborator Tony Blair kept pressuring and stating that they were sure they would find one. The American media revealed this information though they knew they were lies, not even feeling the necessity to correct any mistakes. In fact, there was nothing else than those given by the US in 1985-1990 in Iraq, and they were inactive. According to the 1994 Congress report, “the list of the chemical and biological weapons sold to Iraq in 1985-1990 is as follows: Bacillus Anthracis, Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens. Also Escherichia Coli, genetic material, and human being and bacteria DNAs were sent directly to the Iraq Atom Comission. There was no weapon sale before 1985. In the report it was stated that these weapons are impossible to reproduce. Saddam had finished to use these weapons on Kurdish and Iranian people” (7)

Thirdly, it would be nonsense to expect the US media, that are under the control of a specific elite class, to reveal more information about the truth. American people were cheated as it was in the Sept. 11 case, and not only Americans, but also the entire world. The administrators of most of these companies always used the same saying; because they are the main  part of the New World Order. This case is almost the same in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Autralia, whom are members of the ECHELON founded by NSA (National Security Agency) to listen to the world and direct it (Sayin 1998; Hafger 1997). Directors of the media are certainly from one of these organizations, and  in which the world is lead by them. It was Walter Lippman who coined the phrase “the manufacture of consent”, enjoining it as a means of population control. Lippman’s concept may indeed be in effect today. In this regard, “the status of the mass media and its faithful propagation of the established opinion that Western policy is fundamentally benevolent in intention is an issue of paramount importance.” (8) All this has followed as a result of the fact that “the arms industry has launched a concerted lobbying campaign aimed at increasing military spending and arms exports”, as Senior Fellow of the World Policy Institute William Hartung points out. “These initiatives are driven by profit and pork barrel politics, not by the objective assessment of how to best defend the United States in a post-cold war period.” (9)

     The third major lie was that the media didn’t tell what the main purpose was for their own invasions. “The main aim behind the war on terrorism is described with one word: Petrol… The places pointed out as the terrorist targets constitute the map of the main energy resources of the planet for the 21st century. The war on terrorism is being made for the sake of the million dollar-investments of Chevron, Exxon, Arco in the US, Total, Fina, Elf in France, British Petrolium, Royal Dutch Schell and other giant petrol companies in these areas,” said Frank Viviano from The San Francisco Chronicle about the global resource war, which the US called “war on terror” in his article on September 26, 2002. (10) Under the name of war on “International terrorism”, a terrible colonization war was launched. A more offensive expression, “International Islamic terrorism” was put into use by the media to gather the two richest energy resources of the world, located in the Middle East in the Western hegemony hands. Michael Meacher, a former minister of the environment of Britain, thinks that energy is the main aim of the war on Muslims. The US and UK have consumed their safe petrol and natural gas reserves. By 2010, the Islamic World will have 60 % of oil production and 95 % of the natural gas export capacity of the world. The US may have supplied 57% of energy in 1990, but will soon fall to 39 % in 2010. Although Britain will be able to supply 70% of energy from gas powers, in 2020 it will depend on abroad resources with the portion of 90 %. Iraq has not only oil reserves, as it is thought, but also 110 trillion m3 of gas reserves. The US depends on Saudi Arabia for energy. Meacher, saying that Britain is with the US in the war for its energy partnership, stressed that nobody believes in “war on terror tale” for any longer. Meacher claimed that “Britain’s foreign policy is insufficient while the US is trying to hold the control of the energy reserves with the global hegemony.” Meacher said that they must make radical changes for their independent aims if necessary. Obviously, the former British minister accused Tony Blair of getting little share from the US (11).

