Obama Terror Attack Quote Shows Stupidity Of The Right-Wing

(Post originally at Zennie62.com)

Obama Terror Attack Quote: the definition of "absorb" - keep that in mind.

The Internet's ablaze with news, blog, and soon video and audio chatter about President Barack Obama's quote in Bob Woodward's new book Obama's Wars. The Right Wing of the blogsphere's especially excited over the so-called statement by the President that America "could absorb" a Terrorist attack.

The right, looking for whatever edge it can get politically, is prone to great leaps in misjudgement. Want an example? Look no further than Senator John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate. Not to digress, the problem of Couch Potato Conservatives rests in their lack of desire to think. Thus, failing to ask one simple question: what's the definition of "absorb."

Here are all of the possible definitions:

1. To take (something) in through or as through pores or interstices.
2. To occupy the full attention, interest, or time of; engross. See Synonyms at monopolize.
3. To retain (radiation or sound, for example) wholly, without reflection or transmission.
4. To take in; assimilate: immigrants who were absorbed into the social mainstream.
5. To learn; acquire: "Matisse absorbed the lesson and added to it a new language of color" (Peter Plagen).
6. To receive (an impulse) without echo or recoil: a fabric that absorbs sound; a bumper that absorbs impact.
7. To assume or pay for (a cost or costs).
8. To endure; accommodate: couldn't absorb the additional hardships.
9. To use up; consume: The project has absorbed all of our department's resources.

Of all nine choices, the one that most fits President Obama's statement is Number 6: "To receive (an impulse) without echo or recoil." That's not what America was able to do in the case of 9-11 and means that such an attack could happen and ultimately no one would be killed, certainly not the 3,000 lives lost on September 11, 2001.

Memories are short, and some Right-Wing blogger contemporaries show a weakness of cognitive thought that is the result of a poorly funded national educational system coupled with an inability to avoid the impulse for anti-intellectualism.

In other words, some of them are just being stupid. Note that "being stupid" is a temporary state of mind, not a permanent one, which means the problem can be repaired. Read on.

Before 9-11 we didn't have the Transportation Services Administration, The Department Of Homeland Security, or WiFi, smart phones, or any number of systems that help prevent or absorb possible terrorist attacks. Now we have those systems in place and they work.

Obama Not Inviting An Attack, But Read The Book

All of this is taken out of context because you and I don't know the full context of the book's prose. Some at the New York Times do, but only share their observations with us, not Bob Woodwards's book itself. Thus, we're left to guess at the context, at least for those of us thoughtful enough to realize we don't know it.

The Right should cool its jets, unless it wants to see an unearthing of every scary, stupid, and idiotic comment made from members of its brethren since September 11th 2001.  By using patient, thoughtful consideration of words, The Right Wing can avoid such displays of lack of intellect in the future.
Post A Comment
  • Blogger Comment using Blogger
  • Facebook Comment using Facebook
  • Disqus Comment using Disqus


  1. Anonymous7:17 PM

    I'm sorry, but it's way too late to be defending Obama's "peace, love, and happiness" ideology. It's become completely ridiculous. When he lies to the American public by telling us that his costly policies and illegal means of pushing through legislation, he hasn't established the kind of trust that allows us to see this quote and say, "Oh okay, I can see it being misunderstood."

    He's essentially saying that if there is a terrorist attack that it'll all be okay- it's not okay. Another terrorist attack would be a tragedy, and there's no excuse for that. We have superior intelligence, defense, and personnel. It's almost like he's preparing his staff and himself for an attack happening under his watch.

  2. Why is it that every time a liberal doesn't like the way something is going, s/he attacks the intellect of the other person or people? If that is your first line of defense, and it's all you have, whose intellect is truly lacking?

    Several of the definitions above for "absorb" are opposite of what someone who lost a loved one on 9-11 would deem acceptable. Just because you highlighted the single one that supports YOUR views doesn't mean that anyone who would choose another of the definitions is any less intelligent that are you.


Featured Post

Gen-Y's tech twist on engagement, weddings and parenthood

While Gen-Y is still getting married at much lower rates than previous generations, some millennials are finally beginning to grow up, enter...

Zennie62 Tweets