The TRUE Reason Behind War EXPOSED | TRUMP JUST SAID THIS
Video available on:
- RFK Jr. highlights military-industrial complex concerns.
- Defense contractor funding shapes think tank narratives.
- Media favors think tanks with war industry ties.
- Atlantic Council and CSIS influenced by war industry funding.
- Transparency key to understanding military-industrial complex impact.
In an exclusive report, CNN has obtained a tape containing a conversation from 2021 involving former President Donald Trump discussing classified documents. This crucial piece of evidence has become a central element in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment against Trump for mishandling classified information. The recording, which was aired on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” provides new insights into the conversation, including a moment when Trump alludes to possessing a secret Pentagon document outlining plans to attack Iran.
As you listen to the two-minute audio recording, you hear Trump’s unmistakable voice stating, “These are the papers,” while discussing the Pentagon’s attack plans. Surprisingly, this quote was not included in the indictment. Additionally, Trump and his aides can be heard joking about Hillary Clinton’s emails, with one of his staff members remarking that Clinton would frequently print out classified information, to which Trump responds, “No, she’d send it to Anthony Weiner,” a reference to the former Democratic congressman, eliciting laughter from those present.
This audio recording features Trump’s own statements, such as “these are the papers,” where he seemingly refers to confidential documents and shows them to others in the room. This contradicts his claim in a recent interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, where he denied having any documents in his possession. The significance of this lies in Trump’s mention of attacking Iran, a revelation that remains ignored by the mainstream media, which begs the question: why is this crucial detail being overlooked?
In Trump’s own words, he exclaims, “He said that I wanted to attack Iran, isn’t it amazing?” accompanied by the sound of papers shuffling. He continues, “I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this – this is off the record but – they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.”
If Trump’s claims hold true, specifically regarding the Defense Department’s desire for him to attack Iran, then we must acknowledge the potential presence of a Military-Industrial Complex. But what exactly does that mean?
We are aware that war can be profitable and lucrative for big companies. History has shown us that conflicts often provide financial incentives to engage in and prolong war for the commercial benefit of certain entities. This notion may not seem far-fetched, considering the numerous wars that have been labeled outright scams.
For instance, an article by the New Republic reads: “The War in Afghanistan Was a Scam. The 20-year conflict was a boon to the military-industrial complex, at the cost of untold lives.”
The words of Major General Smedley Butler, written in 1935, ring true even today: “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.… It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”
These words, predating the global war on terrorism and Dwight Eisenhower’s notion of the “military-industrial complex,” offer a succinct summary of the last two decades of war in Afghanistan. The Washington suburbs may be a world away from the glitz of the Vegas strip, but here, buildings adorned with logos of military contractors serve as a testament to the timeless relationship between those looking to exploit and those being exploited.
Numerous observers have pointed out that the war in Afghanistan has been a colossal windfall for the military-industrial complex, often at the expense of the war’s purported goals. As Harvard public policy professor Linda Bilmes noted, “the whole system was set up in a way to enable contractors to rip off the government.” Foreign Policy’s C. Christine Fair described the “bewildering corruption by U.S. firms and individuals working in Afghanistan,” where Afghans were frequently defrauded.
Much like fossil fuels waiting to be extracted, representing future profits that petrochemical companies are unwilling to relinquish for the sake of our planet, the war in Afghanistan offered significant gains for the balance sheets of major defense contractors. As Catherine Lutz of Pacific Standard highlighted, “For many companies that have, for years, been cashing giant checks from the Pentagon’s trillion-dollar war budget, there are still an extraordinary number of dollars to be made.” Notably, in the same year, global military spending saw a 1.1 percent increase, driven partly by a $9.6 billion hike in U.S. arms expenditure—occurrences that unfolded during Donald Trump’s tenure, with little of this wealth trickling down to the soldiers on the front lines.
The revelation of Trump’s conversation about classified documents, specifically those concerning a potential attack on Iran, raises pertinent questions about the military-industrial complex and its influence on our nation’s policies. As citizens, it is crucial for us to remain vigilant, scrutinizing the motivations behind conflicts and ensuring that our leaders act in the best interests of the people rather than succumbing to profit-driven agendas.
