That's just a blatant, and easily disproved re-write of history. You can rag on CNN all you want for trying to give both sides of the story an opportunity to present their case, but they absolutely voiced concerns about whether or not there were actually WMDs.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/23/sproject.irq.w...
Right...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/index...
American establishment media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, were strongly pro-war. After the invasion, the New York Times even issued a half-hearted apology for their terrible coverage:
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-th...
If they were loud and many, perhaps you can provide a link to a USIC member voicing concerns. Even those who were anonymously quoted about the aluminum tubes debate weren’t quoted as saying there were no WMDs.
Just "Cheney" and NYT, and CNN, and the entire establishment, sans some voices. Besides the trillion dollar war efforts went on anyway (also against Afghanistan, a below third world country that has almost nothing to do with the, probably Saudi-funded attack).
>To claim these two situations are the same is a very, very large stretch.
Sure, they're not the same, today things are far worse.
Due to the declining status of the US globally, the fabrications, psy-ops, and "trust us" propaganda has sky-rocketed.
Watching the mainstream news and the silent compliance of all sides on the bogus narratives is like participating in an alternate reality universe (and that's before we even get to the fake news)...