Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mister A

Obama: "We can absorb a terrorist attack."

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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."

"We are stronger" is an opinion that can be debated, but other than that, what do you consider incorrect with his statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We are stronger" is an opinion that can be debated, but other than that, what do you consider incorrect with his statement?

"We'll do everything we can to prevent it." -That's obviously not true. He's doing almost nothing to prevent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the context in which his reply was made. Was he being asked, "Why are you not trying to stop terrorist attacks", and he replied, "Well, because what's the big deal? We can absorb them..." - then obviously that is wrong. Or was he being asked, "How well do you think American society would handle another terrorist attack?", and he responded, "Oh, we can absorb it."

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We are stronger" is an opinion that can be debated, but other than that, what do you consider incorrect with his statement?

That he's casually resigned to the likelihood of a major attack as a result of his policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That he's casually resigned to the likelihood of a major attack as a result of his policies.

I think that's a leap. He's more likely convinced (that happens quite readily when you preach to the choir) that what he is doing is adequate considering the nature of terrorism but knows there is no way to stop every possible terrorist attack.

I'm not saying that his policies won't lead to a successful terrorist attack, just that he is probably not "resigned" to the fact that it will be his fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a leap. He's more likely convinced (that happens quite readily when you preach to the choir) that what he is doing is adequate considering the nature of terrorism but knows there is no way to stop every possible terrorist attack.

I'm not saying that his policies won't lead to a successful terrorist attack, just that he is probably not "resigned" to the fact that it will be his fault.

This is how I understood it as well. I think to suggest:

That he's casually resigned to the likelihood of a major attack as a result of his policies.

is taking quite a leap from what he actually said and likely meant and putting your own interpretation, based on your view of him and his policies, into the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×