In the pursuit of truth, it is essential that we confront the shadows cast by the military-industrial complex, holding those accountable who prioritize profits over the lives and well-being of our fellow human beings.
In a thought-provoking statement, RFK Jr. shares his concerns about the military-industrial complex and its impact on the current conflict. His tweet sheds light on how the war industry funds think tanks that shape the prevailing narrative. Surprisingly, 14 out of the 15 most-cited think tanks receive funding from defense contractors.
While the discussion about documents taken from the White House may seem trivial in the grand scheme of revelations, it pales in comparison to the significant truth behind Trump’s alleged pressure to engage in war with Iran. This revelation strongly supports the existence of a military-industrial complex, an entity that seeks to profit from highly lucrative wars.
Ironically, amidst these crucial revelations, the mainstream media is fixated on distracting stories that hold little importance. Does it truly matter whether Trump or other political candidates took home documents from the White House? Or is the involvement of the military-industrial complex in pressuring the US towards war the real story that deserves our attention?
According to an article by FAIR.org, there is clear evidence of skewed incentives within the military-industrial complex, particularly among companies profiting from war. The article titled “Report Shows How Military-Industrial Complex Sets Media Narrative on Ukraine” highlights the influence wielded by wealthy donors on think tanks.
The Quincy Institute, whose initial funding came primarily from George Soros and Charles Koch, conducted an analysis of 11 months of Ukraine War coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. They observed how often 33 leading think tanks were mentioned in these publications. Startlingly, only one of the 15 most frequently mentioned think tanks, Human Rights Watch, does not receive funding from Pentagon contractors.
The analysis revealed that the media were seven times more likely to cite think tanks with ties to the war industry compared to those without such ties. The top two think tanks, the Atlantic Council and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), both receive substantial funding from the war industry. These think tanks have received significant contributions from companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, who have secured lucrative Pentagon contracts as a result of the war in Ukraine.
CSIS, exposed in a New York Times report, was found to produce content aligned with the weapons industry priorities of its funders. It actively sought meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to advance the recommendations of military funders. The Quincy report also emphasizes the challenge of tracing the exact amount of war industry funding think tanks receive and whose interests they truly represent.
While the study does not establish a direct causal connection between weapons industry funding and think tanks’ positions, it acknowledges the significant role funding plays in shaping their perspectives. Funders can influence think tank work through mechanisms like censorship, self-censorship, and perspective filtering. Dissenting viewpoints that contradict the funders’ interests often struggle to find a place within these think tanks.
However, a clear correlation does exist between war industry funding and hawkish positions. The report highlights articles from the Atlantic Council that advocate against compromise with the Kremlin and argue for Ukraine’s right to destroy critical infrastructure in Russia. Similarly, the president of the American Enterprise Institute suggested providing tactical nuclear weapons to Ukraine, a proposal that could escalate to all-out nuclear war.
Interestingly, media organizations rarely disclose when their sources receive funding from the war industry, leaving the public unaware of potential biases and conflicts of interest. The study found that think tanks with little or no Pentagon contractor funding exhibited dramatically different positions on the war. These organizations focused on expository analysis, diplomatic solutions, and the impact of the war on different aspects of society and the region.
Human Rights Watch, which does not accept war industry funding, maintained an agnostic stance on providing US military assistance to Ukraine and instead concentrated on human rights abuses in the conflict. The Carnegie Endowment, receiving less than 1% of its funding from the industry, was never quoted advocating for increased military spending or weapons sales during the Ukraine War.
These findings tie back to Julian Assange’s revelations and shed light on the nature of forever wars perpetuated by the military-industrial complex. Assange, currently facing potential imprisonment for disclosing classified US government documents, aims to inform the public about the true nature, costs, and prospects of war. The infamous Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, already exposed the government’s deceit regarding the Vietnam War.
The interconnected web of the military-industrial complex’s influence on think tanks and media narratives cannot be ignored. It is crucial that we recognize the vested interests at play and demand transparency in order to make informed decisions about conflicts and policies that impact lives worldwide.
