Posted on 11/15/2011 5:56:51 AM PST by reaganaut1
I certain situations the president might not have the luxury of time to discuss the situation with his staff before having to make a decision.
Only in the case of in-bound nuclear missiles would that be impracticable, all other situations would allow some sort of staff meeting even if by video.
IMHO, this is a pretty weak argument.
You mean like Somalia 1993 where Clinton wasn't able to make a decision without discussing it with his staff first?
You're right, it was only our troops lives on the line waiting for Clinton and his staff to reach a decision. Nothing so important that couldn't wait right?
You're right, it was only our troops lives on the line waiting for Clinton and his staff to reach a decision. Nothing so important that couldn't wait right?
Clinton was too arrogant and military loathing to give his commanders on the ground the authority to do what was necessary. Trying to run Somalia from Washington cost lives just as trying to run the Vietnam War cost lives. You're confusing possible scenarios for staff meetings. I learned long ago that if the commander needed to get a rifle and join in the firefight, things were really really bad.
Bottom line: you can't conceive of a cogent reason why a President would need to reach a decision without a staff meeting. No one has all the answers and anyone who tells you he does is either stupid or assumes that you are.
>> Cain is ready. Far more ready than Barrack Obama ever was.
Cain’s greatest liability right now is the intolerant arrogance that pervades the Republican party.
Me, I don't.
I prefer a president that can make a snap decision when and if the situation arises.
His lybia answer made me wince.
All he needed to say was that Gadaffi was no threat to us and we backed al Queada and no there are 20k SAMs on the loose.
How freakin hard is that!
Palin was the most qualified of the four in 2008.
I prefer a president that can make a snap decision when and if the situation arises.
If you are talking about the wall paper in the hall bathroom, I agree with you, but if you are talking about a decision affecting over 300 million Americans then the decision maker better be getting input from a number of sources. Obviously, you don't understand how a staff works or even why having a staff is important.
Any one in a leadership who disdains input from staff before making decisions is doomed to failure. Snap decisions (read impulsive decisions) lead to instant disasters. You need to understand that the final decision always rests with the leader, based on the input from knowledgeable staff personnel. The leader can always reject staff input or accept any or all of their input.
The person you want is best described as a lone wolf. Lone wolves do not make good leaders. In the 21st century, the days of Genghis Khan are over.
Think LBJ selecting targets for the bombers during the Vietnam War.
OOPS!
Won't know that until after he's elected and you find out who his adviser is will you.
Sorry but my standards are a little higher.
Pretty much says it. It showed quite obviously in the last debate and in interviews. He would not be a very strong candidate in the general election.
Won't know that until after he's elected and you find out who his adviser is will you.
I know it's hard, but try to stay on topic. What does any particular staff member's area of expertise have to do with a President holding staff meetings in times of crisis?
I don't know what kind of standards that you have that are presumably higher than mine, but I do know that anyone in a leadership position who feels the need to "go it alone" is a dangerous and stupid individual.
Obviously you don't have the same standards.
If I don't accept someone working on my breaks that can't go it alone, why should I accept someone running the country that can't go it alone?
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.