President Donald Trump has been angry quite a bit lately. This seems to be the main theme that is trumpeted on the Trump-hating networks like CNN and the other mainstream news media networks. On the morning of April 18, this author was stunned to see how CNN actually called its own people to all “Stay in the same camp” about Russia and Syria, as the drone of the network continued to try to play Trump as an indecisive leader or a Russian sycophant because he upended his UN Envoy Nikki Haley in refusing to impose new sanctions on Russia. The Clinton News Network continues to advocate “for war” but really it is “anything to do to get rid of Donald Trump.”
I guess it doesn’t matter if the reason President Trump is gone is because the whole United States is a smoldering pile of slag. Just so the job gets done, right, CNN?
But Trump’s anger comes from more than the issues with CNN. In fact, CNN and the mainstream media have always been really playing into the President’s hands since before he took office.
The real problem appears to be a divided government, and in a random act of journalism, the Washington Post even exposes what the situation actually appears to be:
The relatively modest airstrikes that Trump ordered Friday were designed to deter Assad without provoking a broader military conflict with Russia.
Some European diplomats in Washington question whether the tough moves have Trump’s full support. “This wouldn’t be the policy unless Trump supports it. . . . Yes?” asked one ambassador.
Russia analysts seem just as mystified. “This is a man who if he had his druthers would be pursuing a much more open and friendly policy with Russia,” said Angela Stent, a former White House official and professor at Georgetown University. “The United States essentially has three Russia policies: the president’s, the executive branch’s and Congress’s.”
This is a remarkably true statement. Hawks like Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) applaud pretty much any use of firearms against anyone. Democrats, including liberals, support attacks against Syria or Russia just because… they may do damage to President Trump (of course, disregarding their own policy flip from when Obama was President.)
And there is the policy aim of the President himself, which is strongly supportive of rapprochement with President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. This tension between these three camps has been in view ever since the Trump presidency began, but never has it been more obvious and more peculiar than in the recent couple of weeks.
Early last week, the President clearly stated that the American troops needed to leave Syria. But in just days came a report that there was a chemical attack, allegedly carried out by President Bashar al-Assad against his own people, though this made absolutely no sense and was reported as such by many loyal Trump supporters on Fox News and other conservative media outlets.
A few days later on April 13 (14th in Syria) a coordinated series of missile strikes rained down Syria, apparently taking out some innocent empty buildings. Russia reported that of the 103 missiles fired, only about 32 reached their targets, as aged Syrian antimissile defenses eliminated the aged Tomahawk missiles that were inbound.
Then, yesterday, a report from the Russian military revealed the presence of a chemical weapons storehouse in Douma, owned by Syrian rebels, and not in any way associated with Assad or his government.
Two other reports conflict, one saying that there was a chemical weapons attack, and others like this one from RIA Novosti – although the article is in Russian, we have translated a pertinent section here below:
Syrian boy Hasan Diab, presented in the production clip ‘White Helmets’ as a ‘victim’ of the chemical attack in the city of Douma, revealed the details of the filming…
‘We were in the basement; my mother told me that today there is nothing to eat, we will eat only tomorrow.’ We heard a shout in the street, someone yelling, ‘go to the hospital.’ We ran to the hospital, and as soon as I entered, I was seized and hosed down with water. After this we were put on the bed with other people, ‘ said the boy on the air of TV channel ‘Russia-24.’
The military correspondent of the television channel Yevgeny Poddubny noted that the boy was forced to appear in the video.
‘The boy had nothing to eat; he was offered rice, dates and cookies for this filming,’ he said.
The boy’s words were confirmed by his father, who added that there was no chemical attack in the city.
‘When I found out that the child was in the hospital, I asked to quit my job and ran there.’ There was no chemical weapon, I smoked in the street, felt nothing, went to the hospital and saw my family. ‘The militants gave dates, cookies , rice and everyone was allowed to go home.My child was feeling great,’ the boy’s father told the television channel.”
This kind of serial disconnect is creating problems. One problem is that all things Syria suffer from massively slanted reporting from all sides of the conflict. The most factual descriptions of events on the ground are not coming from US and Western media sources, either, so this creates a problem. The reason that we do not get much reliable from Western sources appears to be that these outlets are largely sold out to a preexisting narrative that dictates to the media what the news must be, rather than what it is. Since Russia supports its ally, it is natural that they will report news that helps support their own narrative.
But in the battle of narratives, it is that of the West that seems to be full of holes. And this is a problem for the US president, who put lives at risk, perhaps needlessly, by ordering a missile strike.
If reports from Russia and Syria – that the missiles were indeed largely destroyed and those that got through hit empty targets, killing nobody – if these reports are true, then the US President may have just been granted a blessing. It is even possible, though unlikely, to ascertain that the targeting of these places was done knowing they were empty for the purpose of “the optics of strength.” However, this is a very thin bit of speculation and given the spectacle of the attack, it is unlikely that this was actually the plan.
There is one further rumor that has been reported – that the US President ordered the airstrike as a press event to divert attention away from the matter regarding Stephanie Cliffords (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels) and attorney Michael D. Cohen allegation. The narrative of this piece proposes that Mr. Trump would actually do such a heinous thing as military action to divert attention away from this sort of scandal.
This is almost certainly untrue. Donald Trump is a businessman, and everything about his manner suggests generosity and a willingness to work with people. He is a ruthless and tough negotiator, but he is not without a soul to the point where a display of deadly force is a viable alternative to some media persecution.
President Bill Clinton might have had the spirit to do something like this in his time, but President Trump is made of different stuff.
However, with most of the mainstream press and a lot of Washington DC embeds and even some in his own administration taking radically different and opposing views, it does indeed begin to look like the President has a lot to be angry about.
The biggest battle America faces with regard to Syria is not happening in that country. It is happening here in the United States. It has, sadly, become the latest theatre in a political war between the power bases in Washington, D.C. against a President who rightly opposes “establishment” rules.
Here is a final point to consider:
All media outlets – whether liberal, conservative, alternative, super right-wing or super left-wing – ALL media outlets usually portray their own reporting as the “truth” and as such the expression of wisdom and knowledge. Further, the media tries to drive its own narrative that suggests that the newsies know more than the government of the US does, most notably the President of the United States.
This may be a great technique for selling papers, but it creates several different competing and often dramatic narratives, and often, none of them are true. While the embeds may indeed have evil motives, it is difficult for me at this time to believe that the media is better informed than the President is.
The tragedy with regards to Syria and Russia in this matter is that while the USA and West gyrate in a media frenzy of slander and lies, people are dying as pawns, forgotten to the world except to their own loved ones, and a nation that has suffered massive brutality of a seemingly endless war has become nothing more elevated than a topic for discussion by the Talking Heads on TV. There is something about this that is just absolutely wrong.
And one can probably bet that President Trump knows this, and is trying to fix it.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.