I come here every day and couldn’t tell you the names of the terrorist leaders in the Middle East.
I read about organizations and what they are deemed to be up to, but it just doesn’t interest me who the individual players are.
If I was going to be in a position to take positive action against them, I would study up on them. I’d know in short order.
Hewitt’s question was evidence of ignorance on his part, not Trump.
I would be surprised if any of the candidates could rattle off more than one or two payers these days. Does that make them less presidential?
Does knowing all the major players make them more presidential? I’m not convinced of that.
The national security team is who needs to know. They will keep the president up to speed, them and the CIA briefings.
SoS Bolton will present Pres Trump with an outline of the facts, and a couple-three options with the up side and down side of each. Trump will make a pick, and Like Piccard to Ryker, he will say,”Make it so!”
I dont know the name of either leader and dare i say it doesn’t matter.
It’s not like Iran where the person in charge is a tyrant and the VAST majority of young people would love to see a different form of government. See protests 4 years ago that obummer did nothing to help.
Not the case with these other groups.
Does this guy think the NEW leaders are going to come hug Americans after eating apple pie and watching baseball?
idiot
Agree with your #15!
Hewitt is an ass!
Even if you and others had the names memorized, even if Donald Trump had them all memorized, it would be secondary to knowing the existing ties and agreements among the players and these ties and agreements often change on a weekly basis as there are often shifting loyalties in that part of the world.