You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Obama "We can absorb a terrorist attack."
2010-09-22
According to Woodward's meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

"This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It's in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room."

Obama rejected the military's request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. "I'm not doing 10 years," he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. "I'm not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars."

Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."
Terrorists attacks on America is good for America. See what they mean by liberalism is a mental disorder?
Posted by:Bertie Huperens2168

#10  "We can absorb a terrorist attack."

IOW: I don't have the balls to nip the problem in the bud. I'd feel so much better, idealistically that is, if they hit me in the head with a baseball bat before I did my job.
Posted by: gorb   2010-09-22 23:41  

#9  Put your wife and kids, and that Illegal aunt of your at ground zero of the next attack and then make that same comment you piece of shit! When they attack people die, mothers, brothers, sisters, and sons and daughters, they are all someones baby and all are American. How dare anyone make a statement like that! Shame on you Mr. President!
Posted by: 49 Pan   2010-09-22 21:05  

#8  You and your assh*le minions can absorb it, Bambi. And take the Dems with you.

We're busy trying to make enough money to pay off your wife's vacations the debt you've saddle us with,
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2010-09-22 20:25  

#7  This word, absorb.

I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: no mo uro   2010-09-22 19:26  

#6  "We" in this context means "you, the cannon fodder, the little people". Our carnage will be the backdrop to just another opportunity to blind us with his oratory skills in the soliloquies.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-09-22 19:05  

#5  Victory in war includes aspects or semblances of "NATION-BUILDING", aka "WINNING HEARTS-N-MINDS", sub-aka SHOWING DEFEATED GOVTS-SOCIETIES WHY THE VICTOR'S WAY IS BETTER OR SUPERIOR THAN WHAT EXISTED PRIOR.

NO "NATION-BUILDING" + SIMILAR > BEARING THE RISK THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR SITUATION, ETC. WHICH LED TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE WILL ONCE AGAIN RETURN.

One can give it A DIFFERENT PCORRECT-DENIABLE LABEL OR DEFINITION, ETC. but ONCE ALSO CAN'T ESCAPE FROM DOING IT.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2010-09-22 19:05  

#4  Actually the US federal government should be making the point that the retaliatory response to a new terrorist attack would be of a magnitude that no enemy could possibly 'absorb.'

Unfortunately the Afghan intervention does not help here. Western forces are in Afghanistan to 'serve the Afghan people,' everyone's is begging the Taliban to negotiate, the bigoted, murderously intolerant Afghan people get to circumscribe the limits of free speech in the US.

Talk about provocative weakness.
Posted by: Omaing White7048   2010-09-22 17:15  

#3  Why don't you and your Weather Underground pals absorb it Obama?
Posted by: Water Modem   2010-09-22 15:24  

#2  I vote the Washington liberal elite volunteer to "absorb" the attack first.

Heck, they might even learn a thing or two about the real world.
Posted by: DarthVader   2010-09-22 12:12  

#1  The biggest attack evah was not absorbed, the US Armed Forces were sent out to find the bad guys and kick their asses.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2010-09-22 12:01  

00:00