The Phaserl


Obama’s Nonexistent Legacy

by Eric Zuesse, Washington’s Blog:

“Trump did more than any democrat to deflate the neocon/neoliberal agenda that liberals themselves screamed was fascist when Bush was president.”

That was a brilliant and profoundly true reader-comment posted November 14th about Hillary Clinton supporters who were demonstrating against Trump’s winning the Presidency. Hillary was even more of a war-hawk than Bush was, or than Obama was: she supported not just Bush’s invasion of Iraq, but Obama’s invasions of Libya and Syria, a coup in Honduras, and helped plan Obama’s coup in Ukraine, which led to Ukraine’s breaking apart into civil war. Plus she was even more of a champion of Wall Street than Obama was, and maybe even more so than Bush was. Yet many Democrats think that the anti-Establishment Donald Trump is, somehow, even worse. They claim that Trump is a “racist” — as though either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton hadn’t been leading a country where the top 0.1% got the vast majority of the economic benefits and the bottom 90% — including especially Blacks and Hispanics — got no gains at all, neither in income nor in wealth. So: what good did Obama do for Blacks-as-a-whole, or for Hispanics-as-a-whole? Other than invasions, there was nothing real, just words of “racial reconciliation” and other hypocrisies, for which he did little or nothing.

Obama has no legacy except words (words that often contradicted his actual decisions in office). Mere words are just a nullity; all that counts is actions. Empty words are, perhaps, lies, insincere expressions; but they certainly aren’t actions; they’re no legacy at all (especially when the speaker’s actions belie his words).

Democrats want to blame Republicans for Obama’s failures about everything; and Republicans did all they could to help him fail, but those same Republicans also condemned Donald Trump until he won the White House, and your enemy’s enemy is your friend; so, why is Donald Trump not Democrats’ friend? Maybe he’s an enemy to both the Republican and the Democratic Establishment. Only time will tell; they’ll tell when his words become replaced with actions, which will show what he really is. But the anti-Trump protesters are not — at least as of yet — protesting his actions. Democrats simply want President Trump to fail, like Republicans had wanted Obama to fail. But it’s only Obama (and Clinton) who is a proven failure, with a lousy-to-no legacy of achievement; so, why aren’t there Democratic demonstrations against him (and her), instead?

The Clinton-Obama Democrats who remain loyal to the Democratic Party in the wake of Trump’s victory, are world-champion hypocrites, even if they’re too oblivious of reality to know it. The Clinton-Obama political tradition, of pro-megacorporate government, actually repudiates, instead of embodies, the Democratic Party that real progressives are proud of: the Democratic Party’s earlier, quintessential period: the 1932-1980 FDR-dominated (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) era — the most progressive period in all of U.S. history.

Though I voted both times for Barack Obama, he turned out to be one of the worst U.S. Presidents, if not the worst of them all — even if he was (as I thought each time) the better of the bad (in each election).

His only real legacy as President turns out to have been disasters, including things far worse than his failed Obamacare, which increased the healthcare inflation-rate in our country, where healthcare already costs twice as much — and twice as high a percentage of GDP — as the international OECD average, but delivers inferior healthcare results. America is becoming internationally even less competitive in our healthcare system than before — which was already at the international bottom. It’s sucking the lifesblood out of the U.S. economy.

But most of the real hell that Obama produced is in foreign countries: his bloody coup in Ukraine followed by civil war there, and, before that, the bloody catastrophe in Libya, and the bloody years-long attempt (ever since Obama first came into office) to overthrow the non-sectarian leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, and replace him with Al Nusra and other jihadists that the Obama-regime weaponized and the Saud regime (America’s ‘allies’) financed and recruited hoping for them to replace Assad and produce a Sharia-law Syrian government. Al Qaeda in Syria — “Al Nusra” — were leading Obama’s ‘moderate rebels’ in Syria. Obama lied and said he was supporting only ‘moderate rebels’. The Administration kept the reality hidden from the American public until late in October when Hillary’s victory seemed assured and so Obama started to acknowledge publicly that he was actually backing all of the anti-Assad people there except ISIS. Thus, for example, on October 20th, Russia’s Sputnik News quoted an interview two days earlier in which the American Russia-expert Stephen Cohen had remarked upon this sudden change:

“If you pick up a paper today the narrative is completely different,” the US academic stressed, “In Aleppo there are only rebels, there are no longer terrorists. You don’t see the word ‘terrorist’ or ‘jihadist’ in the narrative any more. And alongside them, with rebels protecting them, there are children who are being killed by Russian and Syrian war planes.” As the whole narrative has been re-written, Moscow and Damascus are now being portrayed as “war criminals” which are targeting civilians in Aleppo, he noted.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>