Is Barack Obama Really the Antithesis of George W. Bush?

Is Barack Obama Really the Antithesis of George W. Bush?by Andrew Puhanic

As Barack Obama begins his final escapade of his presidency, it turns out that after almost 4 years in the Whitehouse, the doctrine of former President George W. Bush was not at odds with that which Barak Obama so vehemently preached.

During the presidential election of 2008, Barack Obama preached a message of change and hope. He CLAIMED that his ideology and democratic values would alter America for the better and that his presidency would be a defining moment of America’s illustrious history.

With less than three months before the next US Presidential election, how different will the presidency of Mitt Romney be to Barack Obama if he is elected?

If history serves correct, then there will be no change.

As it turns out, Obamas presidency was merely a continuation of the legacy left behind by President George W. Bush. Assistant Professor Dr. Ekin Oyan Altuntaş from Abant İzzet Baysal University recently published a paper in the International Journal of Business and Social Science titled ‘If Causes Do Not Change, Neither Do Effects: Is it Possible to Believe the Goodwill in Barack Obama’s Call for “New World Order” Given the Current Structural Components of the U.S. Hegemony?

Dr Altuntaş correctly argues that Obama is NOT the Antithesis of George W. Bush because of the following three reasons:

  1. The response of the Obama Administration to the financial crisis
  2. America’s policy towards the Middle East (Middle East Project)
  3. Obamas vision of the War on Terror

The Response of the Obama Administration to the Financial Crisis

The response of the Obama Administration to the recent and ongoing financial crisis has been no different to the way in which the Bush Administration handled the situation before leaving office.

All the Obama Administration did was treat the symptoms of the financial crisis, rather than the underlying source, as was promised.

  • Obama tackled the financial crisis by injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy to finance capital, banks, credit and insurance companies.
  • Obama initiated a policy of buying, nationalising and guaranteeing the value of “toxic” assets to revitalise the moribund market. ($14 trillion Wall Street bailout)

During the campaign of 2008, Obama heavily criticised Wall Street, agonized about how the Republican Party abused the principles of capitalism and blamed the Bush administration for their lack of regulation of the financial sector.

However, everything that Obama complained about, he did exactly the same:

  • Obama implemented policies that were in favour of the financial elite of which made the Globalists and bankers richer than ever.
  • Obama was opposed to the tax cuts implemented by Bush, yet he continued them for more than two years, while Americans living below the poverty line increased by approximately 3.8 million.

It’s a little known fact that in the second quarter of 2009, Goldman Sachs announced profits of $3.44 billion, a 65 per cent increase over the same period of the previous year and JP. Morgan Chase declared a 48 per cent increase in profits over 2009, with a net income of $17.4 billion and a 47 per cent rise for the fourth quarter of 2010 (the most profitable year in the history of company) over the same period the previous year (Source: Eley, Tom “Wall Street Celebrates Record Profits”, Center for Research on Globalization 18 January 2011)

America’s policy towards the Middle East (Greater Middle East Project)

Dr Altuntaş describes that the Greater Middle East Project as being abandoned long before Obama’s inauguration.

So what is the Middle East Project? The Middle East Project was established in 1994 by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) under the direction of Henry Siegman, a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council. In 2006, the U.S./Middle East Project became an independent policy institute. Globalists like James D. Wolfensohn and Paul A. Volcker are represented on the committee.

It’s also important to note that Wolfensohn and Volcker are also Bilderberg Group members.

Dr Altuntaş argues that the project was discontinued because the pro-imperialist and pro-market governments established through velvet revolutions lost their credibility within a short time span, either through economic and political failures or through armed conflict, as in Georgia.

Nonetheless, Dr Altunatas suggests that repealing the project doesn’t mean that the U.S. gave up on its objectives in the area. Instead the lesser known and less reviled Silk Road Strategy, a pioneer of the GMEP, was resuscitated in 2006 (with the inclusion of Afghanistan) and reinforced by NATO.

However, I think it’s more accurate to suggest that the influence of the Middle East Project has been diminished until at least the next US Presidential election.

Many argue that the Arab Spring is an opportunity for the United States to reassert their presence through covert policy. Dr Altunatas agrees and suggests that an opportunity to revive the Greater Middle East Project with the consolidation of the “old” allies of capitalist core, NATO members, together with comparatively “new” allies, collaborationists, of regional powers may be a result of the Arab Spring.

Ultimately, even If Mitt Romney wins the next election, America’s policy in the Middle East won’t change.

Obama did preach a different message, as Mitt Romney is attempting to do, but failed to deliver. He was once quoted as saying:

If you agree that we’ve had a great foreign policy over the last eight years, then you should vote for John McCain, you shouldn’t vote for me. He then went onto say. “That’s what this debate is all about, that’s the choice in this election. Do you want more of the same or do you want change?

War on Terror

The war on Terror, as proclaimed by former President George W. Bush never ended, instead Obama simply refrained from using the “war on terrorism” phrase.

Dr Altuntaş points out that Obama abstained from using the rhetoric of the “war on terrorism” and recast the phrase as “wrecking, destroying and beating up al-Qaeda and its partners”.

In the National Security Strategy released in May 2010, terms such as; “Islamic radicalism, “Islomofascism” and “jihad” were deliberately removed.

With the beginning of the “Arab Spring” and the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011 the growing alliance with Islamic collaborationists led to the complete renunciation of the use of such terms In the National Security Strategy released in May 2010, terms such as; “Islamic radicalism”, “Islomofascism” and “jihad” were deliberately removed.

The Obama administration has magnified America’s military and intelligence operations worldwide and effectively only expanded the war on terror. Dr Altuntaş rightfully states that this should not come as a surprise because Obama has kept almost all of the top security veterans of the Bush administration in their posts.

The number of people on the “terrorist watch list” and the “no fly list” comprise mostly American citizens who are members of anti-war or anti-globalisation organisations or who have simply participated in peace marches or protest demonstrations, have long since exceeded the threshold of one million.

As of January 29, 2012 the list presenting the blocked property of suspected terrorists was 91 pages long for just the letter “A”. Most importantly, Obama signed the “National Defence Authorization Act” H.R. 1540 into law on December 31, 2011, as part of the counter-terrorism agenda. The act allows everyone including American citizens to be easily labelled as “suspected terrorists” who can be taken into military detention, including incarceration in Guantanamo leading to the conclusion that the U.S. now ruled by “a military government dressed in civilian clothes”

Therefore, the war on terror has only expanded, and from the evidence above, one could easily suggest that “terrorists” are NOT the government’s number of priority.

Final Remarks

I encourage you to take the time to read the paper by Dr Altuntaş. The amount of detail and manner by which the paper investigates the principal causes that form the core of U.S. foreign policy over the last thirty years is impressive.

The paper also examines recent signs of the New World Order from a perspective not discussed before.

To download and read the paper in its entirety, click here.

Andrew Puhanic is the founder of the Globalist Report. The aim of the Globalist Report is to provide current, relevant and informative information about the Globalists and Globalist Agenda. You can contact Andrew directly by visiting the Globalist Report

Credit image


Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Leave Comment: