We can absorb a terrorist attack

[SolaSaint]

This was Obama's reply to Bob Woodward when asked about the terrorist threat to America. This is noted in Woodwards new book. See link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092106706_pf.html

Will this statement get any traction from the Uber Liberal Media machine? I don't think it will. It should, I couldn't have ever envisioned our own President making such a stupid statement. He thinks it better to pull our troops home and take the risk of Osama building again to attack us. This guy really worries me, and I can't understand why even 40% of Americans approved of his leadership, I feel it should be about 4%. Are we in a mass nightmare, some one pinch me.

 

[Gold Dragon]

CBS
CNN
Yahoo
ABC
The Atlantic Wire

Slate goes into the context of the quote.

Slate: Obama Is a Cheney Realist - What Obama really meant when he said America can "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.

 

[targus]

Obama's actions are obviously different than his words in this case.

Allowing an unlimited number of unknown persons to pour unfettered over the border into the country is not prioritizing national security.

It is surrendering it.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Allowing an unlimited number of unknown persons to pour unfettered over the border into the country is not prioritizing national security.

It is surrendering it.

Which is why Obama has deported more criminal aliens than Bush and has increased border security funding.

 

[targus]

Which is why Obama has deported more criminal aliens than Bush and has increased border security funding.

It's the one's coming over the border that we do not know about that cause me the most concern where it comes to a terrorist attack.

Actual border patrolling has not increased under Obama.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Obama's actions are obviously different than his words in this case.

Allowing an unlimited number of unknown persons to pour unfettered over the border into the country is not prioritizing national security.

It is surrendering it.

I think what he is trying to get at is that within the scope of the problem of national security, there are priorities. His ranking is something like...

1. Nuclear or WMD attack
2. Terrorist attack (not #1 because the US can absorb it)

I'm pretty sure he would say illegal immigration from Mexico is way down the list of national security problems that could destroy the united states and he would be right. That doesn't mean it isn't a national security issue. Just that it isn't #1 and probably no where near #1.

 

[targus]

I think what he is trying to get at is that within the scope of the problem of national security, there are priorities. His ranking is something like...

1. Nuclear or WMD attack
2. Terrorist attack (not #1 because the US can absorb it)

I'm pretty sure he would say illegal immigration from Mexico is way down the list of national security problems that could destroy the united states and he would be right. That doesn't mean it isn't a national security issue. Just that it isn't #1 and probably no where near #1.

I am not saying that illegal immigration is the terrorist threat.

I am saying that not securing the borders is a threat.

If poor illegal immigrants came cross in and out of the U.S. with such ease why can not well funded terrorists do the same?

 

[preachinjesus]

If terrorists are well funded and well trained why do they need an open border as a means of ingress?

 

[targus]

If terrorists are well funded and well trained why do they need an open border as a means of ingress?

Why do thieves prefer unguarded targets?

It's not as easy to get caught.