Herman Cain On Libya: Which One Was That Again?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Herman Cain, in an interview with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, struggles mightly to recall what the appropriate anti-Obama position is on Libya. Cain leans back in his chair and fidgets for ten long, painful seconds before saying, “President Obama supported the uprising correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi? Just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say yes, I did agree or no, I didn’t agree.” Cain then added, “I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons…Nope that’s a different one…Got all this stuff twirling around in my head…” Finally Cain asks for a more detailed question. “Specifically what are you asking me did I disagree or not agree with Obama?”

There are plenty of valid criticisms of Obama’s Libya effort, whether the war was worth fighting in the first place, the administration’s decision not to go to Congress, its misleading assessments of how long the war would last, and its dubious, hypocritical legal rationale for acting without congressional authorization after months had passed. Cain didn’t mention any of these. He simply said, “I would have done a better job of determining who the opposition is,” without explaining how that would have affected his decision, or what he would have done differently. 

“I’m a much more deliberate decision maker,” Cain said. “Some people want to say, as president you need to know everything. No you don’t. I believe in having all the information, as much of it as I possibly can. Rather than making a decision, or making a statement about whether I totally agree or didn’t agree, when I wasn’t privy to the entire situation.” 

“I’m not trying to hedge on the question,” Cain assured the board. “It’s just my nature as a businessman.” Well, it’s better than “oops.”

(h/t Jonathan Martin)

*This post has been edited for content.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend