Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However Mr Obama told Woodward: "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."
OF course the Tea Pots wouldn't present the Quote in its proper context.
I guess in obama's world we can "absorb" terrorist attacks that kill 3000 innocents.
Well, Obama the legislative baby killer has a long history of disregarding the lives of innocents doesn't he? Nothing new, don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.
His phrasing is ghoulish. I think that's what most of the folks on this thread are saying.
This guy said it well.
Quote:
Look – I don’t want to make a big deal out of this. Instead, I will make a medium-sized deal out of this.
Frankly, I have concerns about a President who sees our country as a sheet of Bounty that could sop up mass casualties like a spilled Sloppy Joe on the Formica counter. That attack one talks about absorbing could result in thousands of dead folks.
Which is why it’s just creepy using the word, “absorb.”
Now, I’m thinking Obama meant it as a compliment – that we’re a strong country that can weather anything – and I agree.
BUT, “absorb?” You can’t say that crap.
It’s cold, it’s clinical – it makes Mr. Spock sound like Stuart Smiley. It reminds me of Michael Dukakis, way back in the presidential debates of 1988 – when Bernard Shaw of CNN asked him if his wife were raped and murdered, would he favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”
No one remembers anything else from that debate, because Dukakis said “no” in a manner only a passionless robot could master.
Liz Cheney should keep her mouth shut, given here husband's role in running of war game drills on the morning of 911. Throwing Dick's rear end in the slammer for life would be included in any comprehensive plan to keeping American Safe, and bringing terrorists to justice.
And make no mistake, these kinds of "comments" don't just "slip out". A couple other insiders have recently opined that the only way to "save" the Obama presidency is for another terrorist attack to occur.
And don't think that there hasn't already been consideration of, and possible planning of a false flag event to blame on Iran.
Remember, there still is a missing nuke from the Minot to Barksdale AFB unauthorized nuke transfer a while back .... and if you think that this event was just another government snafu ... I got news for you ... the SOP for handling of nukes wouldn't have allowed that to happen .... not in a Million years. Several people associated with that are now dead ... accidents and so forth ... yeah ... accidents.
If anyone wants to get their country back from these criminals now in charge, best they wake up to the whole truth, and realize that the entire gaggle of them ... Bush, Obama, and all of their closest advisors are the real enemies of this country ..
And the first order of business is to expose those who were involved with 911. We will never get our country back so long as those criminals remain unexposed and unpunished.
Time for the American people to finally put 2 and 2 together and agree that it equals 4.
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."
The article does not provide any details on what led Obama to make the statement. What if Woodward had asked Obama if the country could absorb another attack? Or what would be the ramifications on the country if it is attacked again? Or will the U.S resolve against terrorism collapse if we are attacked again? Without knowing the complete conversation there is no way to perform the kind of analysis that some like the author of the Foundry article and Liz Cheney are prone to do.
I think the release of the selected quotes are doing just what the author and publisher want, which is to drive up sales of the book.
But the full context of the quote, from page 363 of Woodward's book, shows very clearly that the criticism is thoroughly bogus. Before the quote, Woodward is discussing how counter-terror officials are preparing for a crude nuclear attack. Woodward then writes:
During my Oval Office inteview with the President, Obama volunteers some extended thoughts about terrorism. "I said very early on, as a Senator and continue to believe, as a presidential candidate and now as president, that we can absorb a terrorist attack. We will do everything we can to prevent it. but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever, that ever took place on our soil, we absorbed it, and we are stronger. This is a strong, powerful country that we live in, and our people are incredibly resilient." Then he addressed his big concern. "A potential game changer would be a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, blowing up a major American city. Or a weapon of mass destruction in a major American city. and so when I go down on the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that's one area where you can't afford any mistakes. And so right away, coming in, we said, how are we going to start ramping up and putting that at the center of a lot of our national security discussion? Making sure that that occurence, even if remote, never happens."
I asked an administration official familiar with the interview to provide me with context. The president was talking with Woodward about the national-security threats he faced upon becoming president—the possible dangers and the fact that the terrorists had to be right only once, whereas the president and his team had to be right every time.
This led the president to talk about the need to prioritize. Objectively, the president said, you would want to be able to stop every attack, but a president has to prioritize. So what does the president put at the top of the danger list? A nuclear weapon or a weapon of mass destruction. Why? Because—and here's where the quote in question comes in—as bad as 9/11 was, the United States was not crippled. A nuclear attack or weapon of mass destruction, however, would be a "game changer," to use a popular cliché.
This line of reasoning is identical to what I heard regularly when I covered the Bush White House. Moreover, it was the realism of Liz Cheney's father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said: "We have to assume there will be more attacks. And for the first time in our history, we will probably suffer more casualties here at home in America than will our troops overseas."
well, I am NO FAN of Obama, but he does not owe us an explanation for one simple reason.
The book that was written discussed secret & classified meetings. I think that the book writer should be the one whose head needs to roll. I don't care who the POTUS is, classified briefings are not to be discussed, and defintely not written in a book. Shame on him, and whoever else is involved in this unpatriotic move
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
