How 9/11 Led to President Obama
EmailTen years ago Sunday, a little known Illinois state senator was driving his car down Lake Shore Drive on his way to a legislative hearing at the James R. Thompson Center, the state building in the middle of Chicago’s Loop. He turned the dial on his radio and heard the news that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Like many Americans, state senator Barack Obama assumed it had been a small plane with mechanical difficulties. By the time he got to the hearing, however, a second plane had crashed into the other tower. It had become terrifyingly clear that the crashes had been intentional and that there would likely be thousands of casualties.
Thompson Center was evacuated, and Chicagoans — including state senator Obama — were fearful that Chicago’s Sears Tower might be next. He went to the law offices of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where he was of counsel, and with his fellow attorneys watched that awful scene of the Twin Towers falling.
That night, Barack Obama held his daughter Sasha, who had turned 3 months old the day before. He had night duty so his wife Michelle could get some sleep. As he stayed up late tending to Sasha’s needs he wondered what kind of world she would be inheriting.
Sasha Obama is now 10, and in her short life her father has gone from obscurity to leader of the free world. On issues ranging from the War Powers Act to the indefinite detention of accused terrorists, the former constitutional law lecturer has certainly show a certain willingness to get beyond the theoretical and make decisions his advisers call “practical.” In this the responsibility of the presidency is what may have changed him, not 9/11. The attacks, according to sources close to the president, hastened his political career, causing him to feel a stronger sense of urgency that he needed to emerge on the national stage.
That’s because the issues brought to the forefront of the political debate — the importance of national unity, the wisdom of going to war in Iraq, the balance between liberty and security — are ones that the then-University of Chicago constitutional law lecturer found so compelling, he felt a renewed need to influence that debate. In short, 9/11 in many ways compelled Barack Obama to become a national leader.
Though his political career had suffered a humiliating setback the year before when incumbent Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., crushed him in the Democratic primary, Barack Obama within months of the terrorist attacks began sounding out themes for the post-9/11 world that ultimately led to his presidency — the near-homophone of his last name notwithstanding.
State senator Obama’s immediate reaction was that of an academic. To the local Hyde Park Press on Sept. 19, 2001, he said that the immediate measures the U.S. government would need to take would revolve around airport security, re-examining the effectiveness of intelligence networks, and being “resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.”
But he also said that the United States needed to examine the root causes of the terrorist ideology that fueled the attack, urging the nation to engage in “the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.”
He cautioned the United States to make sure that U.S. military action “takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe — children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.”
Has he governed that way?
Certainly as president he has devoted far more resources to the dismantling of terrorist groups than he has to trying to combat worldwide poverty and to pushing to understand the terrorists’ lack of empathy. And one wouldn’t necessarily think that the man who wrote about the terrorists’ “numbness to the pain of a child” not being innate would be the same one who has ordered more predator drone attacks on militants in Pakistan in his first year in office than President George W. Bush did in all his eight years as president.
But Obama was never a pacifist, nor was he anti-war. In fact, he supported the war in Afghanistan from the beginning, even though his Hyde Park constituents surely would have tolerated skepticism.
As far back as October 2002, when Obama was decrying the war in Iraq at a rally, he was clear to “begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.”
After saying a few kind words about the causes of the Civil War and World War II, he clearly stated that “after September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.”
A war in Iraq would be that war, Obama said, then turning to a number of predictable tropes about “arm-chair weekend warriors” such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz looking “to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne,” and “political hacks like Karl Rove” seeking to “distract” the nation from economic inequity and “a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”
In addition to those applause lines, Obama said “an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.”
Sen. Obama was making these same general arguments about the war in Iraq — absent the language about Messrs. Perle, Wolfowitz and Rove — in his presidential race six years later.
** In an interview with CBS News in August, President Obama reflected on 9/11, saying that he hoped that the American people “recognized that, as severe a blow as that was to America, as wrenching as it was for the families involved, we came out of that stronger than anybody expected. And that was a moment where the country unified because they understood this was a threat to our way of life.”
The president was elected in no small way because he campaigned as someone who would unify the country after a divisive age. That lofty goal has obviously not been realized, a reality to which Obama has contributed, but the idea of it is one that he identified early as politically potent.
Indeed, in his first big splash on the national stage — at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when he was still just state senator Obama, U.S. Senate candidate — that was how he introduced himself, as the man asking the nation the post-9/11 question: “Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?”
Invoking “Shamus,” a handsome young Marine on his way to Iraq whom he’d met at a V.F.W. Hall in East Moline, Ill., Obama noted “the absolute faith he had in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service … And then I asked myself, ‘Are we serving Shamus as well as he is serving us?’”
“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way,” he said, “we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.”
In the divisive Bush years, he argued, the United States was losing sight of what was special about the nation.
“If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties,” he said. “It is that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.”
In what to this day may be his most memorable speech, he said “the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States … But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States… There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”
Those same pundits can disagree on whether President Obama has legitimately attempted to unite the country in his governing style, but what’s less debatable is the post-9/11 theme that the young legislator made his own in 2004, to great success four years later.
And what of the language of understanding the bad guys’ lack of empathy?
In August 2007 when then-Sen. Obama called for unilateral action in Pakistan should he as president ever get credible intelligence about a high-value terrorist target in that country (surely he’d never really do such a thing, right?), Mr. Obama discussed the “desperate faces” one sees as a US Senator visiting hot spots in the developing world.
“Al Qaeda’s new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle East and Europe,” he said. “Many come from disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world. And it makes you stop and wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate?”
Extremists thrive, he said, “in conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy” where they “encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.” He said then, as he did with different language in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world in 2009, that “America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people.”
The Obama administration’s apparent lack of progress on this issue seems his most obvious failure of his post-9/11 lessons. A July poll by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project found that “tensions remain high” in Muslim countries regarding their views of the United States.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
Jake, you are hands down one of the best journalists in existence today. You know full well, as does Obama, that the 9/11 hijackers were in no way impoverished. They were children of the privileged. I know you are a proud father and proud American. I just feel sad that you must report mischaracterisations.
Posted by: sybilll | September 10, 2011, 7:49 pm 7:49 pm
A complacent press led to President Obama.
Posted by: drstanley | September 10, 2011, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
What a crock
Posted by: irishrose | September 10, 2011, 7:51 pm 7:51 pm
DRSTANLEYL “A complacent press led to President Obama.” – I thought it was winning a Presidential election with 10 million more votes and more than double the electoral votes of his rival. Silly me.
Posted by: JOEHILL | September 10, 2011, 7:57 pm 7:57 pm
“A complacent press led to President Obama.”
Posted by: drstanley | September 10, 2011, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm
A sycophantic press willing to bury any negatives about Obama while manufacturing controversies about his opponents led to President Obama.
Posted by: Chuck | September 10, 2011, 8:02 pm 8:02 pm
“he essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine”
Yeah, it’ boils down to an ‘absence of empathy’. Good God. Who is this person we have occupying the WH that couldn’t call it was it was (and still is) — Jihadists.
These people were animals. It’s only a shame we couldn’t put them down like the rabid jackals they were.
There’s no need to understand what motivates them– we (well some of us) understand it already.
NAME. YOUR.ENEMY.
Speaking of empathy, this man(child) has absolutely none for those that lost loved-ones on 9/11/2001. That part was true from reading that very cold, detached OpEd he wrote just five short days after that horrible day. Seriously he’s defective. God, 2012 cannot come fast enough.
Posted by: lauren | September 10, 2011, 8:06 pm 8:06 pm
If 9/11 led us to Obama and the status quo of our country it was a far worse disaster than we ever could have imagined..
Posted by: getreal2011 | September 10, 2011, 8:50 pm 8:50 pm
Posted by: Chuck | September 10, 2011, 8:02 pm 8:02 pm
An obscene $750 million campaign and millions of ignorant voters also helped.
Posted by: Mary | September 10, 2011, 8:51 pm 8:51 pm
I think Bin Laden knew that the President at the time of the attack was a dim witted puppet and would react badly. See The Three Trillion Dollar War…
Posted by: Bill in NC | September 10, 2011, 8:54 pm 8:54 pm
What shallow criticism that is derivative of hatefulness I read. I appreciate that President Obama has tone down the fear and vengeance about 9/11. The President’s approach has been calm, with reason and methodical in managing and taking down Al Qaeda’s leadership. Exactly the qualities what a great country needs in a world leader, now and in the future.
Posted by: threeriverscrossing | September 10, 2011, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm
The dim witted puppet is currently the president. This is disgusting ABC. You should be ashamed.
