Obama’s “We Can Absorb a Terrorist Attack” Comment Drawing Fire
posted at 2:14 pm on September 22, 2010 by Howard Portnoy
Liberals may have never doubted Barack Obama’s intellectual qualifications for the office of president, but in light of his newly aired remark about the U.S. being able to “absorb a terrorist attack,” are they at least ready to concede that maybe he lacks the emotional sensitivity for the job?
The remark is one of many revealing comments made by Obama that will be documented in Bob Woodward’s book Obama’s Wars, to be released on Monday. The entire comment, made in an interview with Woodward this past June, is that the U.S. “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.”
It is no clear who Obama means by we in his comment, but I strongly doubt that he speaks for the families and friends of people brutally murdered on 9/11. I doubt for that matter that he speaks for any Americans whose lives were permanently altered by those senseless crimes on humanity.
Certainly, the remark has earned the rancor of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who took Obama to task on the FOX News program Fox and Friends this morning (see clip below), questioning whether Obama is fit to be commander-in-chief. Several bloggers have weighed in on the callous comment. One of them, Warner Todd Huston of “First Things,” expresses the view that Obama has made the nation more vulnerable by “reducing the threat status, … eliminating intelligence programs that were getting results, [and] making a mockery of our strength by using childish euphemisms such as ‘overseas contingency operations.’”
The blogger at “Ace of Spades” suggests that the comment reveals an underlying leftist belief that “we’re just going to have to be mature about mass murder.” He continues:
[T]he left is pushing this idea that we can safely “absorb” many new 9/11′s with an eye towards getting us to “accept” the greater bargain they fatuously offer—peace, and a general wind-down of post-9/11 security “overreactions” like the FBI tracking Muslims suspected of terrorist ties. If only we didn’t overreact to the occasional mass-murder, we could go about our business without war, without increased security measures, without “Islamophobia,” without the rest of it.
The offenses outlined in Woodward’s book, including the comment noted herein, do not constitute grounds for impeachment. What they do reveal, however, is a man that is severely out of touch with the viewpoints and ideals of the majority of the Americans he purportedly represents. Add to that his aloofness, his arrogance (the book notes that he has given members of his staff remedial “homework” at the end of the work day), and his unwillingness to accept criticism, no matter how constructively it is couched, and you have a pretty clear understanding of why his poll numbers are so low.
Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The citizenry as cannon fodder.
Wethal on September 22, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Didn’t John Kerry say about the same thing in 2004? Something about terrorist attacks being mostly a nuisance?
Skandia Recluse on September 22, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Obama has a mouse in his pocket and consistently get’s all we we’d up…like he gets me all we we’d up at him!!
I cannot wait until he is history!!
RoxanneH on September 22, 2010 at 2:25 PM
You know, saying that we can absorb an attack and be stronger for it sounds a bit like how a wimpy kid at school who is bullied fools himself into thinking he is stronger for not fighting back.
BohicaTwentyTwo on September 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM
John Kerry 2004
Ya, the occasional car bomb, the occasional shooting at a school or a mall, perhaps some mysterious white powder in an envelope, just a nuisance for the little people. The elites will do their best to protect the little people of course, but they will never be able to stop it all, you see.
Skandia Recluse on September 22, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Obama wants to get out of Afghanistan. He wants to get out of Iraq. And he wants to close Gitmo. But he’s had people around him telling him he can’t do those things, because if he abandons the War on Terror and there’s another major strike by radical Muslims against the U.S., he’ll own it because the public will be incensed that he let up against al Qaida, the Taliban and other known enemies.
So his statement to Woodward is basically Barack’s attempt to justify eventually doing the Afghan, Iraq and Gitmo actions by convincing the public (and himself) that he could politically survive a future terrorist attack on U.S. soil, because it’s not as big a deal as everyone made it sound after 9/11. It’s a trial balloon to see if the “Get Over It” spin will actually work, but on most planets you get lower-level officials or even ground operatives (like supporters who were standing outside of the Park51 mosque last moth) to push a claim like that. You don’t have the President of the United States casually toss out the equivalent of “Get Over It” to Bob Woodward.
It’s actually nice that Obama did do it, because he eliminates the ability of the White House to claim deniability, unless they want to accose Woodward of making up the quote (not exactly a new allegation, but the left wasn’t exactly rushing to dispute Bob’s death-bed quote from Bill Casey two decades ago). But it’s amazingly arrogant and/or stupid for a president to decide he can trot out this tactic himself and not expect to pay a price for it.
jon1979 on September 22, 2010 at 2:37 PM
Well if we do have another attack on our Republic like 9/11, we all can say that this bho would not be surprised or maybe not upset about it. Will the msm treat him like they have treated President Bush? How will the truthers deal with this? IMO, this bho and team has done more harm to our country with all they have done to see to it we might be attacked again. I pray for my country that we might survive this bho.
L
letget on September 22, 2010 at 2:51 PM
The U.S. can absorb a Biden presidency.
midlander on September 22, 2010 at 3:08 PM
Well to an extent Barry and the rest of the Dems are right. We can “absorb” a terrorist attack on the level of 9/11. But what about something on a larger scale? What if a dirty bomb or nuke went off in a major city? Would we sit there and take that or would that finally be enough to warrant a retaliation from even a wimp like Obama?
Doughboy on September 22, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Obama thinks we can absorb a terrorist attack…as long as it is the “little people” that are massacred. I strongly doubt he’d like to be on the receiving end of such an attack. I’m sure he feels that the masses are interchangeable, and if a bunch of them are killed it is acceptable. After all, what does the populace matter? There are plenty of us left to tax.
hachiban on September 22, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Chairman Mao, whom Annita Dunn admires for his philosophy, understood that China could absorb a few causalities during his ‘Great Leap Forward’.
So why is this talking point sweeping the news media so suddenly. It’s everywhere you look.
Skandia Recluse on September 22, 2010 at 4:51 PM
For a conservative you are starting to sound like a little girl.
There were people who criticized Churchill for saying that London can take it as often as he did during the war and I would hope that the US can absorb more than a few terror attacks without buckling under.
Man up and quit whining Portnoy. Most Americans can absorb it even if you want to wallow in the resulting agony.
lexhamfox on September 22, 2010 at 5:07 PM
That quote was in the context of a year into a declared state of war between Westphalian nation states. The Commonwealth nations were doing their utmost to smite the Germans while being attacked in their premier nation’s capital. German bombs in 1940 is different than 2001 attacks on US skyscrapers. If the time of attack had been different, the death toll for Americans and other nationalities would have been over 50,000. This is 20 kt nuke level of casualties.
I for one want to deter attacks on the US, not absorb them. The US military has the firepower today, without using nuclear weapons, to deter. The nation under Obama lacks the will to deter.
NaCly dog on September 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM
NaCly dog on September 22, 2010 at 5:19 PM
NO. Attacks on civilians are attacks on civilians and I have seen first hand how Britain sustains attacks from terrorists with the same defiance as they did during the war.
Of course we want to prevent attacks rather than sustain them. That is not what this is about. You don’t let terrorists win by being terrified and cowering or taking it out on residents of the same faith or ethnicity as the attackers. You remain resolute and defiant by getting on. It’s the same when the IRA or the Nazis devastate entire blocks or try to decapitate your government. Having a good military and deterrence is the reason why our enemies resort to terrorism.
Funny that you think Obama is the reason why we were attacked when Bush was President. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with national politics. It’s about national character and I am disappointed that conservatives of any stripe would whine like this.
lexhamfox on September 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Reagan said we win, they lose. I like his thoughts on security more than our dear leaders.
Kissmygrits on September 22, 2010 at 5:50 PM
I didn’t say that. Clinton’s lack of preventative action led to the attack on 9/11. He was not serious about deterrence. The 9/11 attack was set in motion while Clinton was President. The attack was on a site that had already been attacked once. Clinton had eight years of warning / prep time, and failed.
Bush was serious about deterrence. No attacks after the first one.
Obama is not serious. We’ve lost a number of citizens we didn’t have to, like at Fort Hood, or the Arkansas recruiting office. The TSA has had a lot of close calls. We can do better than have an airliner saved by a fast-acting Dutch national.
Again, Obama is not carrying out strong policies that deter. We have a government that can deter, but we don’t.
NaCly dog on September 22, 2010 at 5:51 PM
NaCly dog on September 22, 2010 at 5:51 PM
You are making a partisan argument on an argument that has nothing to do with US politics. 9-11 wasn’t Bush’s fault or Clinton’s fault and the ongoing struggle is incremental. I am all for improving security and I am willing to have longer waits for travel.
So the Ft. Hood attack was Obama’s fault… please explain.
We will have more close calls and eventually I expect the terrorists will get through and do damage. That is unfortunately, the nature of this kind of war. That is why it is important to take this kind of posture in advance of any attack.
By the way… we have been attacked several times since 9-11 despite whatever deterrance Bush had in place and I am sure the plots that have been carried out already or are being planned now have nothing to do with whoever held office at the time the plotting started.
If anything, Obama has ramped up the war in Afghanistan. Republicans criticized Obama for saying that he would attack targets in Pakistan and elsewhere were intelligence warranted the potential of killing terrorists. The drone attacks in the NW Territories have increased exponentially under Obama. What deterrence are you referring to that existed with Bush and ended when Obama took office?
You might want to support your argument with some details.
We can and must be prepared to sustain further major attacks and again it has nothing to do with your partisan fixations.
lexhamfox on September 22, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Disagree with you. Leadership shapes outcomes. You analysis on what is effective is shallow.
Is this your argument? Interesting. The facts do not support this.
On Maj Hasan: His chain of command had identified him as a problem. The FBI had intel of questionable communications. Do your own research on which President appointed the political appointee that swept the problem under a PC rug. Attorney General Holder was also needlessly obtuse.
Bush deterred nation states acting as root supporters of terrorism. For example, Iraq was actively breaking the cease fire agreed to at the end of Gulf War I by shooting at the no-fly zone patrols. Iraq were supporters of Palestinian terrorists. Etc. Etc. That problem has gone away.
Effective terrorists need the support of a nation-state. Guess which nation state is behind most terrorism today? Are we being effective with that nation? We’ve missed several good opportunities to shape a better outcome. Acting like the SOE in 1944 France was possible under Obama. He missed the chance.
Drone attacks are pin-pricks that are limited in effect. Good, but not a panacea. Obama’s ROE is the most serious sign of lack of seriousness.
FYI, operational research has some of the answer on what deters or is effective in an iterative decision process.
The traditional working American answer is firepower. As someone better than me said “As for Ahmanutjob, if he thinks about starting something, I hope he remembers “when it starts, there are no limits”.”
I am not required to teach you. Do your own research.
NaCly dog on September 22, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Can we absorb a terrorist attack?
All it took to shut down the nation’s airlines was a handful of death-wish dingdongs with knives. And remember how little it took to terrify everyone of getting an envelope with anthrax powder?
For that matter, has much of America given serious thought to the costs of a prolonged power outage, or how vulnerable our food supply is to contamination?
The Tree of Liberty is already infested with termites – drugs, disrespect for law, discord, and disease. (the anti-vax idiots are making a comeback). Get past the thick bark and there’s not that much to keep the whole thing up.
Dark-Star on September 22, 2010 at 8:25 PM
I had a cogent response disappear. It has not appeared here.
NaCly dog on September 22, 2010 at 8:38 PM
NaCly dog on September 22, 2010 at 8:38 PM
I mean this in all sincerity… I know how that feels… it’s awful.
