For the good of the body, you will be absorbed:
It’s Obama’s Dukakis moment* according to Greg Gutfeld:
So here’s something a little weird.
According to a new book by famed reporter Bob Woodward, called “Obama’s Wars,” when warned by advisers of another terror attack threat on U.S. soil, our President said that our country could “absorb” it.
This is what he allegedly said, two months ago, in an interview with the author…
“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.”
Look – I don’t want to make a big deal out of this.
Instead, I will make a medium-sized deal out of this.
Frankly, I have concerns about a President who sees our country as a sheet of Bounty that could sop up mass casualties like a spilled Sloppy Joe on the Formica counter. That attack one talks about absorbing could result in thousands of dead folks.
Which is why it’s just creepy using the word, “absorb.”
Now, I’m thinking Obama meant it as a compliment – that we’re a strong country that can weather anything – and I agree.
BUT, “absorb?” You can’t say that crap.
It’s cold, it’s clinical – it makes Mr. Spock sound like Stuart Smiley. It reminds me of Michael Dukakis, way back in the presidential debates of 1988 – when Bernard Shaw of CNN asked him if his wife were raped and murdered, would he favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”
No one remembers anything else from that debate, because Dukakis said “no” in a manner only a passionless robot could master.
For me, the word “absorb” feels like that.
But I guess in the air-conditioned intellect that is Obama, words like “absorb” seem perfectly reasonable.
Still though, President Spock is a “One-Man Wrecking Crew,” Jennifer Rubin adds:
If possible, Obama has done still more harm to the Democrats who are on the ballot this year. Liz Cheney of Keep America Safe was fast on the draw, calling for Obama to explain what he meant about 9/11:
Americans expect our President to do everything possible to defend the nation from attack. We expect him to use every tool at his disposal to find, defeat, capture and kill terrorists. We expect him to deter attacks by making clear to our adversaries that an attack on the United States will carry devastating consequences. Instead, President Obama is reported to have said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack.” This comment suggests an alarming fatalism on the part of President Obama and his administration. Once again the President seems either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe. The President owes the American people an explanation.
Soon other Republicans will be denouncing the comment and challenging their opponents to do the same. It seems as though there is no end to the damage Obama can wreak on his party.
Moreover, the comments come in the context of the rest of the eye-popping disclosures in the book, suggesting, at best, an indifferent commander in chief. The slow-motion reaction to the Christmas Day bomber and the fetish for criminalizing the war on terror now seem to have stemmed from a rather lackadaisical stance toward another attack. If it’s coming anyway, why ruin a Hawaii vacation, no? This hardly helps Obama’s standing, either at home or internationally.
And finally, this revelation may potentially reignite the Ground Zero mosque controversy. If 9/11 is simply the first of many anticipated attacks to be “absorbed,” that location and the event itself fade into insignificance. For Obama, maybe the most searing experience in the last generation is just one of any number of spots where Americans can and will die.
All in all, it is yet another revealing moment, in which conservatives whisper to each other in horror, “I never expected him to be THIS bad,” Democrats shudder, and independents confess they were snowed by a candidate who appeared sober and serious at the time.
Instead, the commander in chief has Spock’s detachment, coupled with Senator Blutarsky’s knowledge of history, but with none of the great fraternity man’s energetic joie de vive. No wonder the left are beginning to look back joyfully at the glory days…of President Jimmy Carter, whom Maureen Dowd describes, flirtatiously as ever, as being “tough as woodpecker lips.” Forget Meggie-Mac; that’s some serious Dirty Sexy Politics right there.
* Some of us saw the Dukakis moments in those who advised Obama, way back in 2008: