Taking a step back from the Outrage Machine & Beltway Noise Generator, Slate‘s John Dickerson commits journalism and confirms what everyone with a functional brain, a modicum of common sense, and a resistance to right-wing partisan blinders instantly, instinctively knew upon reading Obama’s faux-outrage-of-the-day quote about America’s ability to “absorb” a terrorist attack:
I asked an administration official familiar with the interview to provide me with context. The president was talking with Woodward about the national-security threats he faced upon becoming president—the possible dangers and the fact that the terrorists had to be right only once, whereas the president and his team had to be right every time.
This led the president to talk about the need to prioritize. Objectively, the president said, you would want to be able to stop every attack, but a president has to prioritize. So what does the president put at the top of the danger list? A nuclear weapon or a weapon of mass destruction. Why? Because—and here’s where the quote in question comes in—as bad as 9/11 was, the United States was not crippled. A nuclear attack or weapon of mass destruction, however, would be a “game changer,” to use a popular cliché.
This all makes perfect sense, and has the benefit of being completely, 100%, undeniably true — so much so that it’s precisely the same attitude espoused by Bush Administration officials when talking about prioritization in the war on terror. (Dickerson: “This line of reasoning is identical to what I heard regularly when I covered the Bush White House. … I remember being a little shocked at how brutal the calculus was when I heard officials…say that they had to focus their energy first on ‘mass casualty’ events. What were they talking about? The same thing [Obama] was: a nuclear attack or one that used a weapon of mass destruction.”)
Furthermore, it was, again, patently obvious that this is what Obama meant by his statement. Dickerson says the quote “screams for context,” and it surely does, but really, the context was so transparent that there’s no excuse for failing to guess it. I knew the moment I read it that Obama was talking about prioritization of threats, just as surely as I knew that the quote would cause a bunch of ginned-up bullshit outrage on the Right — outrage from folks like Liz Cheney, whose father once said “we have to assume there will be more attacks,” but who today spewed the following diarrhea from her mouth: “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.” Then there’s John Bolton, who said President Obama’s statement of obvious reality means he “doesn’t care about Americans dying.”
Look, you can debate whether this is something Obama should have said, out loud, to Bob Woodward. Maybe it’s a true statement that’s better left unsaid, at least by the president, at least publicly. Fine. I don’t necessarily agree, as I think we actually need to more of a realistic, adult conversation in this country about the nature of terror threats and our ability to stop them, instead of giving every two-bit terrorist the powerful knowledge that they can shake us to our very core (and perhaps drastically alter national policy) with a single attack. But again, we can reasonably disagree there. Maybe Obama shouldn’t have said this, even though it’s OK to think it, and strategize on the basis of it. Okay. However, this notion that believing and saying what he said means that he “doesn’t care about Americans dying”? That it’s an outrageous example of “fatalism” or “complacency,” a sign of weakness and lack of resolve? Give me a freakin’ break! That’s just sheer, indefensible partisan nonsense. As I tweeted earlier:
The proper response to the obviously true (and, actually, patriotic!) sentiment that we’re strong enough to “absorb” another attack is a shrug. It’s a shame that our political discourse is so immature, such a statement is deemed an outrage and a sign of weakness when made by Obama. As Obama said, we must try to prevent another attack, but we must also know we can absorb it, and thus focus on what we CAN’T absorb – a nuclear strike. But our political discourse is trapped within ridiculous boundaries – things you can’t say, even though they’re true. We are a nation of children.
Come to think of it, maybe Obama is wrong to have so much faith in America. If this country can’t even “absorb” having a president with enough belief in our common sense and maturity to tell us the truth about something as basic as this — a president who doesn’t believe that our national mental well-being depends on being endlessly told the fairy tale that we can and will prevent all attacks everywhere, forever and ever, amen — who knows what else it can’t “absorb”?
I’m with you. I fail to see what the big deal is. Really.
I mean c’mon…the war on terror is one of the few things he’s actually getting right.
gahrie – you just *had* to rub that in, now, didn’t you ?
(ROTFLMFO!)
No. I was honestly trying to give the president his due credit.
I will admit that I was hugely surprised however…..
Hugely surprised by what? That Obama is “getting the war on terror right,” or that you were able to utter those words? Heh. In any case, I appreciate that you agree with me on this.
Goodness. Also, well put Brendan.
Many of us have been very pleasantly surprised that Mr Obama has continued those aspects of the War On Terror that were being successfully pursued by President Bush …
Now, if Mr Obama would listen more carefully to his Pentagon and career advisors in this area, and less to his political appointees and political advisors, might there be less US (and non-US) casualties in Afghanistan ? (See here (need to read past first page) …
There would be a lot less casualties if we got the hell out.
For the military in the short term, yes; however, whether there would be a lot less casualties (civilian and military) in the long term if we “got the hell out” is not at all certain.
Joe Mama #10 – as I said, the “Peace In Our Time” folk are certain from their own experiences that it works every time …
Those of us who have read up on and studied history are aware of how abysmal a failure the Appeasement Movements throughout the centuries have been … and how expensive the toll in human misery has been when appeasers have been in power …
Studied history? Clearly you haven’t if you think that suggesting we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan is appeasement. In fact,when your family asks you what you want for Christmas this year I think the top item on your list should be a dictionary because you CLEARLY do not understand what the word means.
I want us out of major combat in Iraq and Afghanistan because its not our fight. Its a waste of our lives and resources that should be used elsewhere. Thats not appeasement Alasdair, its prioritizing.
Or do you think that we should leave the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at their current levels or higher permanently? If we follow your plan every conflict in the world will require an ever increasing number of U.S. troops stationed permanently over seas. Anything else would, in your twisted world, be appeasement.
With dumb ass comments like above no wonder no one takes you seriously.
David K – what happened in IndoChina when the US Congress defunded the Vietnam War and arbitrarily forced the pull-out of US troops and US assistance ? Saved lots of US lives; not so fortunate for the locals, however …
By strict terms, that wasn’t Chamberlain appeasement – yet it was the “not our problem” crowd getting their own way, just as Chamberlain sought with his Munich meeting with the 3rd Reich …
Historically, when the US military is given the resources it needs, and is led by a wise Commander-in-Chief and a supportive Congress, the results tend to be remarkably positive … when the US Military is led by a less-than-wise Commander-in-Chief and with a less-than-supportive Congress, we get results like Operation Eagle Claw … (permit me to head off the straw-men by pointing out that there seems to be a very strong correlation as described here – Carter and the 1979-1980 Congress were not exactly strongly supportive of the military – and with respect to correlation – at some point, when one sees the iridescent feathers *and* the webbed feet *and* the waddle *and* the bill *and* it quacks, it is reasonable to say “Yup, that’s a duck!”) …
Others with more awareness of more fo US History will be able to either corroborate or refute the correlation with specific examples … WW I and WW II support the correlation … Operation Desert Storm supports the correlation …
The current US ROE support the correlation, too …
Pingback: Tweets that mention On America, Obama, outrage, and absorbency -- Topsy.com
I agree. It is very unfortunitely that public figures constantly have their words twisted and turned into nasty, misleading attacks by partisan bomb throwers. I also think it is unfortunite that both sides, having been the victims of such attacks, can’t declare a truce over this stuff.