Althouse: Obama to Bob Woodward: "We can absorb a terrorist attack... even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

September 22, 2010

Obama to Bob Woodward: "We can absorb a terrorist attack... even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

From Woodward's new book.

Obama also said that of course, he's trying to prevent any attacks, but his point about absorbing whatever hits us and getting stronger... it's true, isn't it?

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

It's true, right?

Classier version of the same: "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

(Hey, check it out: "Twilight of the Idols" has a Facebook page.)

AND: Make the Althouse blog stronger. Use this link if you buy the Woodward book.

252 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 252 of 252

The Drill SGT said...: BTW, speaking of someone whose elevator stops shy of the top floor, did anyone see Carter on Larry King?

Carter has an ego like Obama :); 9/22/10, 7:17 PM
J said...: chicken-hawk

I don't like pay attention to polls or demos showing which phrases are passe or not with the demopublican blogs. The word still effectively connotes a certain type of WASP armchair general, usually a business type, frat boy, Limbozo-lover, Zig Ziglar type. Like....Althouse regs.; 9/22/10, 7:22 PM
Quaestor said...: holdfast wrote: "And if it is old material taken from a number of old Russian plants in Kazakhstan and then [re-]manufactured in Iran, who do we nuke smarty?"

Good point. And what about simple U-235 bombs, the kind we're most likely to face? These have no reactor signature.; 9/22/10, 7:27 PM
Quaestor said...: So what are you J, just plain ole chicken?; 9/22/10, 7:28 PM
Revenant said...: If Kennedy had threated Russia privately then who knows.

Kennedy made private concessions to Russia, both with regard to Turkey and by promising that the United States would not invade Cuba in the future. This is not something made up for a Costner movie; I have no idea where you got your understanding of the missile crisis from, but it is ahistorical.

2) North Korea and Iran might be able to gain a retaliatory umbrella from China or Russia.

I see no reason to believe that either the Russians or the Chinese are suicidal.; 9/22/10, 7:29 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Stupidest, most simplistic criticism ever made. What do you want, Starship Troopers? Only vets can vote and rule?

sounds good to me, but in fairness, it was only voting, not any other issue and Vet was defined as anyone who submitted to the public service program and served a tour in the job assigned, be it bed pan guy, Capsule Trooper, Starship pilot, rocket scientist, or vaccine testee.

The unifying theme was that you demonstrated that you put the group ahead of the self then you got the vote. But not till you left your service and became a civilian again.

there could be worse criteria; 9/22/10, 7:33 PM
Quaestor said...: Revenant -

Please read The Khrushchev Memoirs as edited by Sergei N. Khrushchev. Then talk to me about history; 9/22/10, 7:34 PM
J said...: Not exactly Sarge Quaestor. Republican I've never been (and chickenhawks generally are..tho not always. Hitchens and his ilk might be called a liberal species of chickenhawk, saber-rattler, armchair, etc).

Tho Im about 200 lbs, jus shy of 6 ft, and bench press about 400. Visit my blog for more info (mano a mano! Marquess of Queensbury, of course. Valor thing, like that Al Haig BS you aspire to).

GOP macho men, whether in uniform or not -> perps. McCains no better than Bushco---who knows what sorta hell the world would be now had Maverick and Klondike Sarah won; 9/22/10, 7:35 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I think "chickenhawk" connotes an unserious partisan who doesn't understand that every President is a war leader, and that constitutional government means that civilians are in charge.

Sometimes those unworthy WASPy civilians send a lot of men to die in foreign places. Like FDR and JFK and LBJ. (BHO?- he's more WASPy than any President of my lifetime, except for Bush I). It's the most important job they have.

Actually, any use of jargon tends to mean the same thing- unseriousness. If you're using a lot of cute derivative phrases ("demopublican"?) you are spending too much time on blogs where everyone agrees (you know, the ones where you DO pay attention to what phrases are in this week.)

There's always an actual English word that works better, and doesn't telegraph the fact that every opinion you have is utterly predictable.

Now go find another cute buzzword to confine your thinking. I suggest "teapartard." I made it up myself, and I think it would be very popular on the right lefty blog. You don't even have to give me credit for using it.

Go be hip.; 9/22/10, 7:40 PM
Revenant said...: Please read The Khrushchev Memoirs as edited by Sergei N. Khrushchev. Then talk to me about history

I'll pass.; 9/22/10, 7:41 PM
Revenant said...: Tho Im about 200 lbs, jus shy of 6 ft, and bench press about 400.

