• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's 'credibility crisis'...

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FT.com / US & Canada - Obama faces growing credibility crisis


Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, got into hot water this week for daring to speak the truth – that the Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November. But it could be even worse than that.

Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to coming into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse.
“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House. “Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.”

Chart: Obama job approvalThe direction of the data could hardly be worse. According to Democracy Corps, a group headed by Stanley Greenberg, a liberal pollster who is a close friend of Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s chief of staff, a majority of US citizens see Mr Obama as “too liberal”.
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama. “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and,
short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”
How desperate would Obama get to keep his power and control over the presidency, and a favourable house and senate?
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,620
Reaction score
17,026
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Was the font increase your doing? If so, you are using a line liberals loved to use during the last administration, and that is just sad.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Was the font increase your doing? If so, you are using a line liberals loved to use during the last administration, and that is just sad.
Oh... I get it... it's cool to call for a terrorist attack in this country, so long as the FONT is the right size???

I put it like that because bold wasn't strong enough.

So, tell me, how is the statement : "(Leader) has to find a way between now and november of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

How is that statement justifiable REGARDLESS of who the leader is that needs to demonstrate his leadership??? Also, how is it acceptable, that this man would call for a terrorist attack on the country to suit the needs of its leader?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,197
Reaction score
32,355
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He's not calling for one. You're only making that assumption because of your misguided, kneejerk assumptions about what liberals think.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,620
Reaction score
17,026
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It was passive political analysis demonstrating that the man is not seen as a leader, and leaders can be demonstrated on the domestic front and the foreign policy front. Since his domestic policy leadership has been severely questioned, his foreign policy leadership already lacking in the eyes on many, it would take dramatic turnaround (through him or through external forces) to change the outcome.

Quit being a conspiracy theorist. Again, knee-jerk liberals relied upon Republicans making this statement or anything like it, all the time. It was ridiculous, and it still is ridiculous.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It was passive political analysis demonstrating that the man is not seen as a leader, and leaders can be demonstrated on the domestic front and the foreign policy front. Since his domestic policy leadership has been severely questioned, his foreign policy leadership already lacking in the eyes on many, it would take dramatic turnaround (through him or through external forces) to change the outcome.
Yes, 'a dramatic turnaround', like the flag waving and blind-patriotism that is seen in the wake of a large scale terrorist attack... don't try to whitewash this man's crime. And yes, it IS a crime to call for violence... just as it's a crime to yell fire in a crowded theater, and it's a crime to call for someone's MURDER.

Quit being a conspiracy theorist. Again, knee-jerk liberals relied upon Republicans making this statement or anything like it, all the time. It was ridiculous, and it still is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Conspiracy theorist??!?!? THE MAN IS CALLING FOR A TERRORIST ATTACK TO HELP THE PRESIDENT!!!!! There's no 'conspiracy' here... though there is a crime.

Ya... the last time there was a call like that, it was from within the Bush administration, about 6-8 months PRIOR to 9-11... they called it the 'need for a new pearl harbor'. That was a 'conspiracy theory'... this statement is REPORTED ON IN MEDIA PRINT.

So, you agree that Obama's popularity is falling like a rock, and you agree that 'something dramatic' has to happen for that to change... but you don't think that saying that people will have to see a large scale terrorist attack in order to provide that 'change' as having any extra meaning then the vague 'something drastic'?? I mean, 'something drastic' is vague enough that it could mean anything... an OKC bombing or a 9-11 very specifically means that people will be killed, and this Shapiro character called for the latter, he was SPECIFIC.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,620
Reaction score
17,026
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oh, you're that guy.

Neocons contributed to 9/11. I seem to remember this conversation with you.

Anyhow, this thread probably does not belong here anymore.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He's not calling for one. You're only making that assumption because of your misguided, kneejerk assumptions about what liberals think.
I'm sorry, but you're absolutely wrong.

The case was made that Obama is losing his popularity... so we have a problem.
Then this Shapiro character comes out and offers his solution : "I don't know how short of another 9-11 or OKC bombing".

Just like with PNAC : The argument was made on regime change in Iraq : The problem (among others detailed in the document)
Then the 'solution' to their problem was : "Either long drawn out justification, or a new pearl harbor"

So, I hope this satisfies the "left-right" attacks that I'm pointing out a democrat and a republican version of the same statements.

As if that's not tasteless on it's face to allow that type of statement to be published with your name sitting right next???

Also, who is the main readership of the financial times of london?? I guarantee to you it's not the average citizen who would rather see the sunshine girl.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, you're that guy.

Neocons contributed to 9/11. I seem to remember this conversation with you.

Anyhow, this thread probably does not belong here anymore.
Why not?? I just put the articles quotes up there... the comments could have focused on Obama's dwindling approval rating... hell, some of you have all but agreed with Shapiro's statements anyway, so I don't see how your claim this 'does not belong' is valid.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh, you're that guy.

Neocons contributed to 9/11. I seem to remember this conversation with you.

Anyhow, this thread probably does not belong here anymore.
That's not what I said... I did say that 'neocons' CALLED FOR a 'new pearl harbour'... and now this 'new-lib' is CALLING FOR a new 9-11 or OKC.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,620
Reaction score
17,026
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, they did not. And no, he is not.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,620
Reaction score
17,026
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Why not?? I just put the articles quotes up there... the comments could have focused on Obama's dwindling approval rating... hell, some of you have all but agreed with Shapiro's statements anyway, so I don't see how your claim this 'does not belong' is valid.
You are spreading your conspiracy theorist crap all over the thread. It was not a thread discussing how Obama is in a credibility crisis, it was you who bolded the letters, and asked your cryptic question. I even predicted you would bring up PNAC (incorrectly, as always), and you did not fail.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, they did not. And no, he is not.
Umm... yes they did... and yes he did.
Your denial of reality does NOT change reality... or was this your way of asking to see the source documents again??
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,620
Reaction score
17,026
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No. I have the entire PNAC website downloaded to my hard drive, I have many PDF documents of the writers in question, I own dozens of the authors' own texts, and have spent most of the previous decade researching them. You are incredibly wrong.

And I do not need to see the documentation for Shapiro. The context was obvious.

This thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.
 
Last edited:

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are spreading your conspiracy theorist crap all over the thread. It was not a thread discussing how Obama is in a credibility crisis, it was you who bolded the letters, and asked your cryptic question. I even predicted you would bring up PNAC (incorrectly, as always), and you did not fail.
Look, do you want me to put the whole page of the quote just for context??

What's the "correct way" to look at government officials CALLING FOR attacks against the country and the REASON why these calls are made???

Look if I said : I'm broke and the only way I can solve this is if someone burns down my house so I can claim insurance money. That is CALLING FOR someone to burn the house down... I don't see how you can see that ANY OTHER WAY. Especially if a week or two later the house in question is on fire.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No. I have the entire PNAC website downloaded to my hard drive, I have many PDF documents of the writers in question, I own dozens of the authors' own texts, and have spent most of the previous decade researching them. You are incredibly wrong.
Ok, the explain it to me then... tell me what was being said when they wrote : "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

This thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.
Ya... financial times... conspiracy theorists... That's almost as good as when Reuters articles were called conspiracy theories. Wow...what some people will do to stifle debate.

Especially when YOU are the one changing his quotes to have it mean what YOU want it to mean... and I'm taking his statements for what they ACTUALLY SAY, and I"M THEORISING??? Come on...
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Larkins

New member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
46
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is an unintelligent argument, the point is obama is losing some popularity. Hes not going to stage a 911...I think anyone here knows that.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is an unintelligent argument, the point is obama is losing some popularity. Hes not going to stage a 911...I think anyone here knows that.
The overarching point is that Obama is losing ALOT of popularity... pretty soon he'll have the popularity of herpes. And, Obama's going to have to do 'SOMETHING' to turn it around. How can he maintain HIS agenda while continuing to have the people's support??

