In Which I Defend Barack Obama’s Statement On A Potential Terrorist Attack
I hope that everyone knows that I am not an Obama fan, but that I will play fair with the man when I think he has been wrongly jumped on by folks. This is one of those times.
"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."
Now please note – Obama is not saying he wants another 9/11. In fact, he says he wants to avoid one and that every effort is being made to prevent one. But he is right – it is possible that, despite every effort, we will face a big terrorist attack. We’ve dodged the bullet a couple of times in the past year, but one of these days we won’t do so – that is just a common-sense reading of the odds. When we do get hit with another big one, we will absorb it and we will unite like after 9/11 and we will be stronger – and perhaps this time we will stay united. I believe that, just as Barack Obama believes that – and I believe that to be the case even in the event that the attack were to take out the sitting President and/or other senior leaders of our government.
And while I don’t know that he would have phrased his answer in the same way, I believe that George W. Bush would have answered that question the same way. For that matter, I believe Ronald Reagan would have answered that question in a similar manner.
After all, we are America. Even when it seems we’ve been dealt a knock-out blow, we get back up, we fight, and we win. Andwhilemanyofmyfriendsontheright might want to take issue with the quote, none of them believe differently about the resilience of our nation. I believe that this time they should take that quote at face value, and not read into it a willingness to sacrifice American citizens to terrorism.
1
the problem is zero has no credibility as far as many are concerned.
his views have been clearly shown to be so far left, so outside the realm of common sense and so aligned with the ridiculous and insulated views of the ivory tower elites that its not a stretch to think he was thinking exactly that.
ace said it best:
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.
They will spin this, but this is what Obama is getting at, what the left is constantly saying, but which leftist politicians are careful never to say publicly: for the good of relations with the Muslim world we’re just going to have to be mature about mass murder.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at September 22, 2010 07:04 PM (60WiD)
2
The photos of cheerful grinning students on the 911 Day of Service website show off the new image of the day. Not a day when we mourn or grieve. Not a day when we look east in anger at those who murdered our friends and family. Not a day when we remember bodies falling from the upper stories as ordinary men and women whose only crime was going to work on the wrong day chose to jump, rather than burn to death. Not a day when we remember the ash coating downtown Manhattan, the scraps of burned paper that once used to be ordinary memos and letters, the ash that once used to be human skin.
The new 9/11 is to be a day full of smiles.
thats from sultan kinish http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/09/service-or-sacrifice.html
why would they/he want to remake sept. 11?
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at September 22, 2010 08:32 PM (60WiD)
3
As much as I like and respect Ace, I think his analysis is wrong -- every bit as wrong as I believe the effort to re-brand 9/11 is.
But Obama happens to have gotten this one right.
And remember the definitions of success and failure under which we have had to operate in the age of terrorism.
For the terrorists, succeeding in one attempt out of 100 is success, even if 99 other attempts are thwarted by US intelligence, defense, and law enforcement. For us, anything less than 100% success in stopping terrorist attacks constitutes a failure -- and the odds are that we will miss one, no matter how good our anti-terrorism efforts are. We either accept that such a failure will happen, take the losses that come a terrorist attack, and come back stronger than we were before, or the terrorists succeed in furthering their ultimate goal of weakening America, not merely in killing Americans.
6
I respectfully disagree. Rumcrock is on to something, getting "us" to concede the point "that we can survive another terrorist attack", is little more then (owing to who is issuing this statement, and his track record, the track record of his followers -the progressives-, the agenda(s) overtly and covertly in place to change our mindset toward Islam and all it embraces) setting us up for even more appeasement toward Islam and its agents.
Frankly, I would be almost as upset at GWB (or anyone else for that matter) had he said the same thing in the same manner.
Posted by: Guy S at September 23, 2010 07:23 PM (Xtj0/)
7
We'll have to agree to disagree -- especially with the context added in the post on the quote further up the food chain.
In Which I Defend Barack Obama’s Statement On A Potential Terrorist Attack
I hope that everyone knows that I am not an Obama fan, but that I will play fair with the man when I think he has been wrongly jumped on by folks. This is one of those times.
Bob Woodward quotes Barack Obama as follows: Now please note – Obama is not saying he wants another 9/11. In fact, he says he wants to avoid one and that every effort is being made to prevent one. But he is right – it is possible that, despite every effort, we will face a big terrorist attack. We’ve dodged the bullet a couple of times in the past year, but one of these days we won’t do so – that is just a common-sense reading of the odds. When we do get hit with another big one, we will absorb it and we will unite like after 9/11 and we will be stronger – and perhaps this time we will stay united. I believe that, just as Barack Obama believes that – and I believe that to be the case even in the event that the attack were to take out the sitting President and/or other senior leaders of our government. And while I don’t know that he would have phrased his answer in the same way, I believe that George W. Bush would have answered that question the same way. For that matter, I believe Ronald Reagan would have answered that question in a similar manner. After all, we are America. Even when it seems we’ve been dealt a knock-out blow, we get back up, we fight, and we win. And while many of my friends on the right might want to take issue with the quote, none of them believe differently about the resilience of our nation. I believe that this time they should take that quote at face value, and not read into it a willingness to sacrifice American citizens to terrorism.Posted by: Greg at 04:02 PM
Comments
his views have been clearly shown to be so far left, so outside the realm of common sense and so aligned with the ridiculous and insulated views of the ivory tower elites that its not a stretch to think he was thinking exactly that.
ace said it best:
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.
They will spin this, but this is what Obama is getting at, what the left is constantly saying, but which leftist politicians are careful never to say publicly: for the good of relations with the Muslim world we’re just going to have to be mature about mass murder.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at September 22, 2010 07:04 PM (60WiD)
The new 9/11 is to be a day full of smiles.
thats from sultan kinish http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/09/service-or-sacrifice.html
why would they/he want to remake sept. 11?
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at September 22, 2010 08:32 PM (60WiD)
But Obama happens to have gotten this one right.
And remember the definitions of success and failure under which we have had to operate in the age of terrorism.
For the terrorists, succeeding in one attempt out of 100 is success, even if 99 other attempts are thwarted by US intelligence, defense, and law enforcement. For us, anything less than 100% success in stopping terrorist attacks constitutes a failure -- and the odds are that we will miss one, no matter how good our anti-terrorism efforts are. We either accept that such a failure will happen, take the losses that come a terrorist attack, and come back stronger than we were before, or the terrorists succeed in furthering their ultimate goal of weakening America, not merely in killing Americans.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 22, 2010 09:16 PM (RTH25)
except that since I dont like or trust obama I am not willing to take what HE says at face value.
at face value you are right.
me and you have clarity.
Posted by: rumcrook¾ at September 22, 2010 10:40 PM (60WiD)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 23, 2010 04:13 AM (RTH25)
Frankly, I would be almost as upset at GWB (or anyone else for that matter) had he said the same thing in the same manner.
Posted by: Guy S at September 23, 2010 07:23 PM (Xtj0/)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at September 23, 2010 07:32 PM (sNnKL)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0078 seconds.
16 queries taking 0.005 seconds, 16 records returned.
Page size 12 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.