Don't forget your 180 IQ, $250,000 salary and 12" cock.

This is the Internet. You can't half-ass your anonymous bragging.; 9/22/10, 7:42 PM
blake said...: I think is a case of Nixon going to China.

Er, the reverse case. The complement? Carter going to the USSR?

Point is, you don't want to hear anything that can be construed as weakness from a guy you already think of as weak.

wv: kiesess

o/~taco-flavored kiesess~\o; 9/22/10, 8:04 PM
Fen said...: Libtard: Uh oh, speaking of Nietzsche-like chicken hawks

No. If your rule is that only military people can speak in support of military action, then it follows that non-military turds like yourself are not allowed to speak against military action.

So by your own standards, you're not allowed to participate in this discussuion. See ya Libtard, dont let the door hit your fat ass on he way out.; 9/22/10, 8:10 PM
Cedarford said...: holdfast - "And if it is old material taken from a number of old Russian plants in Kazakhstan and then [re-]manufactured in Iran, who do we nuke smarty?"

You fixate on forensic evidence. All bomb analysis is is one tool among many. You would have every nation except the guilty party's scurrying to both point the finger at the guilty parties, and to reaffirm "hey it wasn't us!".

Lets say it was the Soviet Union bombed by someone and they didn't know who but who know have 500 thermonuclear weapons elevated to "Snapcount" status - ready to deliver as soon as the Russians decide who is culpable. If my nation wasn't involved, I hope we would do everything in our power to help them and not have those 500 bombs head our way. Want to see our CIA guys, drive you Russkies right into Langley to hash over stuff. Want to interview the JCS? Feel free. THink it was the Chechens backed with Iranian money? Want to smoke the whole Chechen civilian population? Fine with us if you have reasonable evidence, and we will look at everything we have on the Chechens and Iranians and let you know if there is anything you guys should know.; 9/22/10, 8:12 PM
The Drill SGT said...: John Lynch said...
Sometimes those unworthy WASPy civilians send a lot of men to die in foreign places. Like FDR and JFK and LBJ. (BHO?- he's more WASPy than any President of my lifetime, except for Bush I).

I don't see FDR, JFK, LBJ, or GHWB as chickenhawks.

FDR served as Sec Navy during WWI, the others all went to the Pacific during WWII. Though LBJ didnt see action, he volunteered and went.

I didnt like LBJ's role in Vietnam much, but one only has to see the pictures of him in that era to know that the stresses were a terrible strain.

Nixon and Carter? Though they served, they didnt understand...; 9/22/10, 8:13 PM
jr565 said...: John Lynch wrote:
And how much sense does it make to use that term when the President, who has never served in any capacity in the armed forces, sends hundreds to their deaths every year?

Should we have voted for McCain instead to avoid electing a "chickenhawk?" That word was noticeably absent in 2008. I wonder why?

Stupidest, most simplistic criticism ever made. What do you want, Starship Troopers? Only vets can vote and rule?

Totally idiotic.

Chickenhawks were also those armchair generals who were for the Iraq war but didnt' serve. Apparently, being for a REAL war on terror doesn't make you a chicken hawk, even if you don't actually serve. You'd almost believe that the talking points of the left didn't apply. Like for example, we're occupyiers therefore the insurgents are the Minutemen (AND THEY WILL WIN!). Apparently even though we are occupiers in Afghanistan, we and they don't consider it as such because it's the good war. And of course Iraq lasted longer than WWII, but Afghanistan lasted longer than Iraq, but time is different when it's the good war. The Taliban are not inusrgents, nor the minutemen, and our air raiding villages doesn't in fact create more terrorists because it's THE REAL war on terror.; 9/22/10, 8:17 PM
Fen said...: C4: You would have every nation except the guilty party's scurrying to both point the finger at the guilty parties, and to reaffirm "hey it wasn't us!".

Geez C4, I've played Civ3 against kids with more strategic sense than this. Do you really believe the guilty party will be this stupid?

We'll be able to pick out the perps because they will go into a dimplomatic freeze after the attack?

C4: "nuke the country with the deer-in-the-headlights look"

Really?; 9/22/10, 8:21 PM
Fen said...: I see no reason to believe that either the Russians or the Chinese are suicidal.

They dont need to be suicidal.

