I recently read a book titled “Manufacturing Consent (Content)” by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman that was written during the Reagan years and focused on what they call a “propaganda” model of media coverage in America.  I couldn’t help but think of their premise as I heard that almost every media outlet in the United States gave Donald Trump a “thumbs up” on his ordering air strikes into Syria – a sovereign nation.  Of course, Trump warned the Russians (and Syrians) that the strike was coming so, in essence, it was some kind of attempt to “send a message” without really causing any significant damage in the process.  Apparently no one was killed and something along the lines of 20 aircraft were damaged or destroyed.  The cost to “we the people” in those oh so precious tax dollars that our Congress is continually fighting over (unless it relates to the military) was something in the neighborhood of $60,000,000 (that’s correct, $60 MILLION).

Whatever the “message” was, I certainly hope it was “sent,” because I can only imagine what domestic program will need to be cut to pay for the replacement of those missiles.  (and, one thing we can all be assured of is that they will be replaced and the new ones will be more costly.)  From everything I’ve been able to see/listen to in the past couple of days, just as I had suspected, this was a knee jerk reaction to Bashar Al-Assad’s alleged gassing his own people (again).  These are the same people (the Syrians) that just a few days prior to the attack the Trump administration announced that would determine whether or not Al-Assad stays in power.  Now, please don’t get me wrong here – I’m not in the camp that the United States has any right to be determining who’s in power in various countries around the world.  That seems to be a bad habit of American leaders and it doesn’t seem to be a very productive one.  For example, I believe you could make a very strong (if not undeniable) case that the reason Syria is such a mess goes back to the GW Bush/Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld et al deciding to do “regime change” in Iraq.  Seriously, how did that one work out.

Of course, there’s Iran back in the early 50’s, there’s Chile in the 70’s, Panama, Indonesia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Libya, and Iraq just to name a few of the countries where the U.S. initiated “regime change.”  We always seem to cloak our corporate led intentions with a series of cliche’s that always have the “ring” of “human rights” or “national security” in them.  And, when you read the aforementioned book “Manufacturing Consent” it’s not hard to understand that “we the people” are constantly blocked from knowing what our government is actually “up to” or the true reasons they’re doing it.  I’m convinced that just as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had no real “plan” on what they would do after toppling Saddam Hussein (one of the reasons used to justify their invasion was that he “gassed his own people”) neither does Trump have a cogent “plan” in regard to Syria.  I listened to Trump speak at an impromptu press conference today and all I could think about was how people around the world are using very uncomplimentary terms when commenting on Trump’s intellect.  He is (somehow) the president, so I’m trying to be nice here and you can find the derogatory terms elsewhere – but, suffice it to say that I feel a sense of embarrassment each time I listen to him speak.  Maybe I just hear him at the wrong time, but it’s always that he’s either lying or saying something that he’s ill informed on and I just shudder at the thought of him in the “White House” for another 45 months.

I really don’t believe he will make it the full term.  There’s enough coming out about the Russian “connection” to his campaign that leads me to believe there’s something there – or, his administration wouldn’t be lying about their contacts with the Russians and trying to cover up what actually happened.  The “dots” (that the investigators are trying to connect) are leading in a very “dark” direction.  The Russian government – Putin’s government – apparently operates akin to the mafia in America.  There’s a lot going to be coming out about how deep the Russians have infiltrated the Trump organization and I don’t believe Trump will be able to hide all this for much longer.  The part of all this which maybe bothers me the most is the willingness of the republicans to “go along to get along.”  I’ve been writing for years about my personal frustration in watching the republican party surge to the right.  However, I NEVER thought I’d see the day when they would be OK with ANYONE in our political system collaborating with someone like Vladimir Putin to swing an election.

Of course, the PROOF is yet to come out – one way or the other – but, in treating Trump as if he’s a legitimate office holder is a bit alarming to me.  The republicans held up President Obama’s Supreme Court nomination for a year – they’re experts at spinning the reason why (which makes sense only to them – the truth is they did it because they could – and, they threatened to do it for four years had Hillary Clinton won the election) but, they couldn’t bring themselves to at least wait until we know the TRUTH about Trump’s connections to Russia before voting on his nominee for the Court.  If our worst fears are realized, we’ll have a member of the Supreme Court who was appointed by a president who gained office via collusion with an adversarial power – for the next 30 (or more) YEARS!

Just as Chomsky and Herman outlined in their book our media is bending over backward to convince “we the people” that our government is legit and operating honorably.  It’s almost as if they are encouraging Trump to drop more bombs because it will increase his “favorables” with the general public.  Should it convince Trump he can avoid a “showdown” with the investigators by becoming (as GW Bush once said) a “war president” I can only say I hope he’s WRONG.  To me, the reality is that Trump’s outlandish rhetoric is making the world even more unstable and our media is incapable of viewing his actions from the point of view of others around the world, including the North Koreans.

I don’t question that North Korea is a problem – but, the history of America’s media is that they seem incapable of viewing issues from “the other side.”  For example, how would we expect the North Koreans to respond to some of Trump’s rhetoric.  During Viet Nam all we ever heard about was how this “war” (that we initiated) affected us and our troops as if the Vietnamese were not living, breathing human beings.  The same was true in Iraq.  We, via our media, lamented (justifiably) all of the casualties we took in that fiasco (which we initiated) while failing to acknowledge the incredible amount of death and destruction and suffering the Iraqi’s endured (and, continue to endure) because of the decisions of Bush/Cheney et al.  There’s a long list of nations who’ve suffered negatively because of our obsession with “regime change” and “we the people” NEVER get an honest assessment of the true circumstances.

In the case of Donald Trump and his connections to Russia (and the effect it had on the election) we’ve got the range of options from Fox (“news”) – which is going to be pro Trump no matter what – to MSNBC – which is trying to find a way to support our government despite their misgivings, and those in between.  (Yes, there’s “Free speech TV” – but, I don’t believe it’s got much of an audience compared to the others)  My point is that it doesn’t seem far fetched to me that someone as narcissistic as Trump could easily interpret any kind of positive reaction to his authorizing bombing in Syria and Afghanistan as a way out of his troubles.  He may think that if we’re at war, the investigations will stop.  I truly hope he’s wrong, but I have to admit that I have enough trepidation regarding our Congress and media to not be sure.

Trump knows the TRUTH (whether or not he’ll admit to it – obviously, there’s a reason his taxes have been “under audit” for the past couple of years) and he may be feeling a bit as if he’s backed into a corner.  I’ve heard rumblings that the “Steve Bannon wing” of the “White House” is on “thin ice” and may be on the way out.  That’s a sign to me that Trump is trying to move toward the “center” – probably at the urging of his son in law Jared Kushner – as another way to deflect the focus from the Russian connection.  From what little I know of Steve Bannon (and Stephen Miller – who’d likely get the “boot” with Bannon – he’s the guy who was flashing the “White Power” signs while being interviewed on one of the Sunday Morning “news” shows – I believe it was “Face the Nation.”) should he get “fired” there will be a significant blow-back from the “alt right” which Bannon appears to be the figurehead.

So, Trump is in a delicate situation.  If the investigations proceed he could be looking at impeachment (remember, there’s more than the Russia issue – he’s profiting from his office virtually every day which is a violation of the emoluments clause in the constitution – again, none of this matters if republicans are willing to enable his behavior).  His “drift” toward the “center” is apparently aimed at pacifying the republican establishment that could easily turn on him if their own jobs appear in jeopardy (the 2018 election) and, I’m sure, intended to deflect the “investigations” into the colluding with Russia.  Additionally, the issue with Bannon seems almost like a “can’t win.”  If he allows him to stay, the “center” will continue to be questioning why someone like him is in the “White House,” and if he’s sent packing a large number of Trump’s “base” will be very unhappy.  What’s the old saying? “You can’t win for losing”

I just finished Reading Malcolm Nance’s “The Plot to Hack America” which, interestingly, was written prior to the election and clearly outlines the Russian intrusion into the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf.  It’s hard for me to imagine someone reading this book – which is full of FACTUAL evidence – and still consider Trump a legitimate president.  This is why I have such a concern that our media will lose interest in the “investigations” into the Russian collusion and the bombs falling will cause the truth to be “swept under the rug.”  As I’ve said many times on this site, I hope I’m wrong.  Even if Trump is totally innocent of any collusion I believe there is nothing more important than “we the people” finding out.  And, somehow, we need to be able to believe that whatever the findings are, that they are the TRUTH.  We know that Trump, Pense, and Ryan – the three leaders of the republican party – are willing LIARS.  (I’m suspecting that Kellyanne Conway who is one of Trump’s “spokespersons” is not showing up on TV because people are tired of all her LYING)  We know that Devin Nunes – the head of the House Intelligence committee – was acting as a surrogate to Trump during their “investigation.”  Also, the head of the Senate Intelligence committee was willing to do essentially the same.

FBI director James Comey, who is as responsible for Trump’s “victory” as the Russians, is kind of the “firewall” in this “investigation.”  We can only hope that he’s actually following the evidence (which would include interviewing the former British MI6 spy who composed the so-called dossier published a few months ago by Buzzfeed that suggests Trump is vulnerable to Russian blackmail – for example, Is there a video of the “Golden Shower” out there?) wherever it leads.  If our media actually follows the pattern laid out by Chomsky and Herman we may never know.  I’m already getting the sense that Trump changed the topic in the news with a few bombs.  I listened to John McCain yesterday on Meet the Press and, true to form, McCain, a confirmed war monger, sees Trump in a better light due to the bombings.  “At least he did something,” McCain said as he lamented his frustration with the cerebral Barack Obama.  So, will a few bombs cause people like John McCain and the “propaganda media” to lose focus on the Russian collusion?