So, was it all just a show? A corporatist ploy?
What good did Donald Trump's impulsive Tomahawk missile retaliatory attack in Syria really accomplish?
Two keys things actually.
It's distracted the American people from the Trump-Russia ties talk. And it's helped resurrect Trump's self-promoted image as a strong leader, a good guy.
Other than that, it was a waste.
In reality, was the U.S. attack anything more than staged "shock and awe" -- ala George W. Bush, whose first 50 bomb strikes missed their targets and killed scores of innocent civilians, children included, in the unprovoked start of the bloody Iraq War?
Bush's, and now Trump's, trumped up display of power and alleged precision was more like "shock and awe, come on."
And why didn't we hear more on the early network news reports about the additional children killed by Trump's strike, ordered illegally without approval from Congress?
The very day after the U.S. fired 49 missiles at a Syrian airfield, military planes were taking off from the same runway there as if nothing had happened.
The chemical weapons stockpile were apparently untouched and another chemical attack was reported Saturday.
But the lives of at least four children, and several adults, who had the misfortune of living too close to the airfield, were over.
Trump's order to avenge the deaths of innocent children, killed more innocent children.
Trump made a good play as a sober leader saddened by the cruel, horrible deaths of children, men and women after the chemical weapon attack early last week.
He made the obligatory references to God and defending America from any similar horror.
Did he finally get religion -- become a kinder, more sensitive Donald? Or was it all just an act?
Anyone whose been paying attention has to wonder if it indeed wasn't a charade, little more than an opportunistic ploy from our master Illusionist president to win back over American hearts and minds.
We can't forget his record on human decency up until now is non-existent. And remember, he is an expert poser, who swindled his way to the presidency.
In the meantime, it must be asked what role the increasingly corporate-owned media played in the whole affair.
The networks untypically chose to air gratuitous, graphic footage of the chemical attacks, as if intentionally beating the war drums.
Then, initial network news reports of Trump's Tomahawk retaliation mentioned nothing of the civilian casualties, while the British newspapers were blaring it in their headlines.
Why?
In the meantime, Sryian ally Russia is reportedly outraged with the U.S. strike (that failed to leave a blemish on the runway), as we also learn that Russia allegedly played a role in the chemical attack.
So, why would Trump risk violating his seeming bromance with Putin by striking against a Russian ally?
Is it possible the American people are being played 'bigly?' The one thing that Putin, Trump and even the Corporate media has in common is deference to the corporatist world.
And there's nothing like a terrorist threat combined with the flexing of military might to empower and enrich the corporatist elite.
Trump has been fear mongering the terrorist threat ever since he emerged as a candidate for president.
It's been almost as if Trump wanted something bad to happen on American soil so he could attempt to legitimize his own illegitimate notions, including the one about "making America (white) again."
It seems that the terrible Syrian chemical attack, of which the networks repeatedly ran graphic footage, was just the sort of alarmist event that Trump was not so patiently waiting to exploit.