All they need is plausible deniability. "This is the material we reported stolen in report xxx to the UN"

"We had no role in this. And if you wrongly target us, we will consider it an act of war and retaliate against your cities"; 9/22/10, 8:28 PM
Joe said...: Uh "J" how many years did Obama serve in the military, or Rahm, or Axelrod?

Seems to me they escalted a war and ahve never served...so for consistency's sake, I take it they're "chickenhawks", too?

And what would be the basis of a war crimes trial for BushCo? No WMD's? Will Bill Clinton also be in the dock for his part in bombing Iraq? Will Congress be in the dock, after all they authorized the invasion?

The AUMF listed MULTIPLE reasons for the war, not just WMD's, BTW.

Lastly, as well as the 12" c*ck don't forget your girlfriend, Morgan Fairchild.; 9/22/10, 8:37 PM
Fen said...: So, we are back to square one:

You are President of the United States. NYC is gone. LA is gone.

After one week, your best intel that a Hezbollah cell delivered the nukes, with help from either Syria and Iran, or both.

Its clear that the materials came from Russia's black market, but you can't prove their government deliberately "lost" it.

Who are you going to nuke again?

While you're thinking it over, we have White House lawyers out here saying we cant nuke anywhere where the fallout would cross international borders.; 9/22/10, 8:41 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Fen,
Use your head. Any nation that could be suspected of being involved in a nuclear attack would be very cooperative in the investigation, because they would know that we would have a hair trigger. Even if it were President Obama. (And the proof of that is to look at how closely he has followed Bush's policies on the WOT, despite all his campaigning to the contrary.); 9/22/10, 8:44 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Fen,
"I've played Civ3 against kids"

Let me guess, Queastor was one of them.

That explains your thought process.; 9/22/10, 8:45 PM
Fen said...: All because Obama chose Containment over Pre-emption.

We're in an asymmetrical war against the Jihad. A war where they will use proxy suicide bombers to deliver nuclear, biological and chemical attacks against our civillians.

And Obama chose Containment...

What an idiot.

Can we have Bill back please? We'll even pay for "staff" he can abuse.; 9/22/10, 8:50 PM
Fen said...: exhelodrvr1: Use your head. Any nation that could be suspected of being involved in a nuclear attack would be very cooperative in the investigation, because they would know that we would have a hair trigger.

Hey genius, thats what I'm saying. Maybe if you read a little slower...

exhelodrvr1: Let me guess, Queastor was one of them. That explains your thought process.

...and you reflexively reach for the ad hom. And not a very good one at that.

You're not very bright, are you?

I'll give you 5 minutes to beat your fists on the floor. Once you've settled down, maybe you'll be able to make a valid point...; 9/22/10, 8:54 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Fen said...Who are you going to nuke again?

Or you could pop a 50kt weapon at 20,000 feet, 20 miles downwind of both Tehran and Damascus and tell them that they have 24 hours to hand over alive, every asshole who knew about the plan in advance, else other steps would be taken....; 9/22/10, 9:24 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Drill SGT-

I don't either. They did OK, even Johnson. He at least tried to win.

LBJ's big mistake was not changing the military leadership earlier. He certainly gave the military enough resources, which they then misused. Some politically motivated decisions, like the bombing halts, were his fault but they didn't lose the war.

The more I learn about Vietnam, the more I don't like Nixon. He's the one who pulled the plug after Abrams took over and actually started turning things around. As far as I can tell, he was motivated more by political expediency than any desire to win the war or to save the lives of our servicemen.; 9/22/10, 10:39 PM
Revenant said...: They dont need to be suicidal. All they need is plausible deniability. "This is the material we reported stolen in report xxx to the UN"

The "suicidal" comment was in response to Quaestor's odd notion that Russia or China would protect North Korea or Iran in the event of nuclear war. It had nothing to do with stolen nuclear material.

You are President of the United States. NYC is gone. LA is gone. After one week, your best intel that a Hezbollah cell delivered the nukes, with help from either Syria and Iran, or both.

I find it unlikely the President would still be in power after seven days of dicking around like that.; 9/22/10, 11:41 PM
Fen said...: The "suicidal" comment was in response to Quaestor's odd notion that Russia or China would protect North Korea or Iran in the event of nuclear war. It had nothing to do with stolen nuclear material.

Okay.

But I dont find Q's notion odd. China will pound the table to prevent us from nuking N Korea. They'll back it up with soft power from the UN, financial pressure of holding so much US debt, and the implied threat of their own nukes.

