Bush Legacy for Obama’s Reference
By Dr. Abdul Ruff
A reckless or devastating legacy left behind by an elected ruler could harm the prospects of a new incumbent any where and USA could be a testing ground for this notion’s efficacy. President Bush, son of a former president, certainly was egregiously lacking in judgment, knowledge, and experience, for the role he was voted into, is keen to leave his successor Obama a free reign as he assumes offices, rather, he intents to keep a troubled world for Obama to begin worrying about. But a US president never worries even when a natural disaster, let alone a terror attack< takes USA or the world under its grips. And the election of Bush Jr.only showed naivety and lack of competence on the part of Democratic leaders, There has been a lack of vision, and lack of judgment and leadership and ideas and thought and understanding throughout our voting population that has resulted in catastrophic destruction of so many lives in Palestine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan and throughout much of Europe as well.
Earlier indications showed Obama would begin to address the issues earnestly by adapting a new way. Wars and blockades kill civilians and do not achieve any solutions. Obama should help the people of Gaza recover from Bush mistakes by forcing an end to the massacre taking place in Gaza and lifting the siege. He must make the American voices heard loudly about lasting peace in Mideast.
Bush does not call himself great, of course. Not an outstanding communicator or a diplomat, Bush George W. Bush won two terms as president. His critics like to paint him as the worst president ever. On his watch, terrorists brought down four planes and two world-famous buildings, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was deposed and murdered, chaos continued to reign in two nations, oil prices skyrocketed and the worst recession in decades devastated the world economy The outgoing US president hasn’t won any popularity polls lately and he is upset even otherwise. Legacies are determined by the inevitable march of history and the lasting results of presidential policies over the course of time. WMD, terror wars, genocides, tortures, economic collapse, and Mideast wars- all gave poor grades to Bush. But he was not running for re-election, of course.
Though he enjoyed the White House prestige, pleasures and privileges for 8 long years, Bush did not care for world peace because that is not the real US policy goals. He fueled tresnions in regins, because that in indeed the key foreign policy of USA. Though he had the opportunities to settle the Paleisnt issue to herald new phase of Mideast life, he refused to do that to suit neocon interests. Only towards the fake end of his presidenct did he suddenly woke up to see the nneed to settle the Palestine issue and convened a few conferences with Arab leaders and the the concerned parties in conflcit, Palestine and Israelis. And, again, he spoiled even the meager gains of his much hyped Peace summit in USA last year.
Bush said he would establish new Mideast, but he indeed wanted to squander the resources there. Terror attacks a new trend to bring down elected governments. Terror experts feel interruption of the supply chain to Tehran, sabotage of the materials used for the reactor (including parts and supplies) and other covert actions are having no effect on the “mullahs” who issue fatwas and prayers for the destruction of the Jewish state. Israel wanted to purchase bombs capable of destroying, totally, the nuclear facility in Iran and the ability to fly over Iraq to get to the site. What Israel wanted was for America to allow her to do what the entire world is too frightened or timid to do itself. Tel Aviv wanted to display its roguish behavior with Arabs. Many in USA also Bush should have allowed Israeli planes to fly over Iraq and the Administration should have provided Israel with the weapons she needed to do what the world will not.
Today many strong countries have nukes and latest nuke technology develop more and more high precision nuclear-abled missiles. But the western powers and their media harp on Iran’s nuclear program. The world knows that Iran is producing nuclear material – that is a fact and is not disputed by even Iran. What is disputed is how to deal with Iranian ambitions, unacceptable to anti-Islamic nations, including India. Iran is considered to be a threat by them, more than the terror leaders of the West who converted the Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan as the latest battlefields killing Muslims every where. There is the continued threat of an arms race in every region, including Mideast because of the instability that a nuclear Iran would create in a region where stability is the only thing that keeps one country from invading another. There are few things that can plunge the world into a world conflagration, but one of them is an exchange of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
The Bush regime maintained secrecy and generated a lot bluff to confuse the world with regard to US intentions of illegal invasion of Islamic world staring with Afghanistan. A report in Associated Press last summer, not widely publicized, talked about the removal of 500 metric tons of yellowcake, an intermediate step in the processing of uranium ores, from Iraq to Canada. Yellowcake is not weapons-grade uranium, of course, but is a sensitive and potentially dangerous commodity. While no nuclear WMDs have been found, Saddam Hussein’s ambitions were obvious. It is said Israel requested and was denied permission to fly through Iraqi airspace in order to rid the world of a nuclear facility that will surely be used to produce a militant Islamic nuclear weapon. Earlier, on June 7, 1981 Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin ordered the Israeli Air Force to strike the French-built Osirak reactor, located 18 miles south of Baghdad.
