Yes. Yes, I think he did. When asked if he could see himself as president swapping every terrorist in Gitmo for one captured American, Cain says he could. Really. The relevant passage begins with Wolf Blitzer’s question at the :50 mark.
This is not a gotcha, and it doesn’t leave a lot of room to come back and say “I was just joking!” He clearly isn’t joking. He also doesn’t seem to be doing much thinking.
Allah does a great job of distilling how awful an answer this really is. You simply cannot, as commander in chief, let yourself be held hostage by the capture of one American. You cannot, as commander in chief, contemplate freeing the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a swap for one American. Let alone freeing KSM and hundreds of his captive lieutenants. Capturing an American should not be a get out of jail free card for al Qaeda.
Update: Cain tried to undo the damage done in this clip, during the GOP debate, but failed.
Update: On a second try in the debate, Cain failed again. the problem is, his answer above can’t be hedged around. He said it. Now he has to own it, or explain forthrightly why he said it and why it’s wrong.
Cain could be spot on about this and every other question he might be asked for a month, and he would still be one of the biggest rolls of the dice in world leadership history.
Now a study is saying that Nein Nein Nein will raise taxes on 84% of the country. That is probably exagerated, but how COULDN’T it raise taxes on huge numbers of people, since it is instantly clear that taxes on the very wealthy would be sharply lower. And why should a candidate’s out-of-the-gate postion be a revenue neutral 4-stage comlexatronous tax shuffling scheme anyway. The problem is government spending and regulations, not taxes. How’s about Herman concentrating on that instead of cutting his tax rate.
And why are these questions only being asked by an obscure commentor on a moderately attended web-site anyway? Where is the conservative media on these issues (and there are dozens more)? With their heads in the sand, that’s where.
Well, who cares anyway? It’s just the most monumentous election since 1860. Why not pick a name out of hat.
So… Pray tell, who’s name are you pulling from that hat?
Why did you say that Herman? Once again you feel that you always feel that you have to have an instant reaction to a question that requires deep thought.
But aside from that, and I’m not meaning to hijack this thread, but I am watching this latest debate as I write and I’ve come to the conclusion that the liberals are all too willing to give Republicans lots of exposure, lots of debates, lots of face time because they know that eventually we conservatives will end up disliking every single one of the candidates.
I’m not apologizing for Mr. Cain, but this whole ploy is getting really tiresome.
Maybe I’m weird but the vigor of this debate isn’t bothering me. It’s actually enlightening as to what the candidates really think and who they are. So far, Romney isn’t faring well at all under pressure. Which is interesting.
I disagreed with Thomas Sowell’s ‘passing thoughts’ piece from today that these debates are a circular firing squad until tonight.
I think that Jon Huntsman gets the win by not showing up. wink.
Gingrich is the only one who is surviving the ambush so far.
And yes, Romney comes across as an asshole.
Can I say asshole? Sorry. A jerk. That’s what I meant.
Bibi did.
And Bibi was wrong to do it. That Cain doesn’t recognize that just confirms he’s the wrong man for the job.
Bryan, you and Allah don’t understand how men like Cain and Netanyahu think: It’s very much in line with the Judeo-Christian ethic of respecting innocent life. Just as Jesus told of the shepherd who left his 99 sheep to go look for the lost sheep, Netanyahu’s actions spoke of Israel’s love for life.
Would he have rather not released any terrorists? Of course, but that was not going to happen.
Yes, it is more complicated than they think. You are faced with such a dilemma. It is a dilemma, because you have a heart. If you do not have a heart, the answer is very simple indeed.
In the end, of course, you say no, but you wrestle with it in the interim.
I think folks are deliberately misunderstanding the tenor of Mr. Cain’s remarks which were not that “I would release all the prisoners, etc.” but more “I could see myself making a tough decision – ala Netenyahu if I had all the facts and they warranted it.” Now, we can’t imagine that the facts would ever warrant such a move, as I’m sure could Mr. Cain – but the spirit of the answer was that he’s not afraid to make a tough decision.
Thank you for this comment. People are so knee-jerk and susceptible to nit-picking out a select few words for their own interpretation. So he doesn’t have all the ‘scripted’ answers like the other career politicians. Good for you. I trust that Herman will give every decision careful, and thoughtful deliberation.
We have to stick together – even the “tea party-friendly” media sometimes jumps on the bandwagon bashing candidates – and I understand that it’s in the interest of trying to be fair, balanced, and trying to not be accused of being “in the tank” for any particular candidate. But insinuating that Herman has “jumped the shark” seems a bit heavy handed in this case to me.
Exactly!
This whole discussion has been very revealing to me. I bought the argument that Cain had simply said he’d do the trade with nuance. Only now, when I looked at the Blitzer interview in context do I see that Cain was plausibly saying just what he claimed to be saying — that the key thing is getting all the facts and then making a tough decision. Especially when I consider the context of his apparent (and IMO well judged) respect for Netanyahu, what we are hearing is at worst a “stand my your friends” inspired comment. Better that, even if somewhat misjudged, then a ‘throw your friends under the bus’ if it’ll get you off the hook approach.
I agree. In the context of the interview he was saying that he could “imagine” a situation where it could be the right thing to do, having examined all the facts. He was primarily standing by Netanyahu’s decision. A moral dilemma is precisely a situation where you can imagine choosing either way with good reason.
I thought his explanation that he gave PJTV’s own reporter–that it was at the end of the interview, that Wolf switched subjects, and it came out wrong. I’m not going to write off a Cain for one fumbled question any more than I am going to write off Perry because he can’t do well in these insipid debates. What they think and how they can express them in a non-circus forum is what is important. And please–don’t say things like “jumped the shark.” This isn’t a sitcom. It is the future of our country.
This nation is in great peril. Make no mistake. Voting for any moderate or libertarian will be the conservative’s “jump the shark” equivalent of “Occupy This or That”. What you whiners can’t admit is that you have given in and given up. Losers.
I dunno. We just did that here in Israel. It’s NOT an easy decision.