They'll offer us "some other way" to get at North Korea. Once Obama bites, that "some other way" will become long and drawn out and, in the end, accomplish as much as UN sanctions or a harshly worded resolution.

Because Team Obama has no balls. They are percieved to be weak, so I think China would push this track to see what they can get away with.; 9/23/10, 12:08 AM
JAL said...: EMP

One Second After

One place to start. (Ignore Gingrich if he's a problem for you.); 9/23/10, 12:11 AM
Fen said...: I find it unlikely the President would still be in power after seven days of dicking around like that.

How long to it take us to confirm 9-11 was Al-Queda?; 9/23/10, 12:17 AM
A.W. said...: btw, its funny with the term chickenhawk. it was all the rage when dems could claim bush was a draft dodger, etc. now that we have a president who never served in any capacity, it is suddenly out of favor again.

Mind you, the term chickenhawk should never pass the lips of a free man. But as usual, where is the constistency?; 9/23/10, 12:30 AM
Revenant said...: But I dont find Q's notion odd. China will pound the table to prevent us from nuking N Korea.

And if pounding on a table could deflect ICBMs, that would be a serious cause for concern.; 9/23/10, 2:07 AM
Revenant said...: Because Team Obama has no balls.

Which is why they will nuke first and ask questions later. It is the easy thing to do.

Saying "oh no, we need to wait and be 100% sure, and we need to respect international law, and we need to make sure we don't rush to judgment" -- THAT would take balls. Like we'd a President who tried that live out his term? The only question is whether he'd be assassinated before Congress had the chance to execute him for treason.; 9/23/10, 2:15 AM
Jim S. said...: Nietzsche said, "What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

Nietzsche went insane.; 9/23/10, 3:36 AM
AllenS said...: What's missing from Obama's statement is retaliation. Therefore, I think that if there is another terrorist attack killing thousands of Americans, he won't do anything.; 9/23/10, 4:43 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Being a lover of history, I like to play different scenarios. Shortly after 9/11 I had a discussion w/ a few folks about how Al Gore would have reacted. We agreed there was a good chance he would have overreacted."

Oh, you mean like invade two countries who had not atacked us, making up lies about one of them in order to scare the shit out of Americans that we were maybe someday but probably soon gonna get nuked by Adolf Hussein or his minions and confederates in Al Qaeda?

Gee, that would have been terrible if Al Gore had been in office, overreacting and causing unnecessary fear (among Americans) and death (among citizens of the two sovereign nations we invaded), while squandering a trillion plus dollars that could have been spent on domestic needs. Just terrible! It's a good thing Bush stole the office from that bastard Gore, fair and square!; 9/23/10, 6:52 AM
Fen said...: And if [China] pounding on a table could deflect ICBMs, that would be a serious cause for concern.

It will deflect ICBMs. You think Obama will react rashly, but I think he will cower.; 9/23/10, 7:09 AM
Fen said...: Robert: Oh, you mean like invade two countries who had not atacked us, making up lies

Robert retreats back to his Fantasy Land.; 9/23/10, 7:10 AM
Fen said...: Robert: Oh, you mean like invade two countries who had not atacked us, making up lies

Robert retreats back to his Fantasy Land.; 9/23/10, 7:10 AM
Synova said...: "But I dont find Q's notion odd. China will pound the table to prevent us from nuking N Korea."

China doesn't particularly get along with North Korea, I thought.

One thing to consider... our "losses" in both Korea and in Vietnam were largely due to our fear of China becoming involved. In retrospect, don't most people agree that this fear was unfounded? Looking back at that, would our people make the same decision again, or would they decide that we were overly cautious before and there was even less reason to believe that China would act rashly now than there was then?; 9/23/10, 9:09 AM
A.W. said...: Robert

Your comment about them not attacking us is wrong for three reasons.

First, this war in terror is not--or at least should not be--about revenge. it should be about stopping the next one.

Second, when AQ wanted to carry out the 9-11 attacks, they asked the taliban for permission. the taliban then said, more or less, we will let you do this if first you assasinate the leader of the northern alliance. AQ did and then got the go ahead for 9-11. you might say in that situation that they didn't attack us so much as give permission a barter in an murder for hire scheme, but that strikes me as splitting hairs.

Third, at the meeting at which 9-11 and the attack on the cole was planned, saddam had one of his agents there. it is unknown whether he helped plan it or not, but saddam's agents knew this was coming and did nothing to warn us. again you might say he technically didn't attack us, but i am not splitting that hair.; 9/23/10, 9:13 AM
A.W. said...: Sy

btw, there are some people who claim that china is laying the groundwork to invade north korea. they say that china has been claiming recently that korea has been historically part of china. they note that they made similar claims just before taking tibet.

fwiw.; 9/23/10, 9:14 AM
holdfast said...: Drill:

We're talking the loss of two major American cities. I don't want them to hand over a few dozen patsies, like Libya handed over the guy who was recently released by the Scots. I want ten of their cities for every one of ours, or else they pay us reparations for the next 100 years.; 9/23/10, 9:20 AM
Synova said...: Look at what we're doing here, right now.

We're talking about what China might or might not do in response to us attacking someone else altogether.

This is what we need other countries to be asking themselves before they act, before they *permit*, and before they look the other way... what will America do?

Who will get caught in the fall-out? Can they afford not to warn us? Can we afford to discount China and her ambitions?

That's why what Cook is always on about is actually dangerous. He wants to remove the very thing that inhibits nations from tossing bombs around. He wants a public and firm policy of careful isolationism and severely limited proportional retaliation.

In other words... no one has to wonder what we'll do, if we promise not to do anything, if we promise not to act at all until after a "crime" is committed, and we promise on a burden of proof to only go after those immediately and directly responsible and only if the "crime" was against us an not someone else.; 9/23/10, 9:50 AM
Robert Cook said...: A.W. said:

"...when AQ wanted to carry out the 9-11 attacks, they asked the taliban for permission. the taliban then said, more or less, we will let you do this if first you assasinate the leader of the northern alliance. AQ did and then got the go ahead for 9-11. you might say in that situation that they didn't attack us so much as give permission a barter in an murder for hire scheme, but that strikes me as splitting hairs."

Where did you ever hear such a thing? I have never heard that reported anywhere, and, in fact, this article indicates just the opposite:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50300

"...at the meeting at which 9-11 and the attack on the cole was planned, saddam had one of his agents there."

Again, this is merely an unsupported allegation by those wishing to create a Saddam link to 9/11 that did not exist.; 9/23/10, 10:15 AM
Synova said...: Being involved with the Cole doesn't say anything about participating in 9-11, Robert.

And besides, the most *important* way that Saddam was "involved" in 9-11 was as a "cause" for Bin Laden. During the time of sanctions, containment, and "food for oil" the United States was supposedly responsible for the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi children on account of we wouldn't let Saddam have chemical weapon grade chlorine to treat their water.

I realize that in the land of unicorn farts this never happened and Bin Laden and other Islamic hot-heads who hated Saddam never used the children of Iraq as an excuse for anything, but in the real world it was one of the excuses that Bin Laden specifically cited as justification for the attacks on 9-11.

The situation in Iraq contributed, no matter if if only as an excuse and no matter enmity between Saddam and others in the region and no matter that no Islamic nation that we've ever known has actually supplied aid to another unless it was to build a Wahhabist school.; 9/23/10, 10:47 AM
A.W. said...: Robert

> Where did you ever hear such a thing? I have never heard that reported anywhere.

Then you weren’t paying any attention after 9-11.

> Again, this is merely an unsupported allegation

No, it’s a fact. i know the dogmatic line is that saddam was allegedly too secular to ally himself with AQ. The reality is that the enemy of my enemy is my ally. We had no trouble working with Stalin in WWII. And despite his obsession with racial purity, Hitler allied with the Japanese. And Saddam and AQ were allies because they wanted the same thing: for americans to die.; 9/23/10, 12:22 PM
A.W. said...: Btw, greater context is supplied to obama's context and i am happy to say that Obama is not as clueless on national security as i originally suspected.

http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/09/fuller-context-of-absorb-comment.html; 9/23/10, 12:22 PM
Revenant said...: It will deflect ICBMs. You think Obama will react rashly, but I think he will cower.

Then he'll be out of office and sitting in a prison cell faster than you can say "300,000,000 bloodthirsty Americans".; 9/23/10, 1:20 PM
Robert Cook said...: "No, it’s a fact."

Where's your proof, or at least your evidence?; 9/23/10, 2:30 PM
myspotlght said...: It's true but also false.; 10/6/10, 3:52 AM
myspotlght said...: It's true but also false.; 10/6/10, 3:55 AM