We've pointed out the ridiculous right-wing freak-out over President Obama's reported statement to Bob Woodward that "[w]e'll do everything we can to prevent" another terror attack like 9/11, but that if one comes “we can absorb” it. Indeed, just yesterday, Hannity said he was “flabbergasted” by the comment. The attacks were patently absurd; Obama was not saying that another terrorist attack wouldn't be a problem.

But here's the ultimate proof of how absurd the attacks have been: According to Bush administration official Paul Rosenzweig, Department of Homeland Security documents specifically talked about America's ability to “absorb” an attack or other catastrophic event.

Via the Lawfare blog, Rosenzweig, a deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Bush administration's Department of Homeland Security notes:

A significant fraction of DHS's infrastructure protection efforts are focused on the problem of resilience-that is, how to restore a system that has been damaged. The National Infrastructure Advisory Committee provides advice to DHS on infrastructure protection and has issued a number of reports including one on "Critical Infrastructure Resilience." There the NIAC says that resilience depends on the ability of infrastructure to “anticipate, absorb, adapt to and rapidly recover” from a disruptive event. Likewise the National Infrastructure Protection Plan says America's goal is to be a “resilient” nation and then defines resilience as the “ability to resist, absorb, recover from, or successfully adapt to” an adverse event. So the concept-that we can't protect against all risks and we must be prepared to recover when our efforts at protection fail-is not a new one.

Roszenweig also points to Senate testimony by Bush administration Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoof in which he says:

First, it's important to make sure we are focused on the most significant risks to our homeland and that we apply our resources in the most practical way possible to prevent, protect against, and respond to both man-made and natural events.

No matter how hard we may try, we cannot eliminate every possible threat to every individual in every place at every moment. And if we could, it would be at an untenable cost to our liberty and our prosperity. Only by carefully assessing threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences, and prioritizing our resources, can we fully ensure the most practical and optimized protection for Americans and our nation.

We can't let Hannity's segment go without one more comment. Hannity and his guest, Tony Shaffer, discussed the possibility of a nuclear attack by the Taliban or Al Qaeda within the United States. Hannity commented that he was flabbergasted by Obama's comment and said, “isn't that the whole purpose? Defeat them there so we don't get attacked here?” Shaffer responded by saying “One of the key things that we have to pay attention to is the Pakistan nuclear program.”

Shaffer added that the Taliban and Al Qaeda plan to obtain a weapon from that program. He added that “a nuclear device going off in the homeland would make 9-11 look like -- unfortunately, I'm not belittling 9-11 or the attacks or the victims. But it would be far worse.” Shaffer later said, “And the president keeps talking about the disease, the cancer being in Pakistan. This is where we've got to be much better about this.”

However, according to Greg Sargent, Woodward writes that immediately after discussing the possibility of another attack, Obama specifically says that he is focused on preventing a nuclear attack. Obama said that a nuclear attack would be a “game changer” and that the issue of weapons of mass destruction is “one area where you can't afford any mistakes.”