PDA

View Full Version : Obama: US could absorb another terrorist attack



namvet
09-22-2010, 12:51 PM
any kind including nuke??? he's lost his mind. citing acceptable causalities. his way of getting re elected????

Obama To Woodward: “We Can Absorb” Another Terrorist Attack


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.”


source (http://www.bucksright.com/obama-to-woodward-we-can-absorb-another-terrorist-attack-6125)

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 12:59 PM
I agree. The United States is strong regardless of the bed wetters quivering in fear of our enemy.

namvet
09-22-2010, 01:01 PM
he'll probably tell ATC which targets to hit

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 01:03 PM
I agree. The United States is strong regardless of the bed wetters quivering in fear of our enemy.

I'm not so concerned with them as I am with all those killed and the agony that their surviving loved ones experience. Then again I guess you and I just don't have the same priorities.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 01:04 PM
I'm not so concerned with them as I am with all those killed and the agony that their surviving loved ones experience. Then again I guess you and I just don't have the same priorities.

So you don't think America is strong?

I'm not sure what you are talking about, here.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 01:07 PM
So you don't think America is strong?

I'm not sure what you are talking about, here.

I'm on the side of having to absorb another attack in order to validate the strength or weakness of America. It's that forest and trees thing that you seem to have so much difficulty with. Absorbing another attack is irrelevent when the intelligence effort is weak enough to allow another attack.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 01:09 PM
I'm on the side of having to absorb another attack in order to validate the strength or weakness of America. It's that forest and trees thing that you seem to have so much difficulty with. Absorbing another attack is irrelevent when the intelligence effort is weak enough to allow another attack.


Ah. Non-sequitur.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 01:11 PM
Ah. Non-sequitur.

Nope, it is the whole point. A country is only as strong as it's weakest link and absorbing another attack would indicate weak intelligence and weak intelligence loses wars and leads to the death of people who would otherwise be going about their lives.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 01:14 PM
Nope, it is the whole point. A country is only as strong as it's weakest link and absorbing another attack would indicate weak intelligence and weak intelligence loses wars and leads to the death of people who would otherwise be going about their lives.

OK, so you don't think we are strong enough to absorb another attack.

I disagree.

Molon Labe
09-22-2010, 01:36 PM
Nope, it is the whole point. A country is only as strong as it's weakest link and absorbing another attack would indicate weak intelligence and weak intelligence loses wars and leads to the death of people who would otherwise be going about their lives.

If you read the 9-11 commission, some in the intelligence community saw the signs. It was the broken communication process and the fact that no one would listen that was the problem.
IMO If it were to happen again, then we'd better think beyond intelligence failures.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 01:39 PM
If you read the 9-11 commission, some in the intelligence community saw the signs. It was the broken communication process and the fact that no one would listen that was the problem.
IMO If it were to happen again, then we'd better think beyond intelligence failures.

Like what?

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 01:41 PM
OK, so you don't think we are strong enough to absorb another attack.

I disagree.


While we might be strong enough to absorb another attack, the attitude of the quote seems that he is willing to accept another attack.

It CERTAINLY does not convey the sense of urgency needed to close the opportunities for such an attack.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 01:56 PM
While we might be strong enough to absorb another attack, the attitude of the quote seems that he is willing to accept another attack.

It must have been the "we'll do everything we can" part.


It CERTAINLY does not convey the sense of urgency needed to close the opportunities for such an attack.

There is no context at all to the quote (this accepts the veracity of the reporting). It is naked. You can read whatever you want into it.

FlaGator
09-22-2010, 01:56 PM
OK, so you don't think we are strong enough to absorb another attack.

I disagree.

Do you like putting words in to my mouth? I didn't say what you claim I said.

We can absorb it, but that doesn't imply that we are strong. It implies that as a country we are resilient. If we are truly a strong country then we wouldn't have to absorb; it we would stop it before it happened. The question is how many attacks have we a repelled by having good intelligence? Since none have happened then we can never know how coastly an attack would have been. This is a good thing.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 02:07 PM
It must have been the "we'll do everything we can" part.



There is no context at all to the quote (this accepts the veracity of the reporting). It is naked. You can read whatever you want into it.


I heard a longer version on Television - it was just the feeling I got. The "we'll do everything we can" part was almost a throw-away line.

I'll readily admit that I am jaded against this man and that THIS is simply my opinion. So you may have a point on this particular item.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 02:14 PM
I think this pretty much describes my feelings on the subject.



A little context here. The Obama and the leftist media will attempt to spin this as merely descriptive, and as a tribute to America's resiliency. After all -- we did survive 9/11, didn't we? (Well, actually, 2996 of us did not survive 9/11, but apart from them, we survived.)

This is merely Obama talking up America's capacity to endure, they will say.

But it's not. This is a meme that has been circulating on the left for quite a while, usually secretly and among themselves only, but sometimes, ill-advisedly, being pushed out into public as a trial balloon.

The idea, of course, is that America overreacted to 9/11, and 50,000 people die every year in car crashes, and we don't freak out about that, do we? No, we accept these as acceptable losses in the bigger picture (that is, we want to drive places) and we take the exchange. We drive, some of us will die. Sound bargain.

That's the killer notion here -- the idea of bargain. Of what is being exchanged for these deaths. In the case of automobile collisions, well, sure, we have mobility and freedom. That's something.

But the 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 problem, you see, is primarily within us, those being targeted for murder. If only we understood that this was a good bargain in exchange for living in a multicultural country and global economy, then we could be good citizens of the world and not lash out so terribly and uselessly when some of the more aggressive proponents of multiculturalism blow up a few of our buildings.


http://minx.cc/?post=306000

Molon Labe
09-22-2010, 02:18 PM
I'm not so concerned with them as I am with all those killed and the agony that their surviving loved ones experience. Then again I guess you and I just don't have the same priorities.

That's the brunt of it for me too. Of course America will survive but no one wants to go through it again to prove it.


Like what?

Our foreign policy for starters, but I'm in the minority on that one.

Jfor
09-22-2010, 02:25 PM
Another largescale terror attack on our country and our already fragile economy will fail.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 02:26 PM
I think this pretty much describes my feelings on the subject.

An incredible piece.


A little context here. The Obama and the leftist media will attempt to spin this as merely descriptive, and as a tribute to America's resiliency. After all -- we did survive 9/11, didn't we? (Well, actually, 2996 of us did not survive 9/11, but apart from them, we survived.)

This is merely Obama talking up America's capacity to endure, they will say.

Occam's Razor and all that, dude. But I understand the need to pre-empt a sane reading of the quote.


But it's not. This is a meme that has been circulating on the left for quite a while, usually secretly and among themselves only, but sometimes, ill-advisedly, being pushed out into public as a trial balloon.

The idea, of course, is that America overreacted to 9/11, and 50,000 people die every year in car crashes, and we don't freak out about that, do we? No, we accept these as acceptable losses in the bigger picture (that is, we want to drive places) and we take the exchange. We drive, some of us will die. Sound bargain.

You've got to be kidding me. Not sure about the "left" (whatever that is ... probably just whoever disagrees with the author or some fantasy construct but whatever) but the criticism against the Bush Administration's actions I have heard had nothing to do with overreaction. I have also not heard any serious (or otherwise) discussion that 9/11 style attacks can be accomodated in the same way as car accidents. If anything, it was the Right and Bush defenders that downplayed the deaths in Iraq with talk of how many were killed in any given weekend in LA or DC or Detroit.


That's the killer notion here -- the idea of bargain. Of what is being exchanged for these deaths. In the case of automobile collisions, well, sure, we have mobility and freedom. That's something.

There is no bargain except in the author's fevered imagination.


But the 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 problem, you see, is primarily within us, those being targeted for murder. If only we understood that this was a good bargain in exchange for living in a multicultural country and global economy, then we could be good citizens of the world and not lash out so terribly and uselessly when some of the more aggressive proponents of multiculturalism blow up a few of our buildings.

Good Lord.

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 02:38 PM
Nope, it is the whole point. A country is only as strong as it's weakest link

what?!


sound the alarms!!



i....detect......SOCIALISM...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/images/obamaSOCIALIST.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 02:41 PM
The most powerful and wealthy empire in the history of the world can withstand some fire-throwing radicals?

Well of course. But...he ACTUALLY SAID THAT?!

*a million conservatives shit their pants*

Apache
09-22-2010, 02:54 PM
what?!


sound the alarms!!



i....detect......SOCIALISM...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/images/obamaSOCIALIST.jpg

You practice at being this stupid, don't you?

Apache
09-22-2010, 02:55 PM
The most powerful and wealthy empire in the history of the world can withstand some fire-throwing radicals?

Well of course. But...he ACTUALLY SAID THAT?!

*a million conservatives shit their pants*

So now we're an "empire"...:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 03:02 PM
In terms of global influence, military power, colonial expansion, military victories, wealth, the number of nations we have troops stationed in, and our status as Global Police of the Entire-Planet-War-On-Terror does kind of hint of imperialism, despite what your websters dictionary may say

Apache
09-22-2010, 03:11 PM
In terms of global influence, military power, colonial expansion, military victories, wealth, the number of nations we have troops stationed in, and our status as Global Police of the Entire-Planet-War-On-Terror does kind of hint of imperialism, despite what your websters dictionary may say

Yeah yeah, more America bad...:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 03:15 PM
You are inserting the negative connotation. The Roman Empire was considered a great acheivement of mankind.

This isn't the 18th century anymore buddy. I'm merely asserting we aren't the ragtag group of revolutionary writers, farmers, and slaves living in small communities and seeking isolationism anymore.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 03:18 PM
What concerns me FAR more than this quote is where he seems to be placing politics ahead of our soldiers and victory in Afghanistan. He insisted on a timetable DESPITE the advice of nearly everyone in the military because he didn't want to "lose the whole Democrat party".

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 03:21 PM
Lol did you just watch Megyn Kelly's hard hitting reporting about a Thing a guy wrote in a book?

Wei Wu Wei
09-22-2010, 03:22 PM
Also you're delusional if you think any troops in history were ever placed ahead of politics. Every troop death is the result of politics.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 03:35 PM
What concerns me FAR more than this quote is where he seems to be placing politics ahead of our soldiers and victory in Afghanistan. He insisted on a timetable DESPITE the advice of nearly everyone in the military because he didn't want to "lose the whole Democrat [sic] party".

You cannot prosecute a military conflict without congressional (or popular) support.

Molon Labe
09-22-2010, 03:38 PM
You cannot prosecute a military conflict without congressional (or popular) support.

LOL! That's rich! The Bush and Obama administrations have been doing pretty well without that for some time now.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 03:39 PM
LOL! That's rich! The Bush and Obama administrations have been doing pretty well without that for some time now.

Congress has yet to de-fund the effort.

Molon Labe
09-22-2010, 04:01 PM
Congress has yet to de-fund the effort.

Let's see....The last time some big legislation got defanged by Congress and voted down, the Auto industry got alot of goodies anyway by way of Bush's Executive signing statements and orders and all sorts of new little tricks invented out of thin air. I'm pretty confident that our current POTUS learned alot and wouldn't hesitate to figure out some way to get the job done. Besides the current crop of Congress isn't "defunding" anything. There's too much aversion to political suicide still there.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 04:02 PM
You cannot prosecute a military conflict without congressional (or popular) support.

So what the Democrats did to Bush and the war effort back then was treason???

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 04:05 PM
So what the Democrats did to Bush and the war effort back then was treason???

What did they do?

Apache
09-22-2010, 04:23 PM
You are inserting the negative connotation. The Roman Empire was considered a great acheivement of mankind.

This isn't the 18th century anymore buddy. I'm merely asserting we aren't the ragtag group of revolutionary writers, farmers, and slaves living in small communities and seeking isolationism anymore.

Its your story, you tell it...

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 04:32 PM
What did they do?

Undermined political support for the war.

Nubs
09-22-2010, 04:58 PM
Absorb another attack? sure we can but why should we have to??? It is Barry's f*cking job to do his damnest that it does not happen.

Arroyo_Doble
09-22-2010, 05:05 PM
Undermined political support for the war.

The authority of our government is derived through the political will of the governed. Since we are a quasi-democratic state, decisions over how we will commit our military will necessarily be political. Debating military conflict, and whether or not we should engage in it, is a legitimate exercise. We are not a dictatorship and the Congress did not declare war nor give the Executive dictatorial powers. If Congress didn't want debate, they should have attempted to pass another version of the Sedition Act and thrown would be Eugene Debs's in jail.

Nubs
09-22-2010, 05:14 PM
The authority of our government is derived through the political will of the governed. Since we are a quasi-democratic state, decisions over how we will commit our military will necessarily be political. Debating military conflict, and whether or not we should engage in it, is a legitimate exercise. We are not a dictatorship and the Congress did not declare war nor give the Executive dictatorial powers. If Congress didn't want debate, they should have attempted to pass another version of the Sedition Act and thrown would be Eugene Debs's in jail.

However, until recently, there was no need to debate the response to a terrorist event. Did we debate bombing Quadaffi?? No. We bombed him, killed his son, and he went away for 20 years. Now with an appeaser and relativist in office, Quadaffi is beginning to return to his ways of old. I am absolutley positive now Obama new about the Pan Am bomber trade and approved of it as means to provide "Healing" in the Arab world.

In the off chance I die in a terrosist attack, I hope it will be used for more than one of Barry's "teachable" moments.

Bailey
09-22-2010, 05:17 PM
However, until recently, there was no need to debate the response to a terrorist event. Did we debate bombing Quadaffi?? No. We bombed him, killed his son, and he went away for 20 years. Now with an appeaser and relativist in office, Quadaffi is beginning to return to his ways of old. I am absolutley positive now Obama new about the Pan Am bomber trade and approved of it as means to provide "Healing" in the Arab world.

In the off chance I die in a terrosist attack, I hope it will be used for more than one of Barry's "teachable" moments.



Dont mean to pick a nit but wasnt it his Daughter that got killed?


(sorry had a Lindanumbers moment where I had to stick my nose into anothers post)

lacarnut
09-22-2010, 05:21 PM
I agree. The United States is strong regardless of the bed wetters quivering in fear of our enemy.

The US could survive if the President was assassinated by some left wing nut. However, do you want to go there DUMB ASS?

Constitutionally Speaking
09-22-2010, 06:46 PM
What did they do?

They undermined popular and political support for the war.

SarasotaRepub
09-22-2010, 07:57 PM
The most powerful and wealthy empire in the history of the world can withstand some fire-throwing radicals?

Well of course. But...he ACTUALLY SAID THAT?!

*a million conservatives shit their pants*

Ahhhh...if only we were an Empire!!!

And Wei, I think the muzzie POS that caused 9/11 were a tad more than "fire-throwing radicals". JHC, grow up. :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
09-23-2010, 02:16 AM
While we might be strong enough to absorb another attack, the attitude of the quote seems that he is willing to accept another attack.

It CERTAINLY does not convey the sense of urgency needed to close the opportunities for such an attack.
I agree. I take it as Obama saying that if we get attacked again, he'll just go, "meh, we'll get over it" and then try to apologize to the attackers for anything we might have done to offend them. Are we strong enough as a people? I believe we are, however, just like in the late 70's our moral is at a real low point and we don't have the same political leadership we did on 9/11 who would be willing to raise our spirits.

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 09:56 AM
I agree. The United States is strong regardless of the bed wetters quivering in fear of our enemy.

I keep seeing this meme..are you seriously that stupid to think that there "is no terrorist threat"? If so, I invite you to come to New York and say that. :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 09:58 AM
I'd say in all honesty...that another attack like 9/11 will accomplish the same effect that Yamamoto envisaged after Dec 7.

Arroyo_Doble
09-23-2010, 09:59 AM
I'd say in all honesty...that another attack like 9/11 will accomplish the same effect that Yamamoto envisaged after Dec 7.

I thought 9/11 would.

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 10:01 AM
I thought 9/11 would.

It did...for all of two weeks. Then the lunatic left took over, and eight years of abuse and venom hurled at the man who did his best to protect you resulted. You, Doblo, and others like you are responsible.

Arroyo_Doble
09-23-2010, 10:03 AM
It did...for all of two weeks. Then the lunatic left took over, and eight years of abuse and venom hurled at the man who did his best to protect you resulted. You, Doblo, and others like you are responsible.

What color is the sky in your world?

Sonnabend
09-23-2010, 10:10 AM
What color is the sky in your world?

Well seeing as it's close to midnight here, pitch black with stars. We get very little sunshine at this hour....:rolleyes:

Zathras
09-23-2010, 10:10 AM
What color is the sky in your world?

In Sonna's world, along with most normal people, it's blue...unlike yours, like all lefties, which changes depending on what illicit drugs you've ingested.

Arroyo_Doble
09-23-2010, 10:20 AM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/9/13/d2a250b3-fa38-4c74-a021-47f1b2aa46a9.gif

Fixed for accuracy.

CueSi
09-23-2010, 10:24 AM
Absorb another attack? sure we can but why should we have to??? It is Barry's f*cking job to do his damnest that it does not happen.

This. Oh, Christ this. . . I don't think it can be said any clearer than that.

~QC

Molon Labe
09-23-2010, 12:14 PM
I'd say in all honesty...that another attack like 9/11 will accomplish the same effect that Yamamoto envisaged after Dec 7.

same effect on who?

Nubs
09-23-2010, 12:43 PM
same effect on who?

I believe Sonna is referring to Yamato's observation of the effect of "waking the sleeping giant".

However, if the total cost of 9/11 approaches 2 trillion and if log based extrapolation is valid for increased level of weapons employed. A nuclear strike on a large US city is enough to end the US as we know it.