     The fourth biggest lie was that Saddam worked with Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, while Muhammad Atta was the key name.  The media announced the names of the perpetrators and those who should be punished: Osama and Saddam. The Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld did the same one hour after the attack. The White House had asked General Wesley Clark, NATO commander in the Kossovo War, to say that there is really a link between Sept 11 and Saddam on CNN. “If you have proof I can,” said Clark. He did not join this lie for there is no proof. (12) Since he knew Saddam was the biggest enemy of Osama, he’d declared him blasphemous! During the months of October and November in 2002, Bush told many lies about the Saddam and Al-Qaeda collaboration to convince the public opinion. He always told these lies in his speeches held in New Mexico and Colarado on January 28, South Dakota on January 31, Florida on November 2, Minnesota on November 3,  Missouri on November 4, and Arkansas and Texas: “Saddam has a link with Al-Qaeda, but can’t resist the US. He is threatening the US and its allies. We learned that he prepared nuclear weapons. Saddam and Osama don’t like freedom. Saddam has relation with this terrorist organization. This is his character. This man likes nothing else but training terrorists and attacking without leaving any traces. He hates the US and its allies.” (13) Colin Powell’s speech at the UN on February 5, 2003 was also focused on this lie. Though the inspectors confirmed that they couldn’t find the nuclear and chemical weapons, Powell claimed that the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was proved. Bush in his speech at the UN on January 28, 2003, stating that they gotten “documents” about the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, claiming that Saddam protected the terrorists. (14) According to an online poll held by CBC, after this explanation the support for the Iraq War reached its peak. The US president could not have told such a big lie since he is the president—but yet, he still unregrettably did. But BBC, in the same week, claimed that there was no link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Those crazy men hated each other ideologically. A supportive lie was immediately revealed through The New York Times writer William Safire, labelled as “the blower of CIA and Pentagon”: Al-Qaeda was working with the fundamentalist Islamic group Al Ansar Islam, which is out of Saddam’s control, in the North Iraq. The poll held after these explanations showed that half of American people believed there is a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.(15) Among the perpetrators of the Sept 11 attack, there were no Iraqi citizens but 15 Suadi Arabia citizens. But now the Americans believed that Sept 11 was planned by Saddam—in which was a complete lie. On December 25 2003, after Saddam was captured, the American Newsweek revealed that the document claimed to prove that Atta’s visit to Bagdad in the summer of 2001 was fake. The aforementioned news was given in the headline by the British Sunday Telegraph a few hours before Saddam’s capture. The FBI and American Intelligence Services proved that Atta had stayed in cheap hotels and apartments in the US during the days when Atta was claimed to visit Bagdad. The fake document revealed in the Sunday Telegraph  is thought to have been prepared by the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service of the term, Tahir Celil Habbush Al Tikriti. The newpaper gave the news with the headline “The terrorist behind the Sept 11 case was trained by Saddam”. Also, the news was by Con Coughlin, author of the book “Saddam’s Secret life”. (16) Coughlin’s allegations were quoted by various newspapers of the world. The famous columnist of the New York Times, William Safire, also wrote about his allegations. The newsweek reported that the American officials and document experts stated that the document was most probably fake. It was claimed that the handwritten fake document was sent to Saddam by Al Tikriti. In the document it was stated that Muhammad Atta went to Bagdad for a 3 day visit for a working program, in which the trip was organized by Abu Nidal (a Palestenese terrorist). In the document it was written as follows: “Atta gives great effort to direct the team that is going to attack the targets we approved to be exterminated”. Abu Nidal died in Bagdad under suspicious conditions on August 2002. American officials proved that Atta was in the US in those days relying on ATM receipts, hotal receipts, and plane tickets of the trips inside the US. It was also found out that Atta had a 11-day trip in Spain 6 days after July 1, 2001, which was also on the fake document. Finally, Colin Powell accepted his lie and separetely told the NBC and Fox Tv reporter in his interviews on September 13, 2004, that there was no direct connection between Saddam and the 9/11 event. (17)

An important big lie was when politicians had said through the Mass Media that no civillians would die. Over hundreds of thousands of civillians had died in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq, and the more amount were wounded. Pentagon had “clever” bombs that hit only military targets. According to the international human rights organizations, more than 400 thousand Iraqis were arrested and investigated. There are still 60 thousand Iraqis in camps and prisons. Besides invasions and plunderings, thousands of Iraqi women were raped by American soldiers. Most of the Iraqi women arrested under the name of “operations” and “security search” were subjected to the molestation and violence of the American soldiers. An American Muslim revealed this reality openly to the public by sending pictures to the Arabia television. Dr. Susan Block published in her article the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, writing that after Iraq was invaded economically, historically, culturally and socially, the innocence now of Iraqi women was under invasion. Block, stating that even at the beginning of the invasion 4000 women were raped, wrote openly how women between 40-50 in villages were used as sexual material by the American soldiers. In the article published on Islamonline, Blocks wrote that perversive parties were organized and women were taken out of the houses being dragged and left in front of the postals of the soldiers like a chunk. She made these explanations as follows:

“As Sabah newspaper in Iraq wrote, 14-15 year old young girls were raped many times by American soldiers in Suwaria. A nine year old girl, who was raped many times two months before and was taking psychological cure, was captured once more by the American soldiers in front of her family and taken to an unknown place on June 18, 2003”. (19) In Iraq there were many assaults and violent cases towards women who were subjected to sexual exploitation and are still under medical care. The women who are depressed could not be helped even by their parents because they feel great shame for this. Therefore, their relatives must leave them alone with their depression and mood. In Iraq, raping girls has been increasingly spread as though it were an illness. 17 year old Beyda Cafer Sadik, after going out to school from home, did not turn back. The parents said that there are tens of such events every day and are waiting despairingly. It is known that all women relatives of the men who are known as Saddam’s men or mujahideen are being kept by the invaders. The official records of sexual violences that have been kept up to now show that there is no age limit for the American soldiers. The youngest victim subjected to the sexual exploitation was 9 and the oldest was 64 years old. (20)

In Conclusion, these images, lies, and fictions manufactured by the media and academia in tandem are actually quite contrary to documented facts, in which is clear. Since the corporate ideology dominates the media by a way of being almost institutionally assumed, all ideologies that are in fundamental opposition to the corporate ideology must similarly be institutionally assumed incorrect. It was also an obvious lie that the American media was impartial and free. Fox Tv and CNN are still burglers of the White House beside and along with many others. Al- Jazeera, BBC, CBC, and French Le Journal tried to keep their impartiality. A poll held by FAIR revealed that audiences were manipulated by the 25 moreover viewed, supporting the war in the 1600 pieces of news related with Iraq. However, former soldiers and govermental officers were asked their opinions rather than universities—their think-tank and civil organizations. Among them, only 4% were against war. Nobody in the US revealed the news about the anti-war demonstrations. (21) The baseless, inflammatory, and indeed racist reaction of the media’s mimics had appeared that it’s why the US media had failed the journalism exam of September 11. It did nothing else than fly the millions of baloons of lies that were terribly blown up. “The mass media is institutionally organized in such a way as to be subservient to the corporate elite, since it is at once directly owned and thereby structurally controlled by those elite, and indirectly influenced by financial pressures related to advertising. Institutionally the mass media is thus undoubtedly subservient to corporate ideology.” (22) Effectively then, as Professor Edward Herman states, “capitalists control the media and they do so to maximize profits”, while also generally adhering quite tightly to the assumptions of the corporate ideology. Another filter noted by Herman and Chomsky that is related to the first filter is advertising, which Professor McChesney notes “has colonized the US mass media and is responsible for most of the media’s income.” (23) The media’s tendencies in reporting can be influenced and manipulated by the significant withdrawing or forwarding of economic support. Since mass media is largely financed through advertising, it becomes financially dependent for its existence on advertising revenue from corporations. These ideological positions become implicit assumptions pervading permissible political discourse within the media, and it is thus extremely rare to find these principles being subjected to fundamental critical examination by the corporate-owned media. (24) The mass media may have the ideological orientation of its staffing broadly restricted to the agenda held by its corporate ownership that’d “obviously have significant control over the media’s staffing. The cumulative result of this is that the media may become subservient in its general ideological orientation to the assumptions and interests of the elite.” (25) Naturally, since the media needs a steady and reliable source of news, resources are focused where such news can be most easily acquired. It so happens, unfortunately, that central news terminals of this type are the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, as well as business corporations and trade groups. The same is the case for other Western countries. The importance of such organizations as news sources is due to the elementary fact that they possess the greatest resources for public relations and promotional material, the result being that “the mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest”. (26) Alternative media entities established by human rights organizations and other groups are resultantly marginalized, and of being unable to scrutinize facts in a way free from the assumptions of that elite ideology. This means that news will be filtered in accordance with what is suitable to the requirements of elite power and its interests. (27) The September 11 propagandist had changed and manipulated a majority of the population’s minds easily because “knowing the mind of an audience comes in modern times largely through opinion poll”. (28) As a result, the “traditional gate keeping processes continue to filter media content every day” but in truth can not be hidden any more because anybody can put up a web site, even in which may be not reliable sources, such as the thousands of September 11 secret revelers that kept stating lies as known as “the internet is a democratized mass medium”. (29)  The mass media is dumping us down and is not willing to tell the truth to the public—though not forever.




