She’s right. We don’t want to get attacked again.

The real question is can America absorb this presidency ?

So says the self-absorbed President.

Can the socks of conservatives absorb all the urine currently running down their collective legs? Because their mattresses are already full of piss and have reached saturation point.

Good for Obama.

We can’t let fear dictate our national policy, like it did under the Bush regime.

Gretchen is a twat.

MediaWhore — I don’t know , but I will go ask the ” spin doctor ” Axe.

I’ll let others debate the Afghan policy, but it’s good to know that Gretchen has so little faith in our country, she thinks it’ll fall apart with a terrorist attack. Of course, I assumed the terrorists felt that way, but I didn’t suspect it of Ms. Carlson.

More Liberty said:
She’s right. We don’t want to get attacked again.

Of course not, no one does.

I don’t see the controversy. He’s saying that America survived 9/11 and came out stronger. How is he wrong in that?

What, should he have said we couldn’t absorb another 9/11? (I’m not addressing this to you, More Liberty, but the article in general) If he would have said that, the terrorists would be chomping at the bit to attack us again.

Anyone who thinks Obama wants another terrorist attack has a flawed thought process and should not be taken seriously. Of course we don’t want another terrorist attack, and neither does Obama. If he wanted America to be attacked again, he wouldn’t have added the following quote: “We’ll do everything we can to prevent it…”

Can she be any stupider?

Go back to Minnesota, Gretchen.

Your “golly Gee!” act is tired and you come off like a retard. Seriously.

stoogedudes said:
If he would have said that, the terrorists would be chomping at the bit to attack us again.

That’s not to say that they aren’t already chomping at the bit to attack us again.

Here is a reminder of what DICK said:

DICK CHENEY: The prospect of another attack against the United States is very, very real. It’s just as real, in my opinion, as it was September 12.

TIM RUSSERT, NBC News: Not a matter of if, but when?

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: Not a matter of if, but when.

So blow it out your ass Gretchen

Leave it to all the left-wing loons above and Glynnis to take his statement in the best possible way to make Obama look good. LOL.

It’s not the President’s job to tell us that America can absorb another terrorist attack. It’s his job to tell us that if there is another terrorist attack, we should go shopping.

Who said we’d want another attack Gretchen? This is one of the stupidest bitches on tv. Nice try dear but, Bush and his party of incompetents absorbed the worst attack on US soil in our history and you’re never going to escape that even if you try to put words in the current President’s mouth. Maybe she should now look up the word moron! It will likely say, see mirror!

Why does Gretchen hate America?

Barry will never get re-elected now that he has said he wants another attack on America.

He is a sick man.

Roxsteady — and thank God Bush WAS president when it happened .. I can just picture now , Obama at Ground Zero standing on the rumble with a teleprompter !

Maybe the President can ignore, (like his predecessor) an intelligence briefing, warning that Bin Laden is going to attack, to prove we can absorb an attack.

Not since FDR, has a Dem President wished for an attack on America and now BHO does just that.

He needs therapy.

danny6114 said:
Maybe the President can ignore, (like his predecessor) an intelligence briefing, warning that Bin Laden is going to attack,

And just where , when, and how did that briefing say the attack would happen?

I’ll wait for your answer.

I think the problem here is one of leadership. Sure, we can “absorb” another attack, but what kind of leader talks like that?

People want to hear leaders say things like, “I’ll do everything I can to prevent another attack.” Not, “If we get attacked again, we’ll absorb it and come out stronger.” Obama better hope it doesn’t happen on his watch, if it happens again, because this comment will bite him so hard he’ll probably make history yet again as suffering the worst defeat ever in a presidential election.

Why let Woodward into a top secret meeting ? … Would that not cause some to alter their interaction because you have BOB WOODWARD in the room ?

Haimerej said:
I think the problem here is one of leadership. Sure, we can “absorb” another attack, but what kind of leader talks like that?

Exactly the point. Obama is not a leader. He can stir up the dregs of society into jealous fits with his class warfare, us against them rhetoric, but he’s an idiot outside of his little box.

shootfromthehip said:
Can she be any stupider?

Go back to Minnesota, Gretchen.

Your “golly Gee!” act is tired and you come off like a retard. Seriously.

No thanks
we already have Bachman

gordonbloyershow said:
Leave it to all the right-wing loons above and her on this site to take his statement in the worst possible way to make Obama look bad. LOL.

I saw a picture of Glynnis MacNicol….its obvious why she’s pissed off at the world……she makes Debbie Wasserman Schultz look like a Playboy center fold.

Which is better to say:

–We would crumble nationally if another terrorist attack were to occur?
–We can absorb another attack were it to occur?

Shorter:
–wanna be a whiny, scared pansy?
–wanna be tough with a spine of steel?

gordon, notsofast, murf, haimerej and mr. papshmer:
–Didn’t another White House occupant invite the Big Baddies to “Bring it on”? I don’t remember the blonde one fakin’ her stupid (Carlson) asserting that Bush was inviting another terrorist attack. I recall that being a statement of a tough cowboy*. Or, what about what that heartless bastard of a VP said on his favorite message spreading venue, MTP as stated by the poster above, Fox News.

StewBeef was right: No matter what Obama does/says, the right’s going to have a problem with it. It would be refreshing, however, to see internal consistency amongst the hysteria.

(*who is not either tough nor a cowboy in reality)

“No thanks
we already have Bachman”

They are actually friends, her and Gretchen, did you know that?

SCARY!

Keep up the great work, Gretchen. I, as a proud american, have been trying to find a way to articulate this very point; I don’t want a terrorist attack to happen.

shootfromthehip said:
“No thanks
we already have Bachman”

They are actually friends, her and Gretchen, did you know that?

SCARY!

yep
alot of press here right now for her opposition

Well, I feel much safer now
Thanks One-Termer-in-Chief.

MediaWhore said:
Can the socks of conservatives absorb all the urine currently running down their collective legs? Because their mattresses are already full of piss and have reached saturation point.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Good for Obama.

We can’t let fear dictate our national policy, like it did under the Bush regime.

Gretchen is a twat.

like you pussies piss your pants worrying someone might not have obamacare, or can burn a koran?

avoidswork said:
haimerej:–Didn’t another White House occupant invite the Big Baddies to “Bring it on”? I don’t remember the blonde one fakin’ her stupid (Carlson) asserting that Bush was inviting another terrorist attack. I recall that being a statement of a tough cowboy*. Or, what about what that heartless bastard of a VP said on his favorite message spreading venue, MTP as stated by the poster above, Fox News. StewBeef was right: No matter what Obama does/says, the right’s going to have a problem with it. It would be refreshing, however, to see internal consistency amongst the hysteria. (*who is not either tough nor a cowboy in reality)

The difference is the context of the quote. The preceding sentence- “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.” When your response to warnings of an attack is, “We’ll absorb it” then we have a problem. You also have to add in the context of other quotes showing he has a political attitude about the war in Afghanistan. When you’re telling your generals you need an exit strategy because you don’t want to lose your political base, the question of priorities comes up. What’s more important? Fighting a war that the majority of people agree is necessary and doing what it takes to win or concerning yourself with how to get out of it in order to please your political base? The context of these things matters. Bush said “bring it on” as a threat to the enemy. Obama saying, “We’ll absorb it” is hardly threatening.

Haimerej ~ is there a context difference? Really? Didn’t Bush say “Bring it On” post-9/11? Are you naive enough to think we are safe? Not because of President A or President B policies, but because of the low-tech nature of these types of attacks? Because you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make them drink? Because they talk about the support of their base (Dems)? Because there were serious internal conflicts within the WH rather than the modus operandi of the No Dissent Here presidency?

Here’s another thing from the article co-written by Cheney’s Stenography:
[quote]Despite all the backstage tidbits, sure to be fodder for the cable chat shows, the dominant portrait is one of a prudent president trying to negotiate a middle path between a military, led by Petraeus, who demanded a relatively open-ended 40,000-troop surge and Democrats, led by Biden, who called for a much more time- and troop-limited response. [/quote]

Prudent.

One thing said by Woodward that can’t be said about his predecessor is “professorial”, who made his advisors do work and made his directions to the Pentagon very clear. This man is much more serious and realistic about these problems than Bush ever was.

