LadyJazzer wrote: Of course he doesn't know enough to take a position; doesn't know enough to know the history or the background of Bush's 2nd Unnecessary War...But whatever it is, it must be Obama's fault... (Gee, kind of like the rest of the doofuses in the GOP...)
We'll wait for the empty-suits at FauxNews to tell him what to think...and why.... rofllol
Flip side is that a desire for complete information before making promises will prevent Mittens from making promises to close Gitmo or cut the annual deficit in half during the course of his first term and then have to go back a couple of years later and say he didn't really know what he was talking about when he said those things..........
No, actually, if you actually watched the video, he was asked THREE times what he would actually do. He starts out with the standard throwaway line about "showing leadership", and then three times says he would "talk to the military staff on the ground." (As if Obama ISN'T talking to the leaders on the ground.)
So, his idea of "showing leadership" is talking to the leadership on the ground so they can tell him what he ought to be doing. Sounds like the same lack-of-leadership that Bush used to show; but at least Mittsy-poo admits that he's not planning on leading...He's planning on doing whatever the guys on the ground tell him to do.
And after 10 years, poor Mitt still doesn't know what to do, and wouldn't recognize "leadership" if it bit him in the arse.
LadyJazzer wrote: No, actually, if you actually watched the video, he was asked THREE times what he would actually do. He starts out with the standard throwaway line about "showing leadership", and then three times says he would "talk to the military staff on the ground." (As if Obama ISN'T talking to the leaders on the ground.)
So, his idea of "showing leadership" is talking to the leadership on the ground so they can tell him what he ought to be doing. Sounds like the same lack-of-leadership that Bush used to show; but at least Mittsy-poo admits that he's not planning on leading...He's planning on doing whatever the guys on the ground tell him to do.
And after 10 years, poor Mitt still doesn't know what to do, and wouldn't recognize "leadership" if it bit him in the arse.
Gee... your comment is a plethora of spin and contradictions. You say "So, his idea of "showing leadership" is talking to the leadership" and then in the same breath you claim "As if Obama ISN'T talking to the leaders on the ground." So... is your idea of Obama not showing leadership is "talking to the leaders on the ground" or are you saying that Romney is showing leadership by suggesting that he needs access to the "leaders on the ground" before making an educated statement on the war?
What about when Obama was talking to the leadership on the ground early in his presidency?
WASHINGTON — When President Obama looks at the screen in the Situation Room on Wednesday, he will find a face he has not seen lately except in newspapers. There, via secure video from Kabul, will be Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, his commander in Afghanistan, explaining directly to the president for the first time why more troops are needed.
And I don't understand why you suggest that Bush wasn't showing leadership, since he talked "to the military staff on the ground" at least once a week.
Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made a point of speaking with his Iraq commander roughly once a week at the height of the war there, a habit that forged a close working relationship between them even if it effectively bypassed the normal chain of command.
And Obama spoke to the "leaders on the ground" quite a number of times.
The meeting, one of five scheduled for coming weeks, will review the situation on the ground, with new information presented in response to questions posed at Mr. Obama’s last session on Afghanistan, on Sept. 13. Later meetings will explore options, ranging from General McChrystal’s all-in approach to Mr. Biden’s scaled-back strategy focused on drone strikes and Special Forces operations.
But at the same time Obama is on record of saying that he didn't think he needed to engage with the leaders on the ground.
Mr. Obama’s aides said he relied on General McChrystal’s advice but did not feel the need to duplicate Mr. Bush’s personal engagement with battlefield generals.
So... what is it Lady Jazzer... is leadership talking "to the military staff on the ground" or is leadership not talking to the staff on the ground, and evidently Obama doesn't think that engaging with the battlefield general on the ground is necessary... but he did engage with the leaders on the ground... numerous times. And you said Obama does talk to the leaders on the ground. Spin... spin... spin... your partisan-hypocritical panties are showing again. And you don't even know what you're talking about.
