Wednesday, September 22, 2010

'We Can Absorb a Terrorist Attack'

That's not going over too well. See, "Republicans seize on comments by Obama in new Woodward book" (at Memeorandum):

Republicans on Wednesday blasted President Obama for statements journalist Bob Woodward attributed to him in his new book.

Republicans were particularly incensed about Obama's belief that the U.S. could “absorb” another terrorist attack on American soil, something Obama said he is doing everything he can to prevent that happening.

Liz Cheney, former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter and the chairwoman of Keep American Safe, said the remark “suggests an alarming fatalism on the part of President Obama and his administration.”

“Once again the president seems either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe,” said Cheney, a frequent critic of Obama’s national security policies. “The president owes the American people an explanation.”

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani also criticized Obama’s comment on another terrorist attack.

“Well, I don't know that I would have said that. The country has to be prepared for any terrorist attack,” Giuliani said on a conference call with reporters. “I would prefer that the president put his effort in preventing another Sept 11.

Woodward's “Obama's Wars” will not be released until Monday, but details in the book appeared in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Wednesday. Reaction overall was muted, though White House officials portrayed Woodward’s book in a positive light, telling The Hill Wednesday morning that the accounts show a “decisive” president focused on getting the policy in Afghanistan right.

“We are focused on supporting our strategy in Afghanistan and succeeding in our effort to break the Taliban’s momentum and build Afghanistan’s capacity,” one senior administration official said. “The book underscores the importance of our efforts in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda worldwide.”
Liz Cheney's full comment is here: "Liz Cheney Responds To President’s “We Can Absorb A Terrorist Attack” Comment."

I'm not surprised by these comments. Obama hates handling foreign policy and he cares little about even projecting an image that he's working to protect Americans from attack. He does impart an image of protecting his personal brand from attack, and that's not helping him, obviously. And besides, I just don't read Bob Woodward. Check out the book here, in any case: Obama's Wars.

RELATED: At Doug Ross, "Woodward Shock Expose: Unqualified Community Organizer With Teleprompter Dependency Makes Surprisingly Lousy Commander-in-Chief."


Doctor Biobrain said...

Donald, that criticism doesn't even make sense. Read his words again:
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."

What's wrong with that exactly? We DID absorb the attack from 9/11. It didn't destroy us. We survived and we are stronger. And while we'll always try to prevent terrorist attacks, if we do get attacked again, we'll survive and become stronger.

Is there something controversial about that? And where in this does he suggest that he doesn't care about preventing attacks? What's he supposed to do project the proper image for you, walk around in a flightsuit while telling the terrorists to "Bring it on." Is that the sort of image Obama needs to project?

And does it need to be pointed out that Obama's track record of preventing terrorist attacks in America is a lot better than Bush's? I think not.

P.S. I got an error message on this, so I reposted; but if it's a double-post, please disregard.