We can absorb, What ?



By: Dick Morris



President Barack Obama's essentially European world outlook has

 no better illustration than his comment to

Bob Woodward during a july, 2010 interview

that "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."   What?

The essence of the differences between the European and American

 view of terrorism is the deeply felt, but often unstated opinion on the

(((((Continent that terrorism is normal))) and that it would be a mistake to

 over-react to it. In the United States, terrorism cuts very, very


 deeply into our national psyche. But in Europe, it's often just one of those things.

After all, Europe has seen a lot worse than the relatively naive

American public has ever had to witness. The last serious bloodshed

on American soil came in the Civil War. The Pearl Harbor and 9-11


 attacks stand out as landmarks in our history precisely because

 we have shed so little American blood with the boundaries of the

United States. Britain lost 50,000 people in the blitz during World

 War II. France lost about one-quarter of its military age men in

World War I. Germany saw seven million die in World War II

(not counting the German Jews the Nazis killed). Next to



these horrific casualties, 2400 dead at Pearl Harbor and

3,000 lost on 9-11 pale by comparison.

Basically, Europeans say to America "get over it. Grow up. ( really)

Welcome to reality." But Americans refuse to accept

the idea that random death and massive violence are

inevitable concomitants of the modern world.


We demand that government emphatically reject this

as a norm and move heaven and earth to stop it from happening.

The President of the United States is supposed to


reflect American views and priorities, but he so

 clearly indicated how the European view shapes his thinking in the Woodward interview.

The practical consequences of such an outlook are profoundly disturbing.

Obama told Woodward that "we'll do everything we


 can to prevent" another 9/11, but his confidence

 that we could "absorb" an attack, clearly implies


that he won't. If preventing an attack on the scale of 9/11

or greater is the absolute priority it was for George W. Bush,


 we will indeed do "everything we can" to stop it. But if it is

something we can "absorb" preventing an attack is but one

of a number of competing priorities. The Obama worldview


also demands that we avoid racial profiling, protect the civil

liberties even of non-citizens who are not in the country, and

limit interrogation techniques well short of torture. If a


president has a basic confidence that 9/11 could be "absorbed",

these competing priorities are likely to loom large

 in his thinking and attenuate his efforts.

His comments also indicate a total lack of realization

of the escalating nature of terror attacks. In 1993, we

lost a few people when terrorists hit the Trade Center.


By 2001, they had refined their techniques and demolished

 the buildings and killed 3,000. The next attack is not

 likely to be "another 9/11." It is far more probable   ( REALLY )

that it would be a dirty bomb or even a nuclear


 device or some other weapon of mass destruction,

dwarfing the casualties of 9/11. These things escalate.

And, unless we realize that they do, we are not likely

 to really do all we can to stop it.


If the stakes are the

total obliteration of New York City, we will obviously

do more to stop the attack than if they are "merely"

another 9/11. And Obama's view that the threat we

 face is of the order of magnitude of 9/11 indicates

a blindness to the danger we face.

Finally, the Obama comments indicate a cold and inhuman

 view of the likelihood of 3,000 new deaths. He says    ( No! way! )

we can "absorb" such mayhem. Can the mothers, fathers,

wives, husbands and children of the dead "absorb"

the attack as easily?


 Obama's comments remind

 one of the notion of acceptable casualties in warfare.

This is World War I thinking at its worst. Americans

do not count on "absorbing" an attack of this magnitude.

We see it as a unique horror to be avoided at all costs.

But Obama, like Mao calculating how many Chinese

he could afford to lose in a nuclear exchange, seems

to focus on how much we can "absorb" as a nation.

This is chilling stuff indeed.


well we will not absorb Obama come election & we will

be ready for any tricks he may impose apon this country

for whatever reason and we will defend &

throw him out of the white house if we have to!

He has another thing coming! He can just absorb it!

Obama is using the term absorb a terrorists attack like  taking

a daily  vitamin,Obama seems to speak a lot to try to place fear into the

American people-Just what muslims like! oh! well! you know what i say!

we are not back up in a corner! If they want a fight! find out who

 keeps threatening us & who is causing this country evil &  danger-And get them!

We are not going to keep sitting back & watching what happens!

we will fight and defend & we will put a stop to these evil people! Be sure of this!


We should help other countries as well to protect & defend them!

Lets get America back where she needs to be strong & brave & a very  powerful

Nation which  cares for other countries also all over the world.

God above  backs us up & helps us! Lets get the job done & stop all this

fear talk like Obama does.We have the weapons! We have more then weapons!

Enough! is Enough! We will not allow our country to be raped by these

lunatics.No matter who Obama defends or what Obama may say!





This free website was made using Yola.

No HTML skills required. Build your website in minutes.

Go to www.yola.com and sign up today!

Make a free website with Yola