Obama stated that USA can "absorb" another 9/11

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea but can the U.S.A. absorb more of him?...

 

[gautama]

Yea but can the U.S.A. absorb more of him?...

Well said, Libocalypse.

And, the Billboard.....How accurately expressive.

 

[gautama]

Seems like this is a lot of outrage over nothing.

You bet we can absorb another attack. We're rather not have to, but if they hit us again, it wouldn't cause the complete collapse of the USA. We'd rebuild and come back stronger than ever.

Of course if they did stage another 9/11 attack, Al Queda probably wouldn't survive. I'm no fan of Bush but he did take a wrecking ball to the Al Queda leadership structure. If the US went on offensive again we could probably wipe them out for good. And if another attack happened, even Obama would be forced into a proactive stance.

But, if you read the context of the remark, he's already taken the proactive stance: Limiting the US reaction to a second 9/11.

My guess is he'd send Hillary into the UN to lecture the terrorist host nation about their bad international manners.

You're probably right......but only after a week of sleepless nights worrying about the possibility of him forfeiting his chances for a Nobel Peace Prize from the Sharia intimidated Swedish twits, and the damage it would do to his image as the Champion of World Peace among his Islamic friends.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Seems like this is a lot of outrage over nothing.

You bet we can absorb another attack. We're rather not have to, but if they hit us again, it wouldn't cause the complete collapse of the USA. We'd rebuild and come back stronger than ever.

Of course if they did stage another 9/11 attack, Al Queda probably wouldn't survive. I'm no fan of Bush but he did take a wrecking ball to the Al Queda leadership structure. If the US went on offensive again we could probably wipe them out for good. And if another attack happened, even Obama would be forced into a proactive stance.

But, if you read the context of the remark, he's already taken the proactive stance: Limiting the US reaction to a second 9/11.

My guess is he'd send Hillary into the UN to lecture the terrorist host nation about their bad international manners.

Last time we got attacked we handed the Federal Government more power to spy on us with the Patriot Act (boy that worked out) and engaged in two incredibly expensive wars. On top of that we failed to act in ways that could have actually made us safe: namely beefing up port and border security and passing immigration legislation with teeth.

Suffice it to say, I'm not exactly against trying to make sure we don't lose our minds again if we're attacked. If we did have a second 9/11, there's a chance we'd do more wrong than right reacting to it. Again.

We'd survive another attack. The only people that can destroy America is us Americans. And we don't need Bin Laden's help to do that.

 

[Samson]

Seems like this is a lot of outrage over nothing.

You bet we can absorb another attack. We're rather not have to, but if they hit us again, it wouldn't cause the complete collapse of the USA. We'd rebuild and come back stronger than ever.

Of course if they did stage another 9/11 attack, Al Queda probably wouldn't survive. I'm no fan of Bush but he did take a wrecking ball to the Al Queda leadership structure. If the US went on offensive again we could probably wipe them out for good. And if another attack happened, even Obama would be forced into a proactive stance.

But, if you read the context of the remark, he's already taken the proactive stance: Limiting the US reaction to a second 9/11.

My guess is he'd send Hillary into the UN to lecture the terrorist host nation about their bad international manners.

Last time we got attacked we handed the Federal Government more power to spy on us with the Patriot Act (boy that worked out) and engaged in two incredibly expensive wars. On top of that we failed to act in ways that could have actually made us safe: namely beefing up port and border security and passing immigration legislation with teeth.

Suffice it to say, I'm not exactly against trying to make sure we don't lose our minds again if we're attacked. If we did have a second 9/11, there's a chance we'd do more wrong than right reacting to it. Again.

We'd survive another attack. The only people that can destroy America is us Americans. And we don't need Bin Laden's help to do that.

The point is that the comment was in no way related to the subject of whether or not the USA would be destroyed: It was more relative to how the US government would react. Specifically, it would be in a much less costly way.

I'd be astonished if Barak Hussein would be more hawkish, and less inclined to spend 8 years "nation building" as George W.

I wouldn't be surprised if Barak Hussein proposed an expansion of The Patriot Act as a result of another 9/11.

 

[Foxfyre]

But, if you read the context of the remark, he's already taken the proactive stance: Limiting the US reaction to a second 9/11.