Posted by: Alrosa | September 10, 2011, 9:12 pm 9:12 pm
Retrospective of the attack on the ideals of liberty, freedom of thought and liberation of gender, faith and race, a decade ago we must remember there will be those who hate those precepts. There are those who will war against them. We were not attacked for our evils, but the opposition to them. We must not faulter in our qualities but endure and perpetuate the ideals which are worthy and good, they inspire fear in those who would oppress the thought and spirit of man. America doesnt need to be more like the world, the world needs to be more American.
Posted by: CaptainFriggenAmerica | September 10, 2011, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm
The Media portraying him as a rock star and not doing their job gave us Obama. The media refusing to challenge Obama because they were afraid of being called a racist gave us Obama. The “news” media doesn’t exist any longer it is now the “entertainment” media. They have been discredited.
Posted by: whathappened08 | September 10, 2011, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
Good grief.
What a crock of total BS….
When asked of many who voted for our current empty suit for President, thay said change but had no idea what kind of change they wanted; just change.
When asked of many one day about policies and how they felt about those policies, virtually all the respondants agreed with them.
They had no idea all of the policies were John McCain’s.
Posted by: Kwazie Wabbit | September 10, 2011, 9:24 pm 9:24 pm
My first thought after reading this article: The White House must have been angered by Jake Tapper’s persistent questioning of Jay Carney of late; this must be the required penance if Mr. Tapper wishes to have access, or a career, in the future.
Posted by: marjorie | September 10, 2011, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm
Is this article Jake Tappper’s penance for confronting Jay Carney about Jimmy Hoffa’s rhetoric not being addressed by the WH the other day?
Posted by: Candy | September 10, 2011, 9:51 pm 9:51 pm
How 9/11 Led to President Obama?
That’s easy….after Bush the first handed Iraq a but whipping for invading Kuwait, the arab terrorists were quite upset. Clinton took the Presidency and did nothing for the insults the terrorists heaped upon us for the entire two terms of the Clinton admin. The terrorists thought we were a country with out a will to fight, so they hit the twin towers for a second time and Bush showed them what the old time religion was about. The libbies couldn’t stand a war, even if it was justified so when Bush’s two terms were over, they ran a black man for the office, betting that political correctness would be the very platform they needed. IT WORKED. The only problem is the ineptness of the new chief exec. He delegated every BIG decision to every one in every office below his, but they proved to be more inept than he is……so now we stand, up to our necks in alligators and 0′bammy doesn’t know how to drain the swamp…..he guesses that it will take another trillion so he’ll tax we the people until awe kick his butt out! Don’t worry, ahe will be remembered!
Posted by: hillcoguy | September 10, 2011, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm
“Those same pundits can disagree on whether President Obama has legitimately attempted to unite the country in his governing style,”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This President, who, when he was candidate 0′bammy, played the race card early and often, commencing when he stood before a crowd of partisans and proclaimed “Those folks are afraid of people who look like ME!” Google it up and see….DON’T DOUBT ME!
Posted by: hillcoguy | September 10, 2011, 10:20 pm 10:20 pm
It was pure stupidity that Obama got in, a corrupt press, and alot money and power from the ubber elitists.
Posted by: You know it is true | September 10, 2011, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
Ignorant people believing that hope and change crap led to this clown being elected !
Posted by: bergen56 | September 10, 2011, 10:32 pm 10:32 pm
LOL! ……. What gave us Obama? BOTTOM LINE: … an idiot named George W. Bush, who applied the full military force of the United States… plus a three-quarters of a TRILLION borrowed dollars from China… to get Saddam Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9-11.
Posted by: Georgie_Bushie | September 10, 2011, 11:00 pm 11:00 pm
This is directed to Jake only, 32 Months later with another terror threat hanging over
our heads, our we really better off? Jake I have not even seen the presidents Dog
since Ted Kennedy gave it to him. I hear this guy yelling in speeches now, that is desperation coming out of his mouth. His new bill, about jobs is not submitted yet.
I thought that he was working on that during vacation, he was on it like a laser.
YES, SOME OF US REMEMBER HIS WORDS.
Posted by: deadwrestler | September 10, 2011, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
BERGEN56, September 10, 2011, 10:32 PM, SAID:
“Ignorant people believing that hope and change crap…”
==================================================================
LMAO!
HOPE: After 9-11, I ‘hoped’ we would get and kill Osama Bin Laden, the perpetrator of 9-11.
CHANGE: After less than 29 months of President Obama in office, we caught and killed Osama Bin Laden.
LMAO! …. “nuff said”.
Posted by: Georgie_Bushie | September 10, 2011, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm
President Obaama does not understand 911.. It is all about President Bush.. Please come back.
Posted by: Len | September 10, 2011, 11:58 pm 11:58 pm
Enough already about 9/11. I am sick and tried of hearing about it. After ten years of almost non-stop propaganda coming from the Republicans and now the Democrats this needs to stop and be placed behind us and move on.
Posted by: bob | September 11, 2011, 12:15 am 12:15 am
We miss George Bush—the pet goat story
Posted by: NoFlyZone2 | September 11, 2011, 12:20 am 12:20 am
Well, he got Osama. Which goes to show you that you don’t need some tough talking cowboy to do it. To all of you claiming the press gave us Obama because he was not vetted? Tell me, what have we learned since he got in that is new that is a game changer? Nada. Obviously we knew everything there was to do. But keep telling yourselves it was all that press.
Posted by: Secondlook | September 11, 2011, 1:24 am 1:24 am
Let’s leave partisan politics out of this debate and concentrate on the individuals who have served as President and the one who is now serving as the duly elected President of the United States. George Bush, the elder, was palsy-walsy with Saudi Arabia, pandering for oil, cutting taxes on the wealthy a la Reagan’s fuzzy trickle down economics, championing ousourcing of American jobs, increasing the national debt, borrowing to balance the budget. Clinton, despite his moral shortcomings and suriving a move to impeach him, managed, during his 2 terms to not only balance the budget but to leave office with a surplus in the treasury having eliminated the national debt. Enter G.W. Bush, with his puppet master, Cheney and war mongerers Rumsfeld, et al. His der in the headlights glazed look on 9/11 when he heard about the attacks pretty well is the hallmark for how he handled crises throughout his terms in office. He launched a war on Iraq without having credible evidence that Sadaam had weapons of mass destructions. When doalition forces reached Bagdad, toppled Sadaam’s statute approximately 3 months later, G.W., clad in a flight suit, stood on the deck of one of our carriers, ha huge banned behind him reading, “Mission Accomplished!” G.W. then invaded Afghanistan, which he should have done in the first place, but he let that ball drop because he was preoccupied with Iraq. Ten years later our young men and women are still in harms way in Iraq. G.W. then failed miserably in dealing with Katrina. The 2 wars drained the surplus in the treasury and raised the national debt; the economy was going to hell in a hand basket and G.W. starts the ball rolling to bail out the banks and stock brokers at the end of his term. Obama is left to pick up the mess. Under the circumstances, including Mother Nature going nuts with one naturl disaster after another striking all over the planet, President Obama has done admirably well.
.
Posted by: amn | September 11, 2011, 1:49 am 1:49 am
you all forget that Bush left a bad bad taste in everyone’s mouth plus we were way in the red numbers back then too…. something so bad is hard to recover over this short period of time and it seems not even americans support a President that has great knowledge and is way ahead of everyone it seems. i love Obama and he is just way to smart for ya all it seems.. some just dont get it. and that is why some dont give him a go…
Posted by: martina | September 11, 2011, 2:08 am 2:08 am
Nice try, but the collective white guilt of the left and the media giving up all pretense of imparitality gave us the Obama-nation.
While lefty continues to give Obama some foreign policy cred by trying to give Zero credit for killing OBL remember that the initial intel that gave the location of the compound came from the enhanced interrogation techniques that Obama decried. Even members of his staff stated it, until the media told them that was a bad idea. I mean after the charlie-foxtrot that was the “Arab Spring” Obama needs some help.
Remember he voted against the war (while a member of the Illinois Senate). Tapper, you are sometimes the lone voice of impartiality, but a lot of time, you are just another shill for this failure that makes Carter look like Abraham Lincoln (founder of the Republican Party according to Obama, yet another story ABC has covered up for him)
Posted by: Yipicya | September 11, 2011, 2:12 am 2:12 am
Anybody know how far along we are on Bush’s 3.4 billiion dollar homeland security building?
Posted by: Secondlook | September 11, 2011, 3:00 am 3:00 am
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WAS TUESDAY AND NOT SUNDAY MR JAKE !
Posted by: IMA | September 11, 2011, 3:46 am 3:46 am
A complacent press led to President Obama.
Posted by: drstanley | September 10, 2011, 7:50 pm 7:50 pm __________________________And a group of Republican crooks help Bush to steal the White House in 2001 Florida. So which one would you choose as decent?
Posted by: GARCIA | September 11, 2011, 5:09 am 5:09 am
Jake Tapper is a sellout. This is what happens when a left-wing blogger from Slate becomes a White House news correspondent.
Posted by: Karen | September 11, 2011, 7:17 am 7:17 am
@Georgie_Bushie/Secondlook:
Most of the Navy SEALS, our most elite and most highly-trained armed forces, who took out Osama Bin Laden were themselves later killed in a revenge attack by the Taliban. Were their deaths worth it?
Posted by: Justin | September 11, 2011, 7:45 am 7:45 am
The divisive partisanship of the Bush years was followed by the hyperdivisive hyperpartisanship of the Obama years.
May there only be four years of Obama. Please. Please. Please.
Posted by: @stinger | September 11, 2011, 8:58 am 8:58 am
Let’s leave partisan politics out of this debate and realize that Barack Obama is the most awesome president ever and that George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush are both total doofuses.
There. Have I left out partisan politics?
Posted by: @stinger | September 11, 2011, 9:03 am 9:03 am
We still have GITMO, patriot act, a surge in Afghanistan, leaving Iraq according to plans put in place by GW. What is so different about the Obama plan? The difference is that the media is on his side! GW’s choices were between bad or worse. The ignorance of American’s on this fact is what led to the Community Organizer and Chief. The war in Iraq led to destabilization of a Jihadist movement hell bent on destroying our way of life. In turn, it has created an atmosphere in the Mid East that has fostered the Arab spring. The media won’t and didn’t tell us that the was in the philosophy of the white papers put together by GW’s folks.
Posted by: Chudly | September 11, 2011, 10:13 am 10:13 am
Jake, he wasn’t a constitutional law lecturer. He was an assistant to a law professor. Keep carrying his water Jake, you do a good job.
Posted by: mike | September 11, 2011, 10:17 am 10:17 am
America is lead by a great leader in Obama, he got Osama Bin Hiding from Bush, he is decimating Alqeda and using drones instead of soldiers to go after the enemy. Bush took us to senseless war and cost 5000 lives for nothing, for no reason. We need a president like Obama who sides with the people and is also sensible to the world’s opinions, which the war mongering Republicans call weak. Under Obama we have garnered more respect and friends than with Bush or any other Republican president. These republican candidates tell it all, ignorant bunch who only care about flexing their muscle and scaring the world and only helping the super rich in this country. Nobody poor or middle class should ever vote for these people. Obama 2012.
Posted by: Don | September 11, 2011, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
Leave it to the “unbiased” media maven Jake tapper to devote an entire 9/11 column to Barak Hussein Obama. Well, it’s understandable, because the PR arm of the Democratic Party has to get about the business of the campaign for reelection of its standard bearer. Shameful? Yeah. Disrespectful to everyone who lost their lives on 9/11 and since defending this nation against another such attack? Absolutely. Surprising? Not at all, and that’s the real tragedy.
Posted by: Undergrad | September 11, 2011, 12:46 pm 12:46 pm
Mr. Obama knows, as do all people who know what they’re talking about, that the 9/11 hijackers were educated children of privilege. Mr. Obama was paying lip service to the politically-correct pieties of the similarly privileged ’60s radicals (including some terrorists) that were his Hyde Park neighbors.
Obama was even more glaringly wrong when he said that the reason the terrorists were able to carry out their horrible acts on 9/11 were because of an inability to empathize. Nothing could be more obviously wrong. The entire coordinated attack on that day was meant to terrorize and manipulate our emotions. And they did it brilliantly. Why do you think they timed the two WTC building strikes 30 minutes apart? Specifically so that all the cameras would be trained on the WTC when the second plane hit. Nothing bears greater testament to evil of these men or the refusal of people like Obama to see the obvious truth about 9/11.
Posted by: BrianH | September 11, 2011, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm
“to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne,” and “political hacks like Karl Rove” seeking to “distract” the nation from economic inequity and “a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.”
Seems like Obama has had no problem with ideological warring against those he considers tyrants irrespective to American interests, political hacks like Krugman and selectively stepping out of the way of the pitchforks when Trumka and Stern’s thugs decide to ransack a few corporations.
Posted by: sh | September 11, 2011, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
Not sure why 9/11 remembrance is about Obama. But hell everything else is.
Posted by: kansas | September 11, 2011, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
Bottom line, Obama didn’t need to raise one penny for his 2008 campaign. The media promoted him 24/7/365. Every network, besides Fox News, was an extension of the Obama campaign. everyone knows that as fact and no one denies it. That is what gave us Barack Obama. How many mainstream media “journalists” are now members of the Obama administration?
The media promoted Obama, covered up his shady past and shady associations and destroyed all of his opponents. Try as you may Jake, you media Obama supporters will never wash that stench off of yourselves. To borrow from a fright flick, “we saw what you did last election”.
Posted by: OxyCon | September 11, 2011, 2:36 pm 2:36 pm
Remember: “If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”
Posted by: Papa John | September 11, 2011, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
This piece is satire, right? Satire shot threw with a hundred falsehoods. Brilliant!
Posted by: jeannebodine | September 11, 2011, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
A sycophantic press willing to bury any negatives about Obama while manufacturing controversies about his opponents led to President Obama.
Posted by: Chuck | September 10, 2011, 8:02 pm 8:02 pm
12 years of Republicans holding the majority in Congress and 8 years of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney led to the election of President Obama.
Posted by: Wolf | September 11, 2011, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
“Obama was even more glaringly wrong when he said that the reason the terrorists were able to carry out their horrible acts on 9/11 were because of an inability to empathize. Nothing could be more obviously wrong.”
Posted by: BrianH | September 11, 2011, 1:10 pm 1:10 pm
To your point, Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl were two liberals who made the fatal mistake of thinking that empathy with Muslims and trying to understand their worldview would serve as a talisman against their hatred. The 9/11 terrorists did not exempt Americans, including fellow Muslims, that might have empathized with them.
Posted by: Chuck | September 11, 2011, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm
Posted by: Wolf | September 11, 2011, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
It seems that Americans realized what a horrible mistake they made electing Obama in 2010 when Democrats–particularly Progressives–experienced historic losses during the mid-term elections at every level of government. Democrats (and RINOs) will also suffer severe losses in 2012. Progressivism is dying. An era of conservatism is taking hold around the globe. The left is powerless to stop it.
Posted by: Chuck | September 11, 2011, 5:33 pm 5:33 pm
Jake. I’m sure you’re a good man. But, please, at least be honest. The USA got Obama for President because journalists like you decided to discard all the practices of objective journalism and give this guy a pass because it made you feel good to help get a black man into the White House . It wasn’t important what kind of man he was, just that he was black. With your help, this black President would transform America and transform the way the world looked at America. Hasn’t worked out too well, has it? That is because the man was not fit for the office of POTUS and never will be. He is a shallow, narcissistic idealogue and a disaster for this great country. Try doing your job next time.
Posted by: David Heisch | September 11, 2011, 6:41 pm 6:41 pm
Mr. Tapper, I commend you for writing this article. You present a side of the discussion that is rarely, if ever, brought up. Everyone fails to look at the motive behind the attacks. Everyone is quick to demonize the attackers (as they should) but they don’t take the time to understand what motivated them to carry out their actions. This article and it’s various excerpts from Obama’s speeches just further prove that our President is an extremely educated, level-headed, and analytical man. It’s a shame that so many people can’t get past the color of his skin or his ethnic background and can’t see these qualities in him.
Posted by: Adam | September 11, 2011, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
“It’s a shame that so many people can’t get past the color of his skin or his ethnic background and can’t see these qualities in him.”
Posted by: Adam | September 11, 2011, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
Yawn.
Posted by: Mary | September 11, 2011, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
Posted by: Mary | September 11, 2011, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
Don’t kid yourself, many people can’t.
Posted by: Bill | September 11, 2011, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
“Don’t kid yourself, many people can’t.”
Posted by: Bill | September 11, 2011, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
Oh, I definitely agree. What else but skin color can explain that 84% of African-Americans approve of Obama even though his policies have set them back decades?
Posted by: Mary | September 11, 2011, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm
Liberalism is a mental disorder without a cure
Posted by: Tusk | September 11, 2011, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
God bless Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. And God bless America.
If I may ask a question of any liberals out there who wish to answer….If you do not want war and are against war and dream of worldwide peace and goodwill, does any of that make any difference at all if a large number of people around the world, with the support of some nation-states and backed by an ideology of hatred, want nothing but your death and destruction? Does any of your high-mindedness count for anything at all?
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
We are at war ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not.
Posted by: Sam H | September 11, 2011, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
Posted by: Sam H | September 11, 2011, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
Sam the American people and large per centages of ‘liberals’ voted Obama into office – and he ran on a military campaign of INCREASING the effort in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a war in response to the attacks on America by al Qaeda – and it was supported.
Bush and Cheney’s mistake was not attacking Afghanistan – it was pulling back the effort and the focus on Afghanistan to pursue their neo-con dream of attacking Iraq – a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Posted by: gillian | September 11, 2011, 11:54 pm 11:54 pm
Posted by: Mary | September 11, 2011, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm
“This article and it’s various excerpts from Obama’s speeches just further prove that our President is an extremely educated, level-headed, and analytical man. It’s a shame that so many people can’t get past the color of his skin or his ethnic background and can’t see these qualities in him.|
Posted by: Adam | September 11, 2011, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm
Posted by: Red | September 11, 2011, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
It is interesting to note that Obama’s policy of engagement and appeasement of Muslim states like Iran has actually done more damage to the US’s image in the Muslim world than 8 years of President Bush. His weakness is despised not only by our enemies, but our Muslim allies who see him as weak and indecisive (how insightful).
A new Zogby poll, “Arab Attitudes, 2011,” has revealed that President Obama’s charm offensive in the Arab world has failed. After he promised to restore America’s international reputation, not only does the Arab world hate America more under Mr. Obama than it did under President George W. Bush, it even hates Mr. Obama – personally – more than it detested the swaggering unilateralist cowboy from Texas.
While he “ordered” (after being pulled off the golf course) the elimination of Osama bin Laden his policies in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and probably Libya are not hurting extremist Islam, but empowering them on a scale they could never imagined under President Bush who was a friend of democracy, but an enemy of militant Islam. The apparent opposite of Barack Obama.
The future is much bleaker thanks to the failed Middle East policies of Barack Obama.
Posted by: Michael | September 12, 2011, 3:02 am 3:02 am
Gillian:
Barack Obama’s policy in Afghanistan is one of power sharing with the very people who harbored, trained and supported al Qaeda in their attack on the US. Currently, he is downgrading the Ameircan war effort just when things were swinging positively in our direction. Defeat in Afghanistan is a real possibility thanks to Obama’s indifference and failed policies. (He is also quickly losing the peace in Irqaq.)
Coupled with his failed Middle East policy not only will Afghanistan be lost to militant Islam, but Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen and potentially Libya and Syria are soon to be Obama’s version of Jimmy Carter’s brutal theocratic dictatorship in Iran.
Obama is making the world a much more dangerous time one country at a time.
Posted by: Michael | September 12, 2011, 3:09 am 3:09 am
Posted by: Red | September 11, 2011, 11:57 pm 11:57 pm
I fail to see what the color of NoBo’s skin has to do with anything.
Smart is as smart does.
Dumb is as dumb does.
Smart and Dumb are color blind.
Posted by: Noz | September 12, 2011, 8:34 am 8:34 am
“If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.” -Obama
The DNC hails FDR to this day, so what would FDR have done in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack? Why not hold up FDR as the Gold Standard of responding to an attack by an enemy of non caucasians? Either FDR was a great man, or he was not. Pick one.
Posted by: Larry | September 12, 2011, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm
To all those bitching at Jake for his article, don’t you know that the sign of a really credible journalist is one that you won’t agree with at least half the time? I didn’t agree with Jake’s questioning of Carney about Hoffa’s comments because I didn’t think they had anything to do with President Obama and that he was following Fox News’ lead by focusing on the irrelevant while the larger issue of jobs was getting shafted yet again…yet that did not make me question Jake’s journalism credentials, I just disgreed with him. This article is based on facts which Jake weaved together into a story to show how 9/11 led to President Obama. When I first saw the headline, I was all prepared to disagree with this premise because in my opinion, it was President Bush’s failed presidency that led to President Obama. Upon reading Jake’s article, I realized that in a roundabout way he was saying the same thing, ie one of Bush’s failures was his response to 9/11 which put a sense of urgency in Obama. Jake gave a lot of detailed additional information previously unknown to me which made me realize there was much more to the story. It was a different yet compatible take. For those who don’t like dealing in facts, this may be disconcerting, but this is what it means to be a journalist…to tell a compelling story based on the facts. So don’t expect to agree with him all the time. He’s a journalist, not Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: Christina | September 12, 2011, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm