The “Bushification” of Obama

It is not easy to have such a popular guy in the White House. It is very problematic that the chief of the American Empire might be seen internationally with so much sympathy and admiration. There are governments for which it is indispensable to have the United States as an enemy. And we all know people for whom anti-Americanism is almost a basic instinct and the principal source of political opinions.

This is why “Bushifying” Obama will be in style.

The “Bushification” of Barack Obama is the next and almost inevitable chapter of the narrative that began with the certainty that it was impossible for the United States to elect an African-American as president, the surprise of his victory, the overflowing emotion during his inauguration, and the enormous expectations around his capacity to resolve the immense problems he inherits.

Now a stage will come where many will explain that basically there is no difference between George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama. Or as the lyrical Venezuelan President has already said: “They are the same miasma,” that is to say, that both are malignant emanations that emit sick bodies or corrupt material (although Chavez immediately clarified to us that he called them miasma “in order to not use another word.” Which one would he be thinking of?)

And it is not only Chavez. The “Bushification” will be a global tendency. For the Iranian regime it will be important to demonstrate that although the second name of the new president might be Hussein and that, in Farsi, Obama means “he who is with us,” in reality he continues to be equal to his predecessor, the greatest Great Satan.

Three days after the inauguration of Obama, the United States bombed a group of presumed Taliban in the northeast of Pakistan in an attack that left fourteen dead. The Pakistani government protested against the new violation of its sovereignty and confirmed its hope that Obama might not continue with Bush’s policies was only an illusion.

After Timothy Geithner, the designated secretary of the United States Treasury, accused China of manipulating its money, Peking reacted furiously: “Directing unfounded accusations against China with respect to its exchange rate only helps American protectionism and does not contribute to searching for a real solution to the problem,” it said in a communication.

In his inaugural speech Obama alerted: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” What did Vladimir Putin think of this invitation? And the Syrian Bashar al-Assad? And Raúl Castro?

They don’t see a difference between Obama and Bush.

It is known, in addition, that Obama is convinced that he should increase the intensity of the war in Afghanistan, that he should not permit Iran to obtain atomic weapons, and that Israel has a right to defend itself from the attacks of Hamas.

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing,” Obama has said, upon repeating an idea with which it is difficult to disagree.

However, it is not surprising that in the Arab world there are already those who denounce the Obama government as the simple continuation of the Bush administration, only modified with a larger quantity of Jews in the cabinet and in other responsibilities of major importance.

In some cases, the “Bushification” of Obama will have a basis in reality that continuity between the policies of the new president and those of Bush shall exist. But in many other cases, it will only respond to the propagandist efforts of those that always need to have an enemy in the White House. But it shall not be easy for them. One of the characteristics of Obama’s political path is that he has always surprised his critics and skeptics. And in this case, it shall not be difficult to surprise them again. Because, in spite of what his critics say, and among other reasons, he is not George W. Bush.