The American media only mentioned in passing that ISIS had taken over oil fields until Russia started bombing the (white Toyota) trucks transporting oil to Turkey for sale.
Similarly, until today, the American media has indulged in all-day, wall to wall coverage of the Donald Trump phenomenon: a billionaire businessman known for shady deals who galvanizes working class American voters. Today, CNN - the only major channel on news duty Sunday afternoons - had to unequivocally criticize Trump for alleging that he "knows nothing" about white supremacist, David Duke, former head of the Ku Klux Klan, who endorsed him.
(Note: The "Know Nothings" were members of the semi-secret American Party party. When a member was asked about its activities, he was supposed to reply, "I know nothing." Outsiders called them "Know-Nothings", and the name stuck. In 1855, it was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, whom they saw as hostile to republican values, and as being controlled by the Pope in Rome. Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, the movement strove to curb immigration and naturalization, but met with little success. Membership was limited to Protestant men.)
Like everything else that Donald Trump has done in the campaign, this slip-up (curiously preceded by "I disavow"), will probably not dent his support, nor is it likely, in the long run (which, in the news cycle is a few hours, at most days) to substantially alter the media's fawning coverage. Trump is such a 'good story', it matters not one whit whether or not he is good for America.
At four-thirty, I tweeted that Trump may have seized upon the Duke endorsement as a convenient way to end his campaign, then I remembered that yesterday a poll revealed that 20% of his supporters believe it was a mistake to free the slaves.
As for ISIS, like the Taliban whom we supported in order to spoil Russia's party in Afghanistan (which consisted mainly of efforts to liberate women and try to get some modern industry going, efforts that were condemnable because lead by 'communists') we support the latest Islamic avatar in covert ways because it is located on the right end or the political spectrum, pretending to 'know nothing' about the fact that it is a dictatorship more brutal than anything to have hit the front pages in decades, (Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot), having expeditiously replaced gas chambers with always ready-to-use head-choppers (as Donald calls them). Our case against ISIS is that it is a 'terrorist organization' that could in future take on the Homeland. We don't mind at all when it inflicts pain on a present enemy such as Bashar al-Assad, whom we want to dislodge from power, or even against the Iran-friendly Iraqi government that we put in place.
US power is a one-track system that seeks ever increasing control of greater parts of the world. It is not interested in 'doing good', or even in 'saving the planet' since there are a myriad of other planets out there, virtually guaranteeing that one of them with turn out able to support life. Until that planet is found and made ready for human habitation, expediency dictates that the few dispense their backing for whatever and whoever is likely to keep the many at bay.
2
2
1
