You mean we didn’t “absorb” the vicious terrorist attack of 9/11?
That’s wrong? What happened? It brought this country to its knees? It set us back two centuries? It turned us into a bunch of sniveling, bed-wetting crybabies?
Here are a few sentences from Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, who has published a new book,”Obama’s Wars,” about the vigorous debate among Obama’s team over the way forward in Afganistan:
During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “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.”
I’m not entirely sure how the rightwing machine would have described the nation’s reaction to 9/11, but it’s certainly going nuts over the way President Obama described it. (As they go nuts over everything he says and does.) Rightwingers are also taking the remarks out of context.
Over at The American Prospect, bloggers Adam Serwer and Jamelle Bouie got it just right.
as I wrote this morning, “Chances are, rather than being portrayed as a statement of faith in the American people, this will be cast as a sign of complacency.”
The reaction of Fox News is fairly representative. Earlier they displayed a chyron asking if Obama were “inviting another 9/11,” and guest John Bolton took a break from walking up and down K Street in a sandwich board that says “Bomb Iran” to say this:
I think that may be the most outrageous thing that’s been reported about this book. How can an American president say that as if he’s a detached observer and doesn’t care about Americans dying? I think people have been worried about his qualifications to be commander in chief for a long time, and that ought to prove it.
Basically Republicans are outraged and offended at the notion that the president has enough faith in the courage of the American people that another terrorist attack wouldn’t reduce them to a quivering mass of frightened little children.
This is a ridiculous reading of words that don’t actually require much context or interpretation. Indeed, I’m sure that a precocious five-year-old could discern the president’s meaning with minimal effort.