Trend Alert: Obama Performs for “The View” BY Gerald Celente.
KINGSTON, NY, August 5, 2010 --Last Thursday President Obama made an appearance on the mid-morning pop-TV show, “The View”. Criticized by opponents for brazenly exploiting the female-friendly platform to boost his sagging ratings, the appearance was applauded by supporters for cleverly reaching out to a normally unpolitical audience to drum up approval for his accomplishments and build support for his agenda.
Yucking it up with a panel of five ladies, the President of the United States of America fielded questions about Lindsay Lohan, Mel Gibson, Snooki, Chelsea’s wedding … and why he wasn’t invited.
Obama’s performance on “The View” generated saturation media coverage. What was not covered by the press, was that while Mr. Obama could find time for a third appearance on “The View”, he had (for a second time) rejected an invitation from the President of Iran to engage in a TV debate on matters of war and peace, life and death.
“We are ready to sit down with Mr. Obama face-to-face and put the global issues on the table, man-to-man, freely, and in front of the media and see whose solutions are better,” challenged the Iranian President.
Sarah Palin recently accused President Obama of having “no cojones” on immigration. “Why won’t Obama sit down and debate his opponent ‘man-to-man’?“ I asked, said Trends Research Institute Director Gerald Celente. “Does he lack the cojones for this too? Or is there some other, hidden foreign policy reason for why he won’t engage?”
The double refusal to debate is an almost exact repeat of history. Four years ago, in an August 2006 Trends in the News® feature, I reported, “Bush Backs Down Twice from ‘Evil Empire’ Challenge.”
Back then the White House brushed off Ahmadinejad’s call for a televised debate: “The president’s view is that he doesn’t respond publicly to private correspondence,” said Tony Snow, Bush’s White House Press Secretary.
Four years later, Denis McDonough, chief of staff at the White House National Security Council, blew it off as well: "I'm not leaving it open and I'm not closing it."
Making sure the door was closed, White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs responded with Robert “Gibberish”: the U.S. "would be willing to sit down and discuss Iran's illicit nuclear program if Iran is serious about doing that. To date, that seriousness has not been there.”
“Serious” and “seriousness” is not the issue. The only issue is: Why won’t the President of the United States sit down “man-to-man” with the President of Iran? It can’t be that he’s too busy. After all, he finds time to fly to New York to sit down with a bevy of lightweight, chattering TV personalities to entertain an audience with so little to do with their lives that they waste an hour of it watching “The View”.
Gibbs extricated the President from a mano-a-mano confrontation by claiming that Ahmadinejad’s invitation to debate was a sign of Iranian weakness … proof “the sanctions are beginning to have an impact”. This was not only an unproven assumption, it was irrelevant, a craven cop-out, a disregard for democratic principles and a diminution of presidential stature.
Ominous Signals: Is the refusal to debate a prelude to war? Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, in a “60 Minutes” interview, offered to debate President George W. Bush on TV, denying that he had WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. (Click on the above cited Trends in the News® feature)
The offer was summarily dismissed by the White House and laughed off by “60 Minutes” host Dan Rather, who asked Mr. Hussein if his request was “a joke.”
Two weeks later, the United States invaded Iraq. It was no joke. There was no debate and there were also no WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. The agenda had long been set.
Author’s Side Note: Surely, if the President can find time for TV talk show small-talk, he should be able to squeeze in an intelligent discussion with the elected leader of another sovereign country. What is the big problem with a debate? What’s there to lose? Cojones?
Or does Mr. Obama’s refusal to debate Ahmedinejad mean that the agenda – as with Iraq and Bush – is already set? This past Sunday, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that the US military has a strike plan against Iran in place.
To stay ahead of the times and on top of the trends, Learn more about Trends Research Institute and Director Gerald Celente online, or by calling Zeke West at 1-845-331-3500.
This is all very nice but as you will recall mr
celente predicted gold would continue to go up
and that inflation was on our doorstep..however if
you bought gold when he spoke about his view of the
world you would have been down 5%....in addition
he has never spoken about the real threat and that's
deflation which would call for shorting gold and selling your house now. As for I'm a dinner jacket
the president should not and will not sit down with the head of a terorist supporting nation directly
if there are talks ultimately they have to be at the
diplomatic level..ahmadinajad simply wants to be viewed
as legitimate which he is anyting but
Posted by: anon | August 06, 2010 at 09:23
Once again Mr. Celente shows that he has no comprehension of the real world.
He thinks that the President of the united States should sit for a TV debate at the request of Ahmedinijad?
Why? What would be accomplished for us? Not for Iran...for us?
If Ahmedinijad wants to sit down and have any meaningful discussions, it should be through the normal, diplomatic channels first. Then is there needs to be some sort of contrived TV event, let there be one.
Mr. Celente needs to go back to his charts and graphs...back to his world of What-ifs...back to his gold speculation.
Stay out of the real world Gerry.
Posted by: Tired of it All | August 06, 2010 at 14:41