BTW — this war is stupid. It’s useless and it’s caused us more grave harm than any good. (Blood, money, tears, a black mark as war criminals on our national soul) There is no “there” to fight this ideology of terrorists. We’ve created more hate than love, destroyed Iraq, have dangerous rhetoric about Iran and equate all Muslims with terrorists. Credit can possibly be given to earlier fighting in Afghanistan (Taliban liberation), but the rest is a bag of dog sh*t.

And the same people that whine and moan about waste in government spending bristle at any cuts in defense spending. Again, all I see is hysteria without any internal consistency.

avoidswork said:
Haimerej ~ is there a context difference?

Yes.

avoidswork said:
Really?

Yes.

avoidswork said:
Didn’t Bush say “Bring it On” post-9/11?

Yes. That was what’s called a “threat.” That’s a little different than saying we’ll “absord” an attack.

avoidswork said:
Are you naive enough to think we are safe?

No.

avoidswork said:
Not because of President A or President B policies, but because of the low-tech nature of these types of attacks?

You’re apparently naive enough to think that national security policies are all equal in regard to effectiveness.

avoidswork said:
Because you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make them drink?

That’s more of a statement than a question.

avoidswork said:
Because they talk about the support of their base (Dems)?

When discussing how to wage a war, the only appropriate discussion is how to win. Talking about how to get out in order to not lose political support doesn’t embiggen strength and resolve.

avoidswork said:
Because there were serious internal conflicts within the WH rather than the modus operandi of the No Dissent Here presidency?

It seems the internal conflicts were about how to wage a war. The people carrying out orders want to win the war, otherwise they see the sacrifice of their fellow soldiers as wasted. Soldiers don’t like to hear talk out of their Commander in Chief that sounds defeatist or shows a lack of resolve. That’s what this is about.

avoidswork said:
Here’s another thing from the article co-written by Cheney’s Stenography:[quote]Despite all the backstage tidbits, sure to be fodder for the cable chat shows, the dominant portrait is one of a prudent president trying to negotiate a middle path between a military, led by Petraeus, who demanded a relatively open-ended 40,000-troop surge and Democrats, led by Biden, who called for a much more time- and troop-limited response. [/quote] Prudent.

A subjective interpretation. Here’s another- GW Bush was prudent in taking the war to their shores.

avoidswork said:
One thing said by Woodward that can’t be said about his predecessor is “professorial”, who made his advisors do work and made his directions to the Pentagon very clear. This man is much more serious and realistic about these problems than Bush ever was.

All of that’s subjective opinion without any real facts to back it up. “Serious” apparently means, “wanting to get out” to you. “Realistic” apparently means, “defeatist.”

avoidswork said:
BTW — this war is stupid. It’s useless and it’s caused us more grave harm than any good. (Blood, money, tears, a black mark as war criminals on our national soul) There is no “there” to fight this ideology of terrorists. We’ve created more hate than love, destroyed Iraq, have dangerous rhetoric about Iran and equate all Muslims with terrorists. Credit can possibly be given to earlier fighting in Afghanistan (Taliban liberation), but the rest is a bag of dog sh*t. And the same people that whine and moan about waste in government spending bristle at any cuts in defense spending. Again, all I see is hysteria without any internal consistency.

Tell that to the homosexuals being stoned to death over there. Tell that to the women who are having their noses cut off. Tell that to the Kurds who are naming their children after George W Bush. All you’ve got is the tired rhetoric of a bankrupt, relativistic ideology. No substance at all.

Relativism is taking a realistic and factual statement, “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.” and converting it into a supposed invitation. If you wish to defend the compulsive misrepresentation of our executive in a time of war and crisis then go on ahead, but defending intellectual relativism with charges of relativism on the part of those who believe that words contain meaning is an odd method of argument.

Greg said:
Relativism is taking a realistic and factual statement, “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.” and converting it into a supposed invitation.

Actually, no it’s not. You’re describing an insinuation. Relativism, in the context I’m referring to, is moral relativism. In other words, avoidswork there seems to think that it’s “stupid” and “useless” to dethrone a murdering dictator or an oppressive regime. I can only assume he must think in relativistic terms in regard to morality. I, on the other hand, think it’s a good thing that we have freed people and are continuing to fight for their freedom’s from such oppressive forces.

Greg said:
If you wish to defend the compulsive misrepresentation of our executive in a time of war and crisis then go on ahead, but defending intellectual relativism with charges of relativism on the part of those who believe that words contain meaning is an odd method of argument.

Right. Perhaps you should re-read what I’ve said. I didn’t endorse Gretchen saying it was an invitation. I said the statement in itself shows a lack of leadership. Leader’s don’t say things like we’ll “absorb” an attack. That doesn’t denote strength. Since you seem to be a fan of the meaning of words (even though you seem to misunderstand relativism), here’s the definitions of “absorb”-

To take in and make a part of; To suck up or take up; To engage or engross wholly; To receive without recoil or echo; To transform into a different form

Rather than “taking in” an attack, I’d rather he say something that inspires strength and resolve. What point is there in saying we can absorb an attack in response to warnings of attack? Was there someone out there who thought we’d fall to pieces if another happened? It sounds more like he’s not concerned with keeping the battle over there and is resigned to dealing with an attack on our shores if necessary. I wonder why? Could it be because he’s more concerned with “not losing the Demcratic party” than he is with fighting the war in Afghanistan?

I’m opposed to Obama’s philosophy and policies. But I’m suporting him in this series of statements. More people that have already decided what they believe so all they have to do here is to make u stuff that supports their beliefs, IMO.

So America “Can Absorb” another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 or Worse, says The Most Bestest President EVAH who, ironically enough, Couldn’t Absorb His Cambridge Professor Pal’s acting Stupidly before He accused a Cambridge Cop of His having done the same Without having all the Facts First… and He Still Can’t absorb 70% of This (Must-Be Right-Wing, Republican Extremist, FOX News Lovin’ Islamophobic) Country’s NOT Wanting a Mosque “near” Ground Zero without shooting his yapper off in Favor OF It…And He Couldn’t Absorb a media-driven story about a Unknown Preacher, from an Unknown Church, who might, or might Not, Someday, start a Koran Burning Festival without adding HIS Community Organizer’s O-pinion into the mix Either. He Couldn’t just stop and say, that wouldn’t be Very Presidential of me or, that’s None of My F’king Business. No No. It was Commence Bullhornin’ and Time To Go Full Alinsky For Our P(unk)OTUS.Yet we’re supposed to Believe and Trust that America Can absorb Another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 with Him in the Oval Office? LOL!

YES WE CAN Trust the MORON in Da’ Heezy who told President Dinnerjacket at the UN just that our, “door is open to engagement” and now there’s this Absorption deal. So Can You Say “Paper Tiger”? Because Al-Qaeda (et. al) watch our news networks and read our newspapers Too, You Know!

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
We can’t let fear dictate our national policy, like it did under the Bush regime.

Like Obama hasn’t used fear to promote his agenda. A good example is the almost trillion dollar “stimulus” package. We were told that if the politicians don’t pass this and give handouts to wall street, banks, unions and auto makers that there would be armageddon – worst than the depression. That sir…is fear. Also, they use fear for the whole cap/trade lie. They also use fear to oppose regular americans that have the audacity to want the government to be able to balance a budget, and live wihtin the revenue they take from the tax payers.

You see fear is a bi-partisan tactic.

America Doesn’t Want To ‘Absorb’ Another Terrorist Attack!

Wait, aren’t we supposed to call that “Man caused disasters” now?

Mr. -0bama did NOT qualify his statements that he did NOT want another terrorist attack, Actually, I believe it would help him in winning a 2nd term. As usual, the part-time community organizer and full-time buffoon either made a Freudian slip of astronomical proportions…or he made another gaffe. If it’s a gaffe, I suppose it’s understandable now that he’s hanging out with Joe Bidenpants more than ever.

I wonder if their’s anyone out there that would admit to having voted for this idiot now? The sad part is, this guy told us what he intended to do but, few were listening. They actually fell for the empty slogans and political entitlement rhetoric.