(1) Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Vintage, London, 1994.

(2) CBS Tv, FBI report revealed on May 15, 2002

(3) A Reasearch done by Los Angeles Times on November 10-13, 2001

(4) Bush’s speech at UN on September 7, 2002, and his speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, and for his speeches on January 28, 2003 and June 30, 2003  retreived from web site

(5) US News & World Report, 11 November 1996, p. 48.

(6) Bagdikan, Ben H., The Media Monopoly, Beacon Press, Boston, 1992, p. 4.

(7)  The Congress report dated 1994; Michael Moore, “Dude, Where is my Country?”

(8) Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Why The Media Lies The Corporate Structure of The Mass Media. 2002. introduction, p.1.

(9)  Hartung, William, Milwaukee Sentinel & Journal, 11 January 1999.)

(10) The San Francisco Chronicle, September 26, 2002, Frank Viviano

(11) The Guardian, September 6, 2003,  former environment minister of Britain Michael Meacher

(12)  Miliyet ( Turkish newspaper), December 29, 2003, “Bremer disavowed Blair”

(13) Bush’s speeches in New Mexico on January 28, and in Colorado on January 31, in South Dakota on November 1, in New Hampshire on November 2, in Florida on November 3, in Minnesota on November 4, 2003, in Missouri, Arkansas and Texas, White House news

(14) “NATO Commander General Wesley Clark had refused the request”, NCB news, June 15, 2003

(15) The New York Times, William Safire’s article “Al Qaeda is in North Iraq”

(16) Powell’s speech at UN on February 5, 2003.

(17) Colin Powell’s interview with NBC and Fox  Tv, on September 13, 2004.

(18)  Michael Moore, ”Dude where Is my Country?”, August 2003

(19) Yeni Safak  Turkish Newspaper, October 22, 2003, “Rape Terror in Iraq”

(20) Akit- Turkish newspaper, November 7, 2003, Resource: Islam Online

(21) A reasearch done by FAIR while going to the Iraq War

(22) Bennet, W. Lance, News: The Politics of Illusion, Longman, New York, 1988, p. 178-79.

(23) McChesney, Monthly Review, January 1989.

(24) Interview with Edward S. Herman and Robert W. McChesney by David Peterson, ‘The Global Media’, Z Magazine, June 1997.

(25)  Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Why The Media Lies The Corporate Structure of The Mass Media. 2002. p.2

(26) Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, op. cit., p. 14.

(27)  Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Why The Media Lies The Corporate Structure of The Mass Media. 2002. introduction, p.4.

(28) Marlin, Randal. Propaganda&the ethics of persuasion. Broadview Press.2002. p. 96.

(29) Vivian, John; Maurin, Peter J. The Media of Mass Communication. Pearson Publishing. 2008. pp. 141.