Posted on 09/22/2010 7:07:22 AM PDT by combat_boots
Bob Woodward’s new book Obama’s Wars includes a new revelation about the president’s outlook on domestic terrorism — and some aren’t 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.:
Woodward’s 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. 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.”
That quote isn’t 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...
islamist Treason
“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 can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”
Thanks, AM.
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.
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.