If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for reading!

When I reflect upon the upcoming U.S. Presidential election, I tend not to place so much faith in the rhetoric of change. Despite prevailing, popular attitudes here in Europe, I find it difficult to imagine anything but the most marginal change in domestic policy should Obama become President (and virtually zero change elsewhere).

We may count ourselves lucky, however, that whether it is McCain or Obama that takes the reins in November, our eight-year affair with Bush is almost at an end. No matter which “wing” from the corporatist cesspool of American government becomes President, at least we will be spared the inane remarks, the cheesy laughter, the genuine stupidity and brass arrogance of the Bush years. Perhaps I am alone, but I always felt the crimes prosecuted by the Bush junta were always compounded by the profound ignorance expressed by some of its more senior members.

For example, when Bush visits Israel to congratulate the Jewish state on 60 years of existence, he does not mention the peace process his government has largely helped to derail. Nor does he mention the daily atrocities being forced upon Gaza under the siege. Nor does he discuss the American role in prolonging the conflict by providing Israel with absolute diplomatic immunity before the international community, allowing them to act with impunity outside the realm of human rights or any kind of humanitarian accountability. No of course not. Instead he refers to Israel as the “promised land for the chosen people”, attacks human rights monitoring groups for criticizing the brutal occupation and (paradoxically) propounds American support for democracy while openly undermining the elected Palestinian government in Gaza.

Of course, any future U.S. President is liable to continue with the slavish antics towards Israel, but one gets the impression with Bush that he actually believes the jumble of sounds clumsily tossed from his lips.

In another case recently, Bush lectured the Arab world on the prevalence of dictatorships, suppression of women’s rights and general anti-democratic tendencies.

“America is deeply concerned about the plight of political prisoners in this region, as well as democratic activists who are intimidated or repressed, newspapers and civil society organizations that are shut down and dissidents whose voices are stifled,” Bush said.

This kind of criticism would sound very nice, if it weren’t the U.S. that supported nearly all Arab dictatorships both financially and politically. Egypt, for example, where the opposition leader is imprisoned and Mubarak’s repressive autocracy exists unchallenged, receives the second most amount of foreign aid (just behind Israel of course) from the United States. And this is not to mention the unrepentant opposition to the Palestinian elections because the “wrong” party came to power.

Interestingly, towards the end of his speech, Bush brazenly asserted that “Palestinians must fight terror and continue to build the institutions of a free and peaceful society”. But I wonder, could he mean that Israeli terror against Palestinian civilians is an obstacle to a free and peaceful society?

This kind of unabashed stupidity not only insults those familiar with uncensored accounts of America’s long history of imperialistic meddling, but even promotes a kind of general ignorance among the American public. Who cares if the President can’t find Somalia on the map? But American money is funding the rape of that country by the Ethiopian army… So, when it comes to change, I am not too hopeful, but its important that Obama or McCain be able to point out the country they wish to bomb. Bush made American aggression that much more of a tragedy.