Posted on 10/18/2011 4:33:28 PM PDT by Lou Budvis
Via Greg Hengler and Guy Benson, if this answer doesn’t destroy him, nothing will. I get the sense watching it that he’s so unsure of how to answer this exceedingly easy question that he defaults to Netanyahu’s position on the assumption that prisoner swaps must always be the wise, statesmanlike, conservative thing to do. The alternative, that he knows what he’s talking about yet is still sincerely inclined to release the guy who planned 9/11 plus dozens upon dozens of other jihadi fanatics in exchange for one G.I., is even worse. I’d bet 95 percent of people asked on the street could answer this correctly, yet somehow our frontrunner not only blows it but feels obliged to hedge weakly by noting that he’d need all the facts to make a proper decision. Here’s a fact: Khaled Sheikh Mohammed blew up the World Trade Center. What other facts do you need?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Thanks Lou Budvis.
No political experience. He’s a very successful and busy business man; he is no expert in politics and government and that is dangerous right now, in my opinion. The Left will snow him easily.
bttt
No
Much ado about nothing. I guess the Romney/Perry Bots are grasping at straws here.
Spy transfers are one thing; letting terrorists out is quite another.
I am trying very hard not to agree with your assessment. Bob
I think the crux of the answer is that he is saying as president he would have the information that he would need, the advisors who would inform him of all of the details, and then he would consider every option, before making a decision.
He’s saying that’s how Netanyahu came to a decision. And he would do the same, as President.
nopardons, if you want to beat him about the head because you don’t like him, that’s fine.
But his answer is not a bad one.
Every President needs all of the information from every angle, time to consider, and then the ability to decisively make a decision. Cain can do that.
Look how Obama continuously changes decisions as CINC. Cain is saying he’s not that kind of man.
He didn’t say he would let terrorist outs. Look at the two paragraphs. If you read them together, and actually understand they go together, and they shouldn’t be separated, he isn’t saying he wouldn’t just let terrorist go, to let them go. He’s talking about being able to make a decision and how he would do that, after weighing all the options.
Be fair, please.
He could have answered it better, but he didn't say he'd release all the prisoners in Gitmo for one US prisoner. He said he could see that if all the information he was presented made him conclude that it was in the best interests of the US to do that.
I would hope that would have to be some unimaginable information though.
I really like Herman, but this is one of theose times he suffered foot in mouth syndrome.
Last night he was attacked from the starting gate and that seemed to discombobulate him.
Herman needs to get more than 999 or else rework it. He needs to study up on the other issues so that he can comfortably discuss them.
Last night he held his own, but it was not his finest hour.
Newt came off well. Bachmann came off informed.
Romney and Perry, ugh. Santorum tries too hard. Paul, great on the Constitution, ignorant on foreign policy.
Are you kidding me? Her interview with Greta was typical Palin word mangulation.
People need to watch the clip. I am so tired of knee-jerk reactions to headlines. If fishing were as easy as baiting people with headlines, there would be no fish left in the lakes. Wise up, folks - it shouldn’t be this easy to bait you.
The clip itself is even a clip. We don't know what else was discussed before that short clip. In the clip, Wolf is asking if Cain could see himself making some kind of prisoner exchange for the life of an American Soldier. Then Wolf tosses in some specific details, like Al Qaeda, and Gitmo. Then Cain answers that Yes, as Commander in Chief, after looking at all the facts, he would be capable of making a difficult decision - as that is what Presidents do, they make difficult decisions.
So it begs the question, prior to that clip, had Wolf been on a line of questioning that had challenged Cain's ability to BE President, to handle the responsibilities... i.e., challenging his qualifications for the position. Is that why Cain answered that he would definitely be capable of handling the tough decisions. Or was Cain naive in not realizing that media will always bait you with something that you have no way to counter (such as, When did you stop beating your wife?).
I have been interviewed by the press a few times, and they have NEVER gotten it right when it comes out in print. So I am naturally skeptical when it comes to anything reported by the media. So I ALWAYS verify what the original quote, and CONTEXT was, before I pass judgment.
I wish every Freeper on the planet would do the same.
Thank you to both of you for taking the time to listen to the clip.
Over the years I have been involved in many incidents which have made the news, and they almost never get it right. Misquotes and quoting out of context are some of their favorite tools. They almost never make a retraction or correction either when their inaccurate and misleading stories are challenged. I am not sure what they teach them in journalism classes these days... I am starting to suspect that they teach them that their role is to entertain and influence rather than report what happened accurately.
Sure it was a "gottcha" question, but isn't that what ALL of these stupid, useless,non-debates debates have been like? He should have been ready for any and all kinds of things and not do his usual dance of"I DON'T KNOW"/"I'LL HAVE TO ASK MY ADVISERS/GENERALS/WHOEVER TO TELL ME".
Look,I want to "like" someone,I need to find someone to vote for in the primary,and thus far, outside of knowing that I will NEVER pull the lever for Romney, the crazy Ron Paul, and the nothings Huntsman and Johnson, I am stuck looking at a field that I find depressingly wanting in the extreme. It is what it is and I don't want ANY of them to be the next president, even though I want nothing more than Obama gone.
Yeah...
Part of the problem is I think he saw it as being “fair” to Netanyahu, as well.
And then conversely, you make a great point, nopardons.
I think some of what you are expressing is the idea of the candidates talking specifically about the policies of the Obama administration and telling us what they would do differently. You want to hear the candidates say, “Look, I disagree with Obama on Libya. Obama was wrong. If I was president, this is what I would have done.”
In other words, you want someone to vote FOR, and not just vote AGAINST Obama. Otherwise, it wouldn’t matter who you voted for, would it?
You’re absolutely right.
Cain's very major problem is that he doesn't keep up with what's in the news and isn't prepared for many of the questions he gets in debates and interviews.
I want these people to talk about Obama and what they would have done/do that would be better! None of them, not even Newt, present such options. Sure they all have "talking points", that's the norm, but that doesn't help voters make educated decisions on who to vote FOR and I do want to vote FOR someone, rather than having to hold my nose.
And yes, Obama IS beatable; it just isn't going to be as "easy" to beat him as some claim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.