Article

2010-09-22 Home Front: Politix

Obama "We can absorb a terrorist attack."

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bertie Huperens2168 2010-09-22 08:33|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 The biggest attack evah was not absorbed, the US Armed Forces were sent out to find the bad guys and kick their asses.

Posted by swksvolFF 2010-09-22 12:01|| 2010-09-22 12:01|| Front Page Top

#2 I vote the Washington liberal elite volunteer to "absorb" the attack first.

Heck, they might even learn a thing or two about the real world.

Posted by DarthVader 2010-09-22 12:12|| 2010-09-22 12:12|| Front Page Top

#3 Why don't you and your Weather Underground pals absorb it Obama?

Posted by Water Modem 2010-09-22 15:24|| 2010-09-22 15:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Actually the US federal government should be making the point that the retaliatory response to a new terrorist attack would be of a magnitude that no enemy could possibly 'absorb.'

Unfortunately the Afghan intervention does not help here. Western forces are in Afghanistan to 'serve the Afghan people,' everyone's is begging the Taliban to negotiate, the ~~bigoted, murderously intolerant~~ Afghan people get to circumscribe the limits of free speech in the US.

Talk about provocative weakness.

Posted by Omaing White7048 2010-09-22 17:15|| 2010-09-22 17:15|| Front Page Top

#5 Victory in war includes aspects or semblances of "NATION-BUILDING", aka "WINNING HEARTS-N-MINDS", sub-aka SHOWING DEFEATED GOVTS-SOCIETIES WHY THE VICTOR'S WAY IS BETTER OR SUPERIOR THAN WHAT EXISTED PRIOR.

NO "NATION-BUILDING" + SIMILAR > BEARING THE RISK THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR SITUATION, ETC. WHICH LED TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE WILL ONCE AGAIN RETURN.

One can give it A DIFFERENT PCORRECT-DENIABLE LABEL OR DEFINITION, ETC. but ONCE ALSO CAN'T ESCAPE FROM DOING IT.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-09-22 19:05|| 2010-09-22 19:05|| Front Page Top

#6 "We" in this context means "you, the cannon fodder, the little people". Our carnage will be the backdrop to just another opportunity to blind us with his oratory skills in the soliloquies.

Posted by Procopius2k 2010-09-22 19:05|| 2010-09-22 19:05|| Front Page Top

#7 This word, absorb.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by no mo uro 2010-09-22 19:26|| 2010-09-22 19:26|| Front Page Top

#8 You and your assh*le minions can absorb it, Bambi. And take the Dems with you.

We're busy trying to make enough money to pay off ~~your wife's vacations~~ the debt you've saddle us with,

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-09-22 20:25|| 2010-09-22 20:25|| Front Page Top

#9 Put your wife and kids, and that Illegal aunt of your at ground zero of the next attack and then make that same comment you piece of shit! When they attack people die, mothers, brothers, sisters, and sons and daughters, they are all someones baby and all are American. How dare anyone make a statement like that! Shame on you Mr. President!

Posted by 49 Pan 2010-09-22 21:05|| 2010-09-22 21:05|| Front Page Top

#10 "We can absorb a terrorist attack."

IOW: I don't have the balls to nip the problem in the bud. I'd feel so much better, idealistically that is, if they hit me in the head with a baseball bat before I did my job.

Posted by gorb 2010-09-22 23:41|| 2010-09-22 23:41|| Front Page Top

23:55 Uleger Barnsmell4617
23:52 KBK
23:49 tipover
23:41 gorb
23:32 Shieldwolf
23:30 bman
23:02 Rectangle4321
22:53 Rectangle4321
22:47 Rectangle4321
22:46 gorb
22:31 Mikw
22:30 linker
22:21 linker
21:50 Barbara Skolaut
21:48 Barbara Skolaut
21:44 Barbara Skolaut
21:43 Pappy
21:28 Pappy
21:24 Pappy
21:19 Spearong Prince of the Bunions9034
21:12 Spearong Prince of the Bunions9034
21:05 49 Pan
21:05 Uleger Barnsmell4617
20:57 49 Pan