Don’t sweat it. I know we both want the same thing.
lexhamfox on September 22, 2010 at 8:46 PM
NaCly dog: I went into the cache and found your comment from 5:51, which hadn’t published for some reason. What this the comment you were referring to at 8:38?
Howard Portnoy on September 22, 2010 at 9:13 PM
Let’s just let BarryO absorb a conservative congress in November, absorb a loss for re-election in 2012, and absorb some DOJ scrutiny after he goes away.
I for one don’t want the United States to do any more absorbing. Let the AQs and Taliban absorb some more lead, let Iran absorb some real sanctions, let Venezuela’s Chavez absorb the wrath of some very weary and hungry citizens, Kim Jong Il absorb some more of our knowing smiles, and the UN absorb much less US payola.
I’m going to let conservatives absorb my vote.
Robert17 on September 22, 2010 at 9:52 PM
I assume that this is the lost post you referred to. Unfortunately, it is cocktail time here and your cogent response deserves one in kind and will craft one later.
Regards
lexhamfox on September 22, 2010 at 9:58 PM
NaCly dog on September 22, 2010 at 7:02 PM
Two points before I sober up and provide a cogent response:
You continue to be wrong about the heads of government being culpable for Hassan. The first flags went up during the Bush. More flags went up later under Obama. I can’t find any credible source saying that an Obama appointee or DoJ official cleared the guy.
Firepower is not a credible response. You seem to be advocating a Soviet response and that has been attempted not only in AFPAK but in the larger scheme. Are you sure you want to advocate that?
I will provide more… sory.
lexhamfox on September 22, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Thank you very much.
NaCly dog on September 23, 2010 at 5:05 AM
We’ll just have to disagree.
NaCly dog on September 23, 2010 at 5:09 AM
I do not advocate Soviet response styles. What worked to deter Germany from any more aggression in 1945 is unacceptable today. Well, what they did to some Somali pirates seems to be like the USN’s past successful anti-piracy practices.
The US approach of letting our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen be ambassadors of good will is an inherently stronger approach.
The military has targeted weapons today, allowing more precise application of firepower.
Hawkdriver spoke eloquently about his frustrations with the new ROE. Look at some vid captures of weapons releases in AF. It takes a long time to get permission. One in particular is memorable. A man was placing an IED on a road. With a child near him. The Army personnel doing the targeting were very focused on not harming the child physically.
As a nation, we have a lot of options. Unfortunately, we seem to be hobbled by a State Department whose performance is under the resources provided. This is a separate discussion. The Department of the Treasury is more effective against bad actors than State.
The main factors that underpin long-term peaces between great nations are decisive victories and maritime supremacy. I’ve cited my sources on this in previous Hot Air posts. I have also stated that a démarche with a date is an unused tool. I’ve previously stated that a country without an electrical grid is not a threat to the US.
Bottom line — we have many options to deter terrorism. We are not using all of our available tools. It should be a conditioned response to any potential terrorist that attacking the US is a very bad idea. We could motivate other nation’s security forces to help preclude attacks on the US, using their self-interest as a goad.
NaCly dog on September 23, 2010 at 5:43 AM
If 9/11 is Giggles’ idea of “absorbing a terrorist attack” then I’d hate to see what his idea of a catastrophic attack is.
crazy_legs on September 23, 2010 at 8:07 AM
It takes a right bunch of churls to misinterpret the quotation that Mr Portnoy has provided
so that they try to make it sound as if Obama hadn’t explicitly said “We’ll do everything we can to prevent it”
indeed there are some whining weaklings and immature children among the Hot Air audience.
the idiot who thinks that 9/11 was a ‘catastrophic attack’ is among them.
audiculous on September 23, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Only if Obama is the one absorbing. How can he be so cavalier with our lives?
scotash on September 24, 2010 at 2:02 AM
Three words.
Overseas Contingency Operation.
Yes we can (absorb one).
AshleyTKing on September 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM