Reading the first excerpts of Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars” in The Washington Post is an exercise in self induced nausea. You know it’s going to make you sick, but you read it anyway. There are no surprises here. We always suspected that the reason Obama spent so much time in 2009 deciding on a strategy for Afghanistan, was because, despite all of his pro-Afghan War bluster during the 2008 campaign, he just wanted us to get out of there.
That put him at odds with his Generals…
particularly Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command during the 2009 strategy review and now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.
During a flight in May, after a glass of wine, Petraeus told his own staffers that the administration was “[expletive] with the wrong guy.” Gates was tempted to walk out of an Oval Office meeting after being offended by comments made by deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon about a general not named in the book.
Ed Morrissey notes:
During the Iraq War, Democrats ripped George W. Bush for supposedly not listening to his generals about sufficient troop commitments and strategic and tactical decisions in the field. Consider that when reading the Washington Post’s report from Bob Woodward’s inside look at the stewardship of Barack Obama in the Afghanistan war. Not only did Obama ignore the recommendations of his generals, he wound up writing his own war plan to spite them:
President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.
Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page “terms sheet” that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in “Obama’s Wars,” to be released on Monday.
According to Woodward’s meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives. …
Obama rejected the military’s request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. “I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”
The most important thing Ace took away from the piece was Obama’s flaming skull-worthy assertion that the country could “absorb” another terrorist attack:
Barack Obama To Bob Woodward This Past July: “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.”
…the left is pushing this idea that we can safely “absorb” many new 9/11’s with an eye towards getting us to “accept” the greater bargain they fatuously offer — peace, and a general wind-down of post-9/11 security “overreactions” like the FBI tracking Muslims suspected of terrorist ties. If only we didn’t overreact to the occasional mass-murder, we could go about our business without war, without increased security measures, without “Islamophobia,” without the rest of it.
The problem, you see, is primarily within us, those being targeted for murder. If only we understood that this was a good bargain in exchange for living in a multicultural country and global economy, then we could be good citizens of the world and not lash out so terribly and uselessly when some of the more aggressive proponents of multiculturalism blow up a few of our buildings.
I’m not clear on whether the remark was made in July of 2009 or 2010, but it looks like most of the interviews took place in 2009..
From the The WaPo article :
Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. 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.”
We do know that since Obama took office, there have been an alarming number of terrorist attacks on US soil that have been successful, or were only foiled due to the terrorists’ own incompetence:
May 2009, Binghamton NY: Taliban Chief Claims Responsibility for N.Y. Shooting Massacre
June 2009, Little Rock, AR: Military Recruiting Center Shooting Suspect Under FBI Investigation
November 2009, Fort Hood, TX: Fort Hood Gunman Who Killed 12, Wounded 30 Survived Gun Battle
December 2009, Detroit, MI: Fear and heroism aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 after attempted bombing
May 2010, NYC: Holder: Pakistani Taliban Behind Times Square Attack
The fact that so many terrorists have been able to get around our national security apparatus, has prompted conservatives like AJ Strata to notice that Something’s Wrong Inside Obama Administration Concerning Terrorist Bombings.
That something may be a new attitude that puts preserving multiculturalism and “global good citizenry” above preserving American lives.
We can absorb these attacks. We have absorbed these attacks.
Obama signaled his feelings on this in an April 2007 Dem Primary debate in which he said that he wouldn’t respond to a massive terrorist attack by “alienating the world” based on “bluster and bombast”. His focus was on first responders.
Clinton and Edwards had both answered that they would respond militarily.
The left may push the idea, but most liberal pols know better than to promote it.
Not our President.
RCP Video: Bolton On Fox News with Megyn Kelly: Obama Is “Cold-Blooded, Cynical” And Manipulates National Security
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER UN AMBASSADOR: “If the book is accurate … it is some of the most cold-blooded, cynical, grotesquely political manipulation of national security that I think we’ve ever seen.”
On “absorbing” another terrorist attack:
“The notion that a President would say that in that kind of callous and just utterly robotic way, I think is yet further indication that Obama is simply not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief,” Bolton added.
Linked by Michelle Malkin, Buzzworthy, thanks!