Posted on Thursday, 23rd September 2010 by Patrick Dorwin
“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.”
- President Barack Hussein Obama
Posted in Home | Comments (20) |
20 Responses to “Your thoughts?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:46 am
Heh.
Although Obama should not have said it OUT LOUD, the statement is unexceptionable. In fact, we CAN absorb another attack.
He should not have allowed for the possibility-but anyone with an IQ above room temperature would know that another attack IS possible, unless the US adopts security procedures which would make Big Brother look like a kindergarten teacher.
September 23rd, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I’ll just be glad when this emo-kid is fired.
September 23rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
It’s a true statement that we did absorb the attack, but it is still a serious wound to a lot of folks who lost friends and family, either on 9/11 or in subsequent military action.
But are we stronger? How do you define that?
Economically? Immediately after, our economy took a hit it rallied for several years, but then fell into recession the last couple years; the recovery from which has been stubborn. Most people agree that it was the mismanagement of the housing and lending industries that had a major effect…not terrorism.
Domestic security? I think redefining our approach to domestic security was long overdue. The Dept. of Homeland Security, another monstrous bureaucracy, was created. Like most federal endeavors, it is far from efficient; however, it has made strides to consolidate efforts into the primary goal of safeguarding the US.
Personal freedoms? Yes it did grant the G greater authority to act quickly in responding to actionable intelligence. It was an uncharacteristically swift response from the US Govt to overcome hurdles faced by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Many people decried the Patriot Act. But what was once high-pitched screams of protest against Bush, have simply faded to sighs of disappointment against Obama. Apparently, opposition to the Patriot Act was just another partisan attack, just like the anti-war protesting that followed political preference, not principled positions.
Is it our resolve? I don’t know. To say our resolve is stronger, greater than it once was suggests that we could unite in action. Politically, we are just as divided, if not more so, than we were under Bush. President Obama was sold to us as the great uniter, but has proven to be anything but. In fact, his negative rhetoric aimed not just at political opponents but whole classes of Americans is far stronger than anything Bush ever voiced.
So, how are we stronger today than we were 4 years ago? 10 years ago?
September 23rd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Given the fact that the Marxist-in-Chief is in the process of “fundamentally transforming this country”, I’d say we’re still under attack. REAL Americans are about to change that in November.
September 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm
While I agree that we’re certainly capable (as evidenced by the fact that the country is still going “relatively” strong since 9/11) I think there are around 3,000 families that would disagree about our ability to “absorb” an attack.
It’s just sickening to go from, “We are going to seek them out and bring them to justice” and taking the fight to our enemies to, “We’ll try to stop it, but if our talking and conversing doesn’t work, we can deal with losing another 3,000 Americans.”
Man, can this guy land on the right side of ONE issue please? Taking a tough stand on preventing the murder of our citizens rather than dealing with the aftermath seems like a no-brainer…even when the guy in charge is a no-brainer.
September 23rd, 2010 at 2:55 pm
@Kevinbehringer…
It’s just sickening to go from, “We are going to seek them out and bring them to justice” and taking the fight to our enemies to, “We’ll try to stop it, but if our talking and conversing doesn’t work, we can deal with losing another 3,000 Americans.”
Excellent point.
September 23rd, 2010 at 3:53 pm
We can absorb another attack if all the victims are Obots and liberal elitists.
September 23rd, 2010 at 4:17 pm
It makes me want to punch him in the face. After 9/11 we got this ” We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail. Thank you. May God continue to bless America. ” — George W. Bush Oct. 7, 2001. So if we get another major terrorist attack is he going to tell the American people and the family of those that died ” Its okay we can absorb this”??
September 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
“Obama wants us to have that European view that terrorism is going to happen and we shouldn’t really bother trying to stop it but merely clean up after it does.” buzzion@ace of spades HQ.
How can this fool be on the wrong side of every issue. Once again, a hearty round of applause to those who thought that McCain was not deserving of your vote.
September 23rd, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Absorb:
a fabric that absorbs sweat; The walls are made of a material that absorbs sound; absorbing heat from the sun; She is good at absorbing information; He has retained the values that he absorbed as a young man; a country that has absorbed many immigrants; smaller countries invaded and absorbed by bigger ones; His interest in photography absorbs him completely; I was so absorbed by her story that I lost track of time.
BHO was so absorbed by his reflection that he lost sight of what it means to be a Commander in Chief. He didn’t misspeak, he means another attack generates more victory mosques, more movement towards Sharia - that’s how he intends for us to absorb an attack….
September 23rd, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Roland, DHS is intrusive, incompetent, and largely unnecessary. That’s because GWBush pussyfooted instead of simply naming the beast: young single Arab males with Muslim faith.
Let’s not shilly-shally around here. DHS is taking gargantuan mission-creep steps and ID’ng PRO-LIFERS as ‘potential terrorists.’
Horsehockey. It should be dismantled beginning with airport “security” and replaced with ACTUAL airport security: Mossad-trained screeners who will not stop my mother for carrying toothpaste.
Statism, whether “conservative” or not, is still Statism.
September 23rd, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Targeting pro-lifers, TEA partiers or other groups because they cut against the grain of the current Presidential administration is a matter of policy and management, or more accurately put, bad policy and mismanagement. Napolitano’s statements reflect what a boob she is…not the institutional mentality. It’s also a reflection of the rank amateur that is our CINC.
Run-of-the-mill pro-life groups don’t get any attention from DHS. However, there are radical elements out there and many people believe there are networks of support for all the “lone actors” who kill like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi and James Kopp. There are radical aspects to many movements that also encompass many more reasonable folks. It’s the radicals that should get and do get the attention.
I don’t disagree with your assessment of the TSA arm of DHS. There is a lot to be learned from Israeli security and intelligence professionals. Prior to 9/11 and the invention of DHS, when you mention “security officer” to someone they inevitably envisioned a largely unprofessional, untrained, lightly or completely uneducated mouth-breather or retiree turned night watchman. The events of 9/11, countless school and workplace shootings and other large scale domestic events have changed our view (or should have) of the security sector.
DHS is more than the TSA. It now encompasses the Secret Service, Customs, Border Patrol, Coast Guard and the Federal Air Marshals (part of TSA). Surely you aren’t arguing that those agencies are “largely unnecessary”…or are you?
Part of DHS’ mission was to bring these separate agencies into one house in order to take a more unified approach to domestic security. Apparently you missed it the first time, I did say that it is a monstrous, inefficient bureaucracy…which is typical for the Fed.
September 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 pm
[...] Patrick asks: Your Thoughts? [...]
September 23rd, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I had too many responses to this. So, I posted a blog instead.
September 24th, 2010 at 5:20 am
Roland, they are also unionized. That is the backbone of Federal inefficiency, a federal labor union.
September 24th, 2010 at 8:28 am
If we follow the “we can absorb another attack” to its conclusion, we should consider that once Iran builds nuclear weapons it will almost certainly supply them to terrorist organizations.
And so the question is, can we absorb a nuclear explosion in New York Harbor? On a boat in the Potomac?
Even if all President Obama cares about is the survival of his presidency, does he think that would survive a nuclear attack?
September 24th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Umnnhhh….perhaps my tone was a bit sharp. Too much Gummint, not enough time…
Your analysis (too big) is correct. And while the agencies that compose DHS’s payroll are all necessary (we can argue about “how much cost”), I’m inclined to look hard at the number of bodies ‘in the middle’ of the mess that is DHS.
In other words, while DHS should be built for light-footed rapid action based on intel, I suspect that it is becoming leaden, burdened, and comprised of non-thinking droids.
As to the abortion activists: if there is a “network” of support for killers such as Rudolph and Kopp, it sure as Hell isn’t large, nor visible. SPLC may claim that there are ‘networks,’ but SPLC has all the credibility of …..Obama….for the last 10 years.
Along that line, it is curious, no?, that all those “militia” groups haven’t started bombing, pillaging, raping, and shooting. If SPLC and the Domestic Crisis-Mongers (whose jobs depend on terrorizing the population, remember) were right in the first place, there should have been quite a few revolutionary wars fought in the last 15 months.
*crickets*.
Scare-mongering is not limited to Democrat Social Security lies.
September 24th, 2010 at 9:04 am
I believe Obama said that a nuclear attack against us would be a “game changer.” Maybe by that he meant that he would change into a hawk. To me, an attack like that would be a “game ender” in my mind.
@sub2change…I read your comments and this one stood out to me as particularly good:
I can’t think of a single way to spin this that makes Barack Obama appear to be in control, prepared, or effective.
According to advance leaks of the revelations published in Bob Woodward’s soon-to-be-released book, “Obama’s Wars,” it’s pretty clear that Obama’s method is similar to Bob and Doug MacKenzie’s approach to driving down an icy hill:
“No point in steering now, eh?”
September 24th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I’m not disagreeing with you d29…
While I think Eric Rudolph operated with a network of support, both in the planning and fugitive-from-justice phases of his incidents…I’m not saying it’s a large network. But it is just one of many radical groups. I think dangerous groups, both foreign and domestic, should be monitored.
Don’t get me started on the SPLC. They publish a monthly magazine called “The Intelligence Report” that purports to be a one-stop information source on domestic terror. They love to intersperse pictures of criminals, racist groups and radicals from the far right fringe in with non-fringe people on the political right. In reality, it is a politically partisan propaganda rag.
In previous writings, the SPLC defines “Patriots” as racist hate-mongers becoming more vocal simply because of their inability to deal with the way the country is changing. With their coverage of the TEA Party groups and Minutemen border watch groups, they take every opportunity to smear what those folks believe.
No better evidence of their tactic can be found than in a recent feature entitled “The Enablers.” They targeted Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn), calling her an enabler of the “Patriot Movement,” a phenomenon they describe as renewed radicalism after the election of Barack Obama.
What damning evidence does the SPLC assert against Rep. Bachmann?
Bachmann has even issued a call to arms, of sorts, against the president’s proposal to “cap and trade” greenhouse gas emissions. “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back,” she was reported as saying on a radio show. Her office later said she was speaking metaphorically.
Give me a fu@#ing break. Suggesting that Bachmann was somehow talking in thinly veiled code, calling “Patriots” to arms is absurd. There exists no better evidence that the SPLC is politically partisan. As you’ve said, dad29, were we to believe the SPLC, a revolutionary war would have broken out sometime in 2009.
As is written about in this column by J. Matt Barber, the Southern Poverty Law Center went from a principled group documenting and tracking real, active hate groups to a fear-mongering propaganda machine bent on softening the will of mainstream Conservatives by lumping them in with extremists.
September 25th, 2010 at 12:48 am
TSA of course stands for Too Stupid for Arby’s.