“THE RETURN OF NON-CHANGE”

How Trump's opposition prepares for the assault on the White House. Can this mean a change?

By Charles H. Slim

Something has changed in the US after four years of the administration of an “outsider” like Donald Trump. For those who voted and continue to sympathize with the media entrepreneur, the country has turned its attention back to its own affairs, abandoning the foreign policy of dire conspiratorial and warlike interventions that sunk the country. This does not mean that Trump has fulfilled all his promises since there are still US troops in the Middle East, the withdrawal from Afghanistan seems to have been frozen indefinitely and tug of war with China in the South Sea and the Hong Kong issue. It remains something that puts your State Department at eas.

The elections next November, is accelerating the desire of the opposition to take advantage of the complicated situation in the Union and definitively unseat Donald Trump, who finds himself with a pendulous popular image.

Seeing how opponents of the Trump administration and in particular some of them have been positioning themselves, many might ask what could change with those who have defrauded their fellow citizens in the past? Deep down, many of these citizens know that nothing would change. The promise of a change within the system with the first black and democratic president ended up being a disappointment crowned with real farces as they were withdrawn of troops from Iraq that were not such, the increase of the dirty operations of the CIA on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the launch of a project to reconfigure the Middle East with dire humanitarian consequences and the Nobel Peace Prize.

For those who have not forgotten this, Obama is not exactly a benchmark for changes for the better. It was for this reason that a supposed new proposal to Joe Biden, an elderly former Democratic president, little charisma and with some dirty laundry to hide was put in charge.

To give him support and try to catapult him to the elections in November, the Democrats have deployed a long-awaited media strategy. The reappearance of Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton as political godfathers of an emerging figure in politics such as California Senator Kamala Harris as vice candidate makes that clear. They are the same Democratic puppets of the past trying to climb the White House at the cost of a new face that for the better, Trump fervently detests.

Despite the fact that a lot of water has passed under the bridge, it is possible to intuit that the Americans will not be fooled by the old appearances of moderation and “humanism” that today the democrats of the system display. As expected, Harris criticized the handling of the pandemic, unemployment and the social crisis that has brought all this, amplified by the problem of racism that shakes the United States and that has deepened the rift within society. But this did not come with Trump and is a problem that subsisted in the full administration of a black president.

The speech trying to blame the current administration for this problem is as false as it is incredible in the eyes of public opinion. During the Obama administration (2009-2017), police and non-police arbitrariness against people of color, Hispanics and Muslims in general was a constant that was enhanced by the psychosis circumstances of the “Fight against terror” mounted by the previous administration. Incongruity is the word that can sum up his administration in what it did to foreign policy.

Precisely one of the great impostures in that foreign policy of the Obama administration was the impulse of the destabilization of Syria and the plans to reconfigure the Middle East by destroying the Arab nations, implementing the intelligence program called “Islamic State” as a discordant agent.

Internally, the supposedly inclusive policies to provide medical coverage to the majority of the population through the well-known “Obama-Care” continues to be a very controversial issue, given that to put it into operation, some 21 taxes were increased and implemented at the same Time cut budgets in areas that upset Republicans a lot.

With reference to foreign policy there were only nuances. The permanence of the “Guantánamo” Concentration Camp (Cuba), the torture, preventive assassination operations of the CIA and the promotion of a new dirty strategy to destroy the secular Arab governments through the promoted “Arab Spring” blessed and promoted by Zionist intellectuals such as the French Henry Levi, made clear the false differences existing with his Republican colleagues.

In that sense, the performance of the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in managing efforts to overthrow the legitimate government of Libya (which included the sending of weapons, money and the recruitment of arab mercenaries), the assassination of its president Mohammar Al Gadafy and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens in a strange attack on the Benghazi embassy in September 2012 (by a CIA-supported Takfir group) casts doubt on the New York senator's democratic credentials and respect for international law.

With reference to the Stevens affair, despite Clinton being dismissed from the Investigative Commission, many were left with many unanswered questions and one of them was Did Chris Stevens die instantly in the assault or was he tortured to death? And if this last hypothesis had been the real cause of his death; why? No one has believed that the attack was motivated by a disgraceful film against Islam that unnerved the “Libyan Muslims” as the media let it run because if it had been, did the same thing happen in other Islamic countries?

This made it clear that the Obama administration lied to its constituents as much as the Republicans did, so let's put aside the presumed transparency. The concealment of unspeakable acts of Obama's foreign policy should not be surprising. But this is not something new. The experience of the Bill Clinton administration in the 1990s showed that in terms of foreign policy, it followed the same and well-concealed line that had marked the conservative wing of the Republicans led by Bush and Cheney. Trump broke with that logic of the Professional Political Corporation, jeopardizing his circular business based on a highly debatable electoral system. After all, Democrats and Republicans work for the same master.