My guess is he'd send Hillary into the UN to lecture the terrorist host nation about their bad international manners.

Last time we got attacked we handed the Federal Government more power to spy on us with the Patriot Act (boy that worked out) and engaged in two incredibly expensive wars. On top of that we failed to act in ways that could have actually made us safe: namely beefing up port and border security and passing immigration legislation with teeth.

Suffice it to say, I'm not exactly against trying to make sure we don't lose our minds again if we're attacked. If we did have a second 9/11, there's a chance we'd do more wrong than right reacting to it. Again.

We'd survive another attack. The only people that can destroy America is us Americans. And we don't need Bin Laden's help to do that.

The point is that the comment was in no way related to the subject of whether or not the USA would be destroyed: It was more relative to how the US government would react. Specifically, it would be in a much less costly way.

I'd be astonished if Barak Hussein would be more hawkish, and less inclined to spend 8 years "nation building" as George W.

I wouldn't be surprised if Barak Hussein proposed an expansion of The Patriot Act as a result of another 9/11.

I would bet a good steak dinner that he would push for expansion of the Patriot Act if we should have another attack. He has had a super majority in the Senate and a solid majority in the House and the bully pulpit for most of two years now. And there has not been a single suggestion from the White House nor any legislation of any kind introduced in the House or Senate geared to dismantle or defund any part of the currently existing Patriot Act.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

UNBELIEVABLE......but true !!!

FOXNews.com - United States Could 'Absorb' Another Terror Attack, Obama Says in Woodward Book

Yeah.....almost unheard-of......


​

Hey Idiot......WTF is that BULLSHIT post of yours trying to say.

Awwwwwwwww.....you're still havin' literacy-issues, huh??

Soooooo....when Obama says “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's what?....some kind o' uppity-attitude???

BUT.....when the BUSHCO publicity-machine pumps-out "We must now focus on the resilience of the system as a whole – an approach that centers on investments that make the system better able to absorb the impact of an event without losing the capacity to function.".....it's a declaration of STRENGTH & ALL-AMERICAN FORTITUDE, huh???

You 'Baggers' hypocrisy is tooooooooooooooooo obvious.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Seems like this is a lot of outrage over nothing.

You bet we can absorb another attack. We're rather not have to, but if they hit us again, it wouldn't cause the complete collapse of the USA. We'd rebuild and come back stronger than ever.

Of course if they did stage another 9/11 attack, Al Queda probably wouldn't survive. I'm no fan of Bush but he did take a wrecking ball to the Al Queda leadership structure. If the US went on offensive again we could probably wipe them out for good. And if another attack happened, even Obama would be forced into a proactive stance.

But, if you read the context of the remark, he's already taken the proactive stance: Limiting the US reaction to a second 9/11.

My guess is he'd send Hillary into the UN to lecture the terrorist host nation about their bad international manners.

You're probably right......but only after a week of sleepless nights worrying about the possibility of him forfeiting his chances for a Nobel Peace Prize from the Sharia intimidated Swedish twits, and the damage it would do to his image as the Champion of World Peace among his Islamic friends.

"....his CHANCES...."????????

How old ARE you??!!!!!

***

Poooooooooooooor 'Baggers......not a pro-War Chickenhawk of Mention!!!!

 

[SuMar]

Why should United States have to absorb a greater attack than 9-11? I swear if Obama isn't loosing some marbles.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Seems like this is a lot of outrage over nothing.

You bet we can absorb another attack. We're rather not have to, but if they hit us again, it wouldn't cause the complete collapse of the USA. We'd rebuild and come back stronger than ever.

Of course if they did stage another 9/11 attack, Al Queda probably wouldn't survive. I'm no fan of Bush but he did take a wrecking ball to the Al Queda leadership structure. If the US went on offensive again we could probably wipe them out for good. And if another attack happened, even Obama would be forced into a proactive stance.

But, if you read the context of the remark, he's already taken the proactive stance: Limiting the US reaction to a second 9/11.

My guess is he'd send Hillary into the UN to lecture the terrorist host nation about their bad international manners.

Last time we got attacked we handed the Federal Government more power to spy on us with the Patriot Act (boy that worked out) and engaged in two incredibly expensive wars. On top of that we failed to act in ways that could have actually made us safe: namely beefing up port and border security and passing immigration legislation with teeth.