Bush wanted to make the nukes and technology a basic prerogative of a selected few like UNSC-5 and a few Western countries and all other are essentially anti-Islamic. By espousing the terror threats widely Bush tries to shift nukes from India, Pakistan and elsewhere to these countries, while Israel should posses them endangering the Arab world. Bush is opposed any Islamic nation possessing nuclear weapons.
Bush as the chief custodian of US policies tries his tricks to support Israel against Arab interests and get the innocent and defenseless Palestinians killed by the fascist Jews. By using dollars he gained the support of Islamic world against all Muslim nations fighting for, independence, self-rule and freedom.
Bush encouraged state terrorism globally and used terrorism plank to invade Islamic world. He has provoked Israel to invade Gaza to make the true Palestinian salves. Israel continues to expand settlements and Palestinian armed groups persisted in activities defined by one side as terrorism and by the other as resistance. Bush did not press Israel or the Palestinian Authority to renew negotiations while Yasser Arafat, who had the nationalist credentials to make concessions for peace, was still alive. And after Arafat died, Bush did too little to bolster his moderate successor, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Bush’s mishandling of relations with Iran has also had a destructive effect across a large arc that stretches from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. Iran supplied useful intelligence assistance when US forces toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan in late 2001, and helped the Bush administration establish the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai at the Bonn conference in early 2002. Bush’s response was to include Iran in a rhetorical “axis of evil.” Irn’s drive to be in good books of the USA thus failed. After US forces swept Iran’s arch enemy Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, Iran offered Bush a grand bargain that would include concessions on its nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah, and security in the Gulf region. Bush disregarded the offer. Israelis, Palestinians, and their neighbors are paying a high price for that mistake. Against the strong objections of both Abbas and Israel, Bush insisted on holding Palestinian elections in January 2006. When Hamas won a legislative majority, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were stunned. Not only had they rejected the pleas of both their Palestinian and Israeli partners; they refused to take into account the frustration of Palestinians with the corruption and incompetence of the secular nationalist Fatah politicians who had come from Tunis in 1995 to rule over Gaza and the West Bank. Bush’s reaction to the Hamas victory made everything worse. He backed an economic blockade of Gaza, discouraging reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and arming and training Fatah security forces to seize power in Gaza. That policy backfired in June 2007, when Hamas conducted its own ruthless coup against Fatah security forces and took complete control over Gaza. an anxiety common to nearly all the Arab regimes: a worry that Bush’s fecklessness has allowed Iran, through its arming and funding of Hamas, to supplant the Arab states as prime defender of the Palestinian cause.
Generally, a new incumbent in White House generally tries to be over smart and undo what has been done by his predecessor. Bush took office in 2001 assuming that whatever the Clinton administration had attempted in the Mideast was wrong and not to be pursued. Since Bill Clinton had invested a great deal of time, energy, and prestige in a failed attempt to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement at Camp David, Bush in his first term took a passive stance toward that central conflict. During a speech at the United Nations in the fall of 2001, Bush did explicitly say he envisioned the creation of a Palestinian state, eventually. But he did nothing to shepherd Israelis and Palestinians into peace talks. His passivity allowed a peacemaking opportunity to fade away unexplored even during the most of his time at the zoOval House enjoyng the fights in Mieast and wartching the deaths of innocent Muslims all over the world.
President-elect Barack Obama has an enormous cleanup task ahead of him; he cannot put off for a single day the work of peacemaking and rehabilitation in the Mideast. And Obama must embark upon this most import ant globla task not in search of a Nobel Prioze, but for wrold peace , a main ot that is Palesitne, and another Kashmir, lthird, Chechnya and then the rest would follow towards a peaceful raod.
