Washington is reveling this week in one of its oldest traditions – dissecting a Bob Woodward book that analyzes the sitting president. While much focus will be given to what one senior official said about another senior official, there is real news that deserves the bulk of the attention. Specifically, President Barack Obama’s shocking statement to Woodward that “we [America] can absorb another terrorist attack.”
He goes on to say: “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.”
This statement demonstrates our Commander-in-Chief’s cavalier and frightening approach to national security, which apparently is based in the notion our country will ultimately “absorb” terrorist attacks, rather than prevent them.
Of course, America is a strong and vibrant nation that has proven it can recover from our darkest hours and valiantly defend our freedom. But there is no excuse to accept a situation where we put the lives of innocent Americans at risk. What city or state is the president willing to let “absorb” another attack? Los Angeles? New York? Washington?
President Obama contention that we have already “absorbed” the attacks of 9/11, and they only made us stronger is also short-sighted. This conclusion is highly insensitive to the countless victims still mourning and the ongoing war still being waged; and sends a signal to terrorists that we may be willing to live with a state of constant threats.
This notion also naively ignores that the next attack on our nation could be far more destructive than 9/11 and further illustrates Obama has a very shallow and dangerous understanding of the 9/11 attacks, their motive, their impact and the likelihood another devastating attack is on the horizon.
Early on in his term, President Obama ordered his administration to stop using the term “Global War on Terrorism.” This was alarming. However, this week’s insight should serve as a powerful confirmation that the president does not view national security as his top priority.
Certain actions of the White House and the Department of Homeland Security over the past two years have led many to question this administration’s commitment to preventing another Islamist terrorist attack on our soil.
This perception that we can “absorb” another attack must also factor into his decision-making in Afghanistan where he has ignored military advice to increase troop levels and created an artificial date for withdrawal that has emboldened our enemy. He did so because in his own words: “I don’t want to lose the entire Democratic Party.”
President Obama has chosen to dismiss his role as a war-time president instead to focus on a broad-based liberal domestic agenda. Stimulus spending and massive government growth should not get in the way of our government’s ultimate priority of keeping us safe.
We must not accept that another attack could be “absorbed.” The outcome of our national security policies lay completely on President Obama’s shoulders. It’s time for him to prioritize our domestic security.
