must have addressed this in half a dozen posts. Look them up if it isn’t clear to you and you have some notion it might become so.
I read your posts. You really say nothing. The comment in my post stands.
One more time. Watch and listen to the video. Cain was asked what he’d have done differently. He was asked to critique Obama’s performance w/r/t Libya.
Here are the relevant parts.
“I do not agree with [Obama’s Libya response] for the following reason — no, that’s a different line...” (Then he pauses to gather his words.) “I gotta go back, see, uh...got all this stuff twirling around in my head.”
Interviewer: “I was wondering if you agree with what [Obama] did or if you would have responded differently.”
Cain: “...I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is...I would have gone about assessing the situation differently...I would have done a better job of assessing the situation relative to the opposition, first, before I made decisions about what we would do.”
“I just don’t think enough was done relative to assessing the opposition, before everything, you know, exploded...I’m a much more deliberate ... I believe in having all of the information...I need to know the facts...to hear all the alternatives...This is the point I’m trying to make.”
Interviewer: “So I’m not clear, what were the parts that you are criticizing the President for in how he handled it?”
Cain: “Ok, the opposition that wanted to overthrow Khadaffi, who are they? How organized are they? How strong are they? Who would be the parent [?] leader? Now that they have succeeded did they have a plan for how they were gonna govern, or are you gonna end up now with a country in complete chaos? This is what I mean ... “
“All of those things I think should have been assessed.”
Interviewer: “And you don’t think they were assessed.”
Cain: “I don’t KNOW that they were or were not assessed. I didn’t see reports of that assessment.”
If he doesn’t know, he has constructed a straw man. If he doesn’t know, how can he make any judgment as to how thorough the assessment was, and say he’d have done it better?
Some of his supporters are willfully blind even to plain logic. They have defended (or outright denied) the evidence of their ears at every turn — usually every 2 or 3 days.
The man is out of his league. It has been obvious since “right of return.” Not only has he no experience, he has very little knowledge of political issues. Right of return, choice, collective bargaining, defined benefit vs premium support, Smokin’ Mark Block, the no-muslims retraction, negotiating with terrorists, the “signing” of an amendment, the “joke” excuse — how much more does it take to wash out the koolaid?