Mister A Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html Wow...just wow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 "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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 (edited) 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 September 22, 2010 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister A Posted September 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 "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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.