Skip to comments.Bolton and Others Blast Obama‘s ’Absorb a Terrorist Attack’ Quip
Posted on 09/22/2010 7:07:22 AM PDT by combat_boots
Bob Woodwards new book Obamas Wars includes a new revelation about the presidents outlook on domestic terrorism and some arent too happy about it.
As the Washington Post reports today, the president sat down with Woodward in July and discussed his views on another terrorist attack in the U.S.:
Woodwards 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. Well do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.
That quote isnt sitting well with some, including former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Appearing on Fox and Friends this morning, Bolton blasted the president for the statement and said the comment proves Obama may not be fit to be commander-in-chief:
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Not because we had a leader of your ilk in the White House, chump.
We’ll need to absorb a major terrorist attack so that we’ll be able to justify shutting down talk radio and seizing control of all content on the internet.
Obama absolutely is not fit to be commander in chief. He is surrendering in Afghanistan, against the advice of all his generals. He is allowing an open border in the United States so that we can’t defend ourselves. If any state or city attempts to defend itself against illegal aliens, President Obama sues them.
Our president’s says our only response to terrorist threats is to “absorb them”. Whose side is he on?
And how did we recover, you ask? With the principles and policies that Obama blames several times a day for the mess he and the Democrats have created since then.
I wish I had a quarter for every dumb-@ss in America that can't get this through their thick heads--I'd buy them a clue.
Would he say that if the White House was the target?
Sorry about messing up the title, guys. It should be BOLTON..., not ‘ton...’
Looks like O is complimenting Pres Bush.
We are now absorbing a constant terrorist attack, 24/7/365.
It is coming from the muslim sympathizing, terrorist enabling, socialistic one-worlder we have for a president, aided and abetted by his entire handpicked cabinet and staff comprised entirely of ultra left wing America haters.
Of course we can absorb another attack, but how stupid is it for a president to say it? It shows his mindset.
Of course we can absorb a terrorist attack — that is, a single non-nuclear explosion or car bombs, etc. We could survive a nuke as well. Furthermore, it would make no economic sense to increase our ‘homeland security’ to the point that all terrorist attmpts are thwarted. Americans know this.
The sooner Obama’s administration is gone the better, but I won’t fault him for stating the simple truth that we can survive a terrorist attack.
The reason why Obama’s comment is so bad is because he is using it as an excuse for refusing to defend us against it. The attitude is “Yes, we would be safer by destroying the terrorists in our own source, but we’ll just have to absorb it because I don’t want to.” In the book Obama said we were withdrawing because he would “lose the entire Democratic Party” if he didn’t withdraw. He also said it would cost a lot of money and he wants to spend that elsewhere.
So the president of the United States is admitting that he is opening us to terrorist attacks for political reasons. If Chicago or New York gets hit by terrorists, we are just supposed to suck it up and “absorb it”, because Obama doesn’t want to “lose the Democratic Party” in the next election, and because he wants to spend the money on giving welfare to more people.
...tis but a scratch...
Our Afghan policy was focused as much as anything on domestic politics, an Obama adviser at the time told Peter Baker of the New York Times. He would not risk losing the moderate to centrist Democrats in the middle of health insurance reform and he viewed that legislation as the make-or-break legislation for his administration.
he [Obama] set a withdrawal timetable because, I cant lose the whole Democratic Party.
He doesn’t want to win in Afghanistan. Or anywhere we are fighting Islam.
There's a lot of things Oboma has said and done that proves he's not fit for the presidency.
The moral of this story? Never give an affirmation action presidency to an unqualified community organizer.
Yep, WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
Pam Geller today:
“Obama’s Response to Imminent Terror Threat? Bring it On”
In a word, Yes.
The forty year theory.
A post by Combat_Boots
Ibn Khaldun is famous in the world of studying Middle Eastern history as the author of The Introduction, (Al Muqaddimah). In this work, he outlines a cyclical theory of history, which comprises four phases:
1) Raw rise to power from a clan or nomadic group
2) Refinement of the reins of power
4) Decadence and decline
The clannishness or Asabiyyah of a group progresses through level(s) of civilization (and is) strongest in the nomadic phase. Once the rise and fall occurs, another more compelling Asabiyyah may take its place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah).
The volumes contained in the actual history that The Introduction precedes are not only long, but also varied and expansive. In a nutshell, Ibn Khaldun ties time in terms of specific generations to the physical space those generations occupy. For example, the idea of a social contract is explained, as is a description of the tension between the power of the rural versus the city. Ibn Khaldun conceived both a central social conflict (town versus desert) as well as a theory (using the concept of a generation) of the necessary loss of power of city conquerors coming from the desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah).
The length of each of the four power phases listed above is approximately one generation, or 40 years. That being said, we are witnessing waves of varying strength in the global conflict between Islam and the Western World that has existed since the breakout of Islamic military conquest in 711. Significant events in Western-Islamic tension have continued unabated. While these dates are not exactly 40 years apart, they nonetheless suggest that the conflict has never ceased, but, has simply permeated ever more deeply into the ethos of the peoples involvedbeyond military capabilities to the citizenry. To wit, as evidence, please consider these dates:
1450s Vlad Dracula fights the Ottoman Turks
1492 Moors leave Spain @ Granada
1529 1st Siege of Vienna
1530 Little War in Hungary
1565 Siege of Malta
1571 Battle of Lepanto
1590 Treaty of Istanbul (generally with Persia, but including Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia)
1593-1606 The Long War
(Note: the Hapsburg/Venetian/Russian forces capture a number of previously held countries in the 16 and 1700s)
1683 2nd failed siege of Vienna
1687 Second Battle of Mohacs
1699 Treaty of Karowitz
1716-1718 Battle of Petrovaradin or Battle of Peterwardein
1730 Rebellion of Patrona Halil and end of the Tulip Period
1739 Treaty of Belgrade
1798 Napoleonic expedition in Egypt
1807 (and following) Tanzimat period of modernization
1813 Serbian Uprising
1821 Greek War of Independence
1853 Crimean War (includes the actual Charge of the Light Brigade)
1867 Formation of Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Ausgleich or Compromise of 1867,
1877 Russo-Turkish War 1878 Treaty of San Stefano
1913 First Balkan War
1914 World War I & collapse of the Ottoman Empire
1937 Rise of Nazism, creation of the Islamic Corps under the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
1948 War against Israel
1967 Six Day War
1983 Murders of US Marines in Beirut
The Spice Routes founded the circumvention of the Middle Eastern trade routes as assuredly as the oil routes have led to the same area. The market for trade goods has been and will continue to be the locus of control. It isnt that the Crusades of 1095-1261 ended; they merely crossed over religious bounds to market control and, now, to recognition of the cultural clash.
Also see: The Gunpowder Empires http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/2805/gunpow.htm
It`s treason to say this country won`t be utterly destroyed by a terrorist attack? I don`t get it. If he had said this country can`t survive another terrorist attack,,,now that would have been music to bin-Ladens ears.
I’m going to have to study that little war in Hungary. I’m half Hungarian.
Frantzie’s forebears fought at Lepanto.
I know there are others with deep historical roots on FR.
I should have linked up all my references. Maybe that’s a todo.
You meant “Shame! WOW!”, right? Kidding, I know what you meant, but it is indeed shameful.
I’d like to see what zero would do if his precious azz was threatened by an “absorbable” terrorist attack, lol! That pansy would run for the nearest rathole he could find and leave the sife and kiddies in the dust.
Bolton is right. Of course zero’s not fit to be CiC. He’s not fit to kiss the azz of one average taxpayer or to lick the ground one American soldier walks on.
Beretta’s armbuster (rifle) barrels were one of the keys to winning at Lepanto. The other was Christian slaves on the Islamic (ottomon) ships rebelling and killing the muslim crews.
We could absorb a terrorist attack. In fact, it would be a crisis you can be sure we wouldn’t let go to waste”
“...Whose side is he on?...”
It’s obvious, isn’t it?
I fear that we will all pay a terrible price before this insouciant egomaniac’s first, and only, term expires.
He’s a moron. He’s only there for appeasement and the perks. Vacation gal has probably threatened to kick his skinny a$$ if he doesn’t make sure she keeps her chushy lifestyle for the full 8 years. I despise these lowlifes.
We be movin’ on up now and we be lovin’ it.
What an ignorant, GD monster he is. I wonder how many deaths we can absorb under his healthcare bill?
It was his choice of words. His statement leads one to believe that he doesn’t really care if we are attacked. Saying that it won’t “utterly destroy us” sounds different to me than “We can absorb one, or we’ll just soak it up” And I don’t believe he cares...
That’s just what I thought! It’s “bring in on”.
So, we’re supposed to be able to absorb a dirty bomb or a biological attack? Widespread anthrax attack or a release of smallpox? This is downtown New York or Los Angeles? This guy is a disaster.
“Whose side is he on?”
I know who’s side he’s not on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.