Obama says the US will take a new approach to dealings with Iran under his leadership. Obama said in a US TV interview screened on Sunday that “Iran is going to be one of our biggest challenges”. Obama, who won the US presidential election in November, takes office on 20 January and had earlier said there should be no pre-conditions in discussions with the Iranian leadership. He said he was concerned about Iran‘s support for Lebanese Shia party Hezbollah and Tehran‘s nuclear enrichment program and that engagement is the place to start. He added he believed his administration would “move swiftly” in its new approach with Tehran.
In the wide-ranging interview, Obama also said he planned a special team to deal with conflict in the Middle East. The Bush administration had accused Iran of developing nuclear technology in order to produce nuclear weapons, but Iran has insisted the processes will only be used to generate electricity. Obama also said a new team would begin work on a wider Middle East peace process when he began his presidency.
At one point, Obama was not ruling out prosecution for possible crimes committed by Bush administration official, but is now reluctant to do so. And he repeated his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, but suggested it might not happen within his first 100 days in office. Obama also criticized the outgoing administration’s handling of the $700bn (£459bn) federal bailout plan to help the US banking system amid the global financial crisis. And he said his attorney general could investigate accusations Bush administration officials had abused their power.
However, for every thing he wants to do in the USA and elsewhere as President, Obama needs the concurrence of the Pentagon-CIA and the support of American-Jewish support, not just the popular5 support alone. That is the key tragedy of USA and the entire world.
The course of world events will in time determine Bush’s place in the history books. Wars are usually traceable to a failure of statecraft. In the case of the current Israeli assault on the Hamas regime in Gaza, that failure belongs not only to the leadership of Israel but, most tellingly, to the serial blunders of President Bush. The humanitarian catastrophe imposed on civilians in Gaza, the Iranian-supplied rockets fired into Israel by Hamas, and the Israeli missiles landing in densely populated neighborhoods of Gaza City are among the consequences of eight years of Bush administration policy in the Middle East. The disasters of war in Gaza come as the culmination to a long skein of bad decisions, and those errors will burden President-elect Barack Obama with a tangle of crises that he will have to begin addressing immediately.
Obama, marketed to the American electorate as the “candidate of change,” seems to be taking primer lessons now from the same neocons who trained both father Bush and his son Bush Jr on terrorism plank. The election of Democrat Barack Obama as president of the United States was driven in large measure by the disgust of broad sections of the American people with the criminal policies carried out in the name of the Bush administration’s “global war on terrorism” which in practice only means anti-Islamic terror wars with “like-minded” forces. Inevitably, to serve the economic, social and political interests of “his country”, an Obama administration is likely to incorporate much of the same criminal methods that were employed by its predecessor.
US politics of late is infested with pseudo patriotic rhymes. Obama is no different president, when he used hollow emotional statements: “I think that’s a basic principle of any country—is that they’ve got to protect their citizens.” Osama thus would stick to Bush terror strategies. That is, one of the pledges that Obama made repeatedly on the campaign trail, something that was supposed to symbolize a break with the past, would remain just a poll gimmick to fool the educated Us voters and the US policy of torture and detention without charges of thousands of individuals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and CIA “black sites” scattered around the world, would continue.
Obama made it clear that he has no intention of holding accountable those responsible for the political and international crimes carried out over the past eight years. He would let the Republic presidents before him to escape scot-free all terror crimes against humanity. And Sept11 background truth would remain a mystery under Obama. After all both Republicans and Democrats share power and crimes in some ways. And, after all, the Pentagon-CIA global networks plan and execute plans for advancing the American interests every where with the help of similar infrastructures in every country.
Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, among other freedom nations, remain under virtual siege from the colonial and imperialist powers. Look up for instructions form Neocons and other terror advisers on US goals and his own future strategies, Obama is scared of making any statements now defending them in any way. After all, Obama has to survive in the USA, playing politics with Europe, Russia, China and the rest of the world as his predecessors did before him.
Palestine is burning now, blood is flowing endlessly. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Kashmir are under foreign custody and genocides. Iran is under siege. Islamic world and the Arab nations play fiddle in desperation, while the anti-Islamic forces continue their rampages destroying Muslim nations, kill and and torture Muslims. Will Obama be able to reach out to them? May God save the Humanity, including the terrorized global Muslims, who are deceived also by their own leaders!