Ok, let's go with this idea that all this Shapiro character was doing was pointing out that something big would have to happen, rather then outright calling for this to happen to bolster Obama's presidency... wouldn't that at least beg the question of what Obama is going to do with the knowledge that his popularity is dropping
 

The Dane

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
253
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
History has shown many times that there is little a president can do about the unemployment rate. Its a lagging indicator and economists agree that when the unemployment rate goes up and then begins to fall its a sign that people viewed the economy to be getting better, went out looking for jobs, caused a spike in the labor force, and thus unemployment rose.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,620
Reaction score
17,026
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
"For the moment, the U.S. Navy enjoys a level of global hegemony that surpasses that of the Royal Navy during its heyday. While the ability to project naval power ashore is, as it has always been, an important subsidiary mission for the Navy, it may not remain the service’s primary focus through the coming decades. Over the longer term –
but, given the service life of ships, well within the approaching planning horizons of the U.S. Navy – the Navy’s focus may return again to keeping command of the open oceans and sea lines of communi- cation. Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age."
[...]
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.
[…]Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs.[…]Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.[…]
 
Last edited:

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,620
Reaction score
17,026
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ok, the explain it to me then... tell me what was being said when they wrote : "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"



Ya... financial times... conspiracy theorists... That's almost as good as when Reuters articles were called conspiracy theories. Wow...what some people will do to stifle debate.

Especially when YOU are the one changing his quotes to have it mean what YOU want it to mean... and I'm taking his statements for what they ACTUALLY SAY, and I"M THEORISING??? Come on...
Not for the original article. I'm suggesting it for the commentary you have added to it.
 

BmanMcfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
12,761
Reaction score
2,321
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"For the moment, the U.S. Navy enjoys a level of global hegemony that surpasses that of the Royal Navy during its heyday. While the ability to project naval power ashore is, as it has always been, an important subsidiary mission for the Navy, it may not remain the service’s primary focus through the coming decades. Over the longer term –
but, given the service life of ships, well within the approaching planning horizons of the U.S. Navy – the Navy’s focus may return again to keeping command of the open oceans and sea lines of communi- cation. Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age."
[...]
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.
[…]Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs.[…]Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.[…]
Really??? You clearly expected that I haven't read this document beyond the actual quotes... it's ok though, let's correct this for everyone here just to show

So you took the quote from 67, then added a "[...]" to show that it was a continuation of the thought that led to the second section. Well, that [...] must have meant a continuation to the end of the book and all the way through to page 51. You're attempt to confuse is noted, at least you made more proper usage of the [...] afterward....

So, let's go to what the document ACTUALLY says :

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in
military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies
are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.
So, this section is detailing how to "preserve military preeminence" to find out what is meant, let's go back to the preface : Key findings, the findings of what was needed to 'preserve military preeminence'.

These are :
- Defend the American Homeland (re : Homeland security)
- fight and decisively win two simultaneous large scale wars (Afghanistan and Iraq, from hindsight)
- perform constabulary duties in critical regions (Policing these critical regions, it can be argued that we are now the police in parts of Iraq, I imagine what was sent to Haiti might also count in this)
- Transform US forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs" (re: implementation of new technologies, kinda like how there's been exponential increase in drone aircraft)

So, this is what was necessary to preserve military preeminence... carrying on, there is brief discussion about how America has the benefit of its current position to take charge, but the Pentagon is constrained by its budget and must reduce how much it spends on research and development to put the money towards implementation.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of
U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation
strategy that would decouple American and allied interests.

A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
So, if there's a serious effort to transform the military in ways that will "guarantee preeminence", it must be done in ways that are congruent with its current operations. Or else it might alienate America's allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.
So, now that we put the quote into it's proper context, it has a different meaning.

I really didn't mean to digress so long into this.... it could make for a thread in itself.


---------------------------------------------





Now, to tie this back into the original point here :

What do YOU think that Obama will have to do to combat this credibility crisis and bring people back to the man that was sold as the messianic leader of 'hope and change'????

Do you think that what this Shapiro character said was accurate, that Obama needs his own catastrophic and catalyzing event???

I mean, the facts are there, Obama's about as popular as the guy who passes gas in church, and dropping daily, how would YOU propose he fix this problem?

What does that say about him that he's even losing his core support? What does that say about the american people that everything he does is almost instantly unpopular?

What about the calls for Obama to "act like a dictator"???
 
Top Bottom