“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crowned with real farces as they were withdrawn of troops from Iraq that were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.
