"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Absorbing A Terrorist Attack

You are going to hear a lot of spin about this comment of the President to Bob Woodward.

"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."

The White House will try to tell you that this comment is about the strength of the American people, about our resiliency. But...

Word choices matter. Hey, we all know that another attack is a possibility, maybe even a probability. We know this. I don't blame the President for being candid about this, even to try and prepare us for it. But...

Absorb. Think about that word. I think we can survive another terrorist attack. I think we can overcome another terrorist attack. We can endure another terrorist attack. I believe we will be undaunted even in the face of another terrorist attack. But absorb?

For me, absorb means that you take a blow without caring much about it. You take a blow and move on. You take a blow and you do not retaliate. You absorb it.

The White House will spend the next few days trying to convince us otherwise, but this is what absorb means to me. If and when we are hit again, Obama will do nothing. He will absorb it and move on. He wants us to do the same.

The point? Our reaction to 9/11 made things worse. President Obama will rise above. Even in the face of attack, President Obama will remember who the true enemy is. Us.

Your Ad Here

29 comments:

elm said...

The real question is: Will we ever be able to absorb him and his administration?

Rick said...

What if the attack was on the White House? How well is he going to absorb that? Then again, I don't think Muslims attack their fellow Muslims so, never mind.

Dymphna said...

Sounds like he's just given up on protecting us.

Early Riser said...

I would hope the US can absorb any attack or tragedy rather than moaning about it like teenagers who just broke up with their first boyfriend/girlfriend.

When 9/11 happened, I was sickened by the non-stop round-the-clock coverage of the event for a solid 2-weeks; preempting ANY other broadcast or news. I have never seen such a prolonged self-indulgent display in the face of tragedy. I would hope "absorb" in this sense means "deal with it" and "get over it", both economically and culturally.

Anonymous said...

what a moronic statement. Who says this twit is smart.

Patrick Archbold said...

ER,
I live in the NY area. I know people who died. Sorry if it took us more than 2 weeks to get over it.

I hope any future death and destruction on a massive scale does not inconvenience or annoy you in the future.

Galileo was wrong, the world revolves around ER.

Patrick Button said...

In a strictly academic sense, the nation could "absorb" a terrorist attack. It is a very poor choice of words though.

David L Alexander said...

Rick: If the President is a Muslim, he is a very bad one, having professed Christianity for over twenty years. This would make him an apostate under Islamic law, as he had been raised Muslim while living with his father in Indonesia. I won't argue that he is obsequious in his dealings with the Islamic world, but that is not the same as being Muslim.

By the way, the White House was a probable target on 9/11. Take it from someone whose office is two blocks away. The WH is not a very big target, so ...

Subvet said...

David L. Alexander, some folks who follow the thinking of Muslims would dismiss B.O.'s profession of Christianity as "taquia" (or "taqiye"), a tactic that allows Muslims to lie to infidels.

FWIW, I don't believe B.O. is or was a Muslim. Just pointing out that the claim isn't as easy to dismiss as it may seem.

Regardless of whether he's Muslim, Christian or worships the Great Spaghetti Monster, the man is definetly weakening our nation.

David L Alexander said...

Subvet:

None of this establishes that the President is a Muslim. At most, he might be deemed a "useful idiot" to those who would attack us. The problem lies in the ability to change hearts and minds, which can be frustrated by making false claims, and doing oneself a disservice.

Early Riser said...

Patrick - so because you had a personal loss, we all need to conform/adhere to your toll of woe? Different people handle tragedy in different ways. This was a collective tragedy, but NYC is not the center of the Universe, and neither are you (regardless of what you believe).

IMHO I believe the media coverage showing people on fire/jumping out of windows was more of a ratings grab than any actual mourning.

Early Riser said...

P.S. when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, that was a national tragedy where innocent children died in their day-care. It was newd, but not covered for 2 weeks solid preempting all other programs. NYC people need to get over themselves, suck it up, and move on. This wimpification and "why MEEEE?????" really gets tedious.

Frusciante Maria Portman said...

ER-

You said that different people handle tragedy in different ways. So just because it wasn't dealt with in your way of dealing with tragedy it was simply a self-indulgent ratings grab? That just undermines that we all deal in different ways by saying that your way is the only right way.

You also said that this was a collective tragedy but undermine that statement by saying that NYC isn't the center of the universe. What does it matter if NYC is the center of the universe or not? When one portion of this country suffers, we all suffer.

I think you are the childish, insensitive, self-indulgent one here.

Early Riser said...

Frusciante see my subsequent comment about Oklahoma before throwing a tizzy.

Subvet said...

David L. Alexander, you're not definetly proving the man isn't a Muslim either. That will have to be done before you'll change any hearts or minds.

Those who have suffered more directly & personally than average Americans from the depredations of Islamists require more than "Oh no he's not" as a response to the claim B.O. follows Mohammed.

A claim that, while I don't believe it, DOES have some credibility to it.

David L Alexander said...

Subvet:

The beauty of my position is that I don't have to prove anything. Obama's affiliation with a Christian denomination, and house of worship, for twenty plus years, is a matter of public knowledge. Such a public act is, by definition, a public refutation of Islam, his wishes to placate the latter's adherents notwithstanding.

That's a little more defiinite than saying "oh no he's not." Now, YOU say something more than "oh yes he is." And sucking up to them only proves that he's a suck-up. Nothing more.

Early Riser said...

David & Subvet - I can say with fair certainty that through Obama's words and actions he is not a Mohammedan. Most notably, he called for Americans to become "partners with God" regarding social services. This is the biggest sin in Mohammedanism called "shirk", for which the penalty is death.

It is my impression he is indeed an atheist, using religion (unorganized religion in his case) as a tool for political advancement/legitimacy. But he would not last 5 minutes as a Mohammedan without getting stoned or decapitated.

Daylight X Press said...

The choice of words is a subtle point, and his accused loyalties more so.

Given the state's proven history of false-flag attacks, his statement sounds more like a suggestion. It would sure serve his own interests.. If Bill Cooper was right, they'll set it up to look like a "right-wing extremist"[sic] did it, and they'll use it to amplify faux-liberal accusations (see MIAC report) that Constitutionalists are dangerous backward racists, in need of further suspicion. That, or they'll stick with Jihadist meme to increase perceived support for the empire's totalitarian war powers.

Kim said...

“So this is how liberty dies.. with thunderous applause” — Star Wars III

Anonymous said...

ER -

Wow! How would you handle having your wife/husband/child working at the world trade center and having terrorists flying planes into their office and incinerating their bodies so that you have nothing to bury. No closure - or your husband/wife/child being on one of the airplanes that was hi-jacked and they were just minding their own business going to work, etc., and they are just gone. I didn't lose anyone in the attack, but I live in New Jersey and was very much affected by the tragedy. It is extrememly insensitive of you to say "Get Over It". If you don't like the coverage, turn the t.v. off. I just hope that the next attack is not in your town and you are not affected by anything as horrible as this. Oklahoma City was terrible and a tragedy, however, 9/11 was on a much larger scale and Timothy McVeigh's group is not trying to erect a monument to him outside of the building.

Early Riser said...

Anon - the Mohammedan advance/agenda is an entirely separate issue. One which should be in the news every single day.

As for my wife and children, that is precisely one the reasons I got upset. Eveytime the TV (not at our house, but EVERYWHERE else) was turned on, that was the scene being shown. As a parent, I resented having to constantly shield my then 5 and 2-year-old from it. They shouldn't have been subjected to that. We mourned in our own way and on our own timetable, just as we do any tragedy. If you can't "get over it", then that's your issue, NOT mine.

I'm also wondering if anyone here mourned even half as much as when the Kenya and Tanzania bombings took place from the same group a few years earlier.

Anonymous said...

My kids were 1 and 3 at the time. They were completely oblivious to what was going on. I didn't let them watch the footage. While I agree that the constant footage of the planes and the towers coming down was too much, it is important that we don't forget about what happened.

I feel compassion for the people who lost loved ones and it is sad that you seem to not feel any.

I don't understand what Kenya and Tanzania has to do with 9/11. Did the people of Kenya and Tanzania mourn for us?

Subvet said...

David L. Alexander, I have not said "Oh yes he is" or it's equivalent. You may need a remedial reading course if you think I did.

I've been trying to point out that claiming his membership in a Christian church isn't sufficent proof to many intelligent folk who have far more first hand knowledge of taquia than most Americans.

Now if you can discount the personal experiences of various foreign nationals and their American relatives, go for it. But your argument as presently stated is insufficent.

Early Riser said...

Anon - you are tedious and cowardly for making such assertions anonymously. No need to respond to them.

Anonymous said...

ER
Once again--if things aren't done your way--- then it is wrong. Bitchy and immature as expected. Who appointed you God?

Anonymous said...

Yes..and interesting choice of words...we will see what the truth is behind them when it happens

Early Riser said...

LOL! Nice mouth. Do you devour your young with that thing?

Anonymous said...

Getting to the post without commenting on the sidetrack of the comments; Patrick is right about this Ivy-League President's choice of the word 'absorb', and image it connotes. America, as a body of people, took/absorbed a blow from Islamofascism, and America , as a body of people, was hurt by that terrorist strike, both physically, and emotionally/psychologically. I don't think we are stronger for having absorbed that first blow, and to 'absorb another terrorist strike, would further injure us as a nation. Judging by the comments, it's plain to me that 9-11 is still an open wound.

Stephanie said...

Early Riser: You are a complete idiot.
DON'T BREED.

Post a Comment