Suffice it to say, I'm not exactly against trying to make sure we don't lose our minds again if we're attacked. If we did have a second 9/11, there's a chance we'd do more wrong than right reacting to it. Again.

We'd survive another attack. The only people that can destroy America is us Americans. And we don't need Bin Laden's help to do that.

No doubt. We've already got Congressional-Republicans who've sat-around, on their dead-asses.....for TWO YEARS.....doing nothing but drawin' a paycheck.

(I'm surprised they never asked for any food-stamps, on-top o' that free-ca$h!!!)

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why should United States have to absorb a greater attack than 9-11? I swear if Obama isn't loosing some marbles.

I give-up.....why?? ​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why should United States have to absorb a greater attack than 9-11? I swear if Obama isn't loosing some marbles.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding here.

Obama said that if we get attacked again, it won't destroy us. Which is true.

He also said that the most important thing is to prevent another attack. Which is also true.




What's the part that you're not understanding?

 

[skookerasbil]

These type of threads are laughable.................

Of course, the hyper left liberals who have a "meh" attitude about another terror strike always hail from some place nobody gives a fcukk about or, in fact, nobody's ever heard of.........Scratchmayassville Utah...........Bumfook, Ohio...........Irrelevantstown, Vermont.............Mount Gay Pennsylvania.........Bone Gap, Illinois..........Onacock, Virginia...........Bloody Dick, Montana!!! Some fcukking hole in he middle of nowhere in a place where the biggest terror target would be a fcukking cornfield or a Mom and Pop drugstore. No terror bad guys will ever come within 500 miles of their location, if that.


Essentially, their input in threads like this is completely irrelevant. When you live a million miles from the crosshairs, you might as well be standing naked out in the middle of Siberia yelling "FIRE". Nobody cares about your opinion because you'll never, ever be a fcukking target. Indeed..............THE definition of assholes!!!


Its easy for limpwristers to put thier heads in the sand when they live light years from Ground Zero!!!!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The president said something about 9/11?! You should probably make a thread about it, blowing the comment out of proportion, and insinuating this is a "right vs left" political argument despite the fact that the comment was neutral and correct.

 

[Rozman]

3000+ Americans killed and this President is more concerned over the feelings of his Islam buddies.He feels that we deserved what happened because of our past arrogance towards other people in the world.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

3000+ Americans killed and this President is more concerned over the feelings of his Islam buddies.He feels that we deserved what happened because of our past arrogance towards other people in the world.

Glad to see the "Obama is a terrorist" nonsense crowd dropped in.


Any actual comments? Or do you "just know" that Obama hates America, and sides with the terrorists?

 

[skookerasbil]

3000+ Americans killed and this President is more concerned over the feelings of his Islam buddies.He feels that we deserved what happened because of our past arrogance towards other people in the world.

Glad to see the "Obama is a terrorist" nonsense crowd dropped in.


Any actual comments? Or do you "just know" that Obama hates America, and sides with the terrorists?

that he is an ally of the terror bad guys is indisputable.................unless you have a history IQ of a coffee cup mug handle. In the end, limpwristers always get pwned!!

 

[Rozman]

Just listen to his speeches.How many did he give where he apologized for Americas arrogance.How many times has he defended Iran's right to build Nuclear Reactors and they promise every day that they will wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.How many times has he said he wants to sit down with the leader of Iran without any preconditions.You know this guy hate the Constitution because it talks about what government can't do.He would prefer a document that details what government CAN do to control its people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, well, well,

Olbermann just did a segment featuring a quote from the Bush administration using the same sort of 'absorb' terminology.

You idiots can all go back to bed now.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Just listen to his speeches.How many did he give where he apologized for Americas arrogance.

None, actually.

How many times has he defended Iran's right to build Nuclear Reactors and they promise every day that they will wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

He's never said that.

How many times has he said he wants to sit down with the leader of Iran without any preconditions.

I believe he said that once or twice, during the campaign. Has he ever done it? No.

You know this guy hate the Constitution because it talks about what government can't do.He would prefer a document that details what government CAN do to control its people.

This is nonsense speculation on your part.

Also, NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OP.