We love you, Herman, but . . . [updated]

Ace asks: Herman Cain Really Doesn't Know A Damn Thing About Foreign or Military Policy, Does He?

He literally seems to be making it all up on the fly, and I mean all, so when he's asked a question like this, all he knows about the situation is literally just that which was contained in the question. [. . .]

He was literally guessing what the "Right Answer" was, and guessed, incorrectly, that the "Right Answer" would always involve saying "Israel did the right thing.'

This is so jaw-droppingly uninformed I don't know what the hell else to say about it.

Cain cannot keep telling us he'll have "experts" brief him on the stuff that a reasonably well-informed sixth-grader should already know. Like, no need to know any of this beforehand, I guess. "Experts" will fill him in on an as-needed basis, I guess.

Yeah. Awful. RS McCain on above:

It’s pretty brutal, and this is the kind of situation — a blunder that exposes him to lacerating criticism from conservatives — that Cain must avoid henceforth if he wants to be taken seriously as a contender.

Jennifer Rubin thinks that will not be possible:

Without a working knowledge of some critical details, it is hard to fake competency on matters of war and peace. For those with zero interest in and prior knowledge of national security, it simply won’t be possible to fake it through an entire debate.

I agree. Cain's utter lack of knowledge disqualifies him for the office of president. And vice president, too, really. (Sure, he's vastly superior to the vile buffoon currently holding the office, but who isn't?)

And now Cain has muddied the waters on his views on abortion. From a conversation with Piers Morgan, who asks him about his opposition to abortion in cases of rape:

No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.

I think he just tossed away his "no exception for rape or incest" stand. I don't know how else to read that.

Granted, the rape and incest exception is one held by many, even most, pro-life politicians. It's an unprincipled stand that undercuts the proponent's claim that he believes the unborn child is a person and therefore should be protected by law. (Rick Santorum explained that in an August debate.) But it's a common political position, held, I suppose, out of weak-mindedness, or just to take the edge off what they fear will be seen as a scary, extreme view.

Thing is, if that's your stance, you state it upfront instead of going around proclaiming that you're opposed to abortion under all circumstances, with no exceptions. Personal opposition doesn't count here. Sorry. That's the refuge of mealy-mouthed pseudo-Catholics like Kennedy, Pelosi, and Biden, to name just a few.

I do believe Cain's opposition to abortion (with exceptions) is sincere. But he's confusing us with the rhetoric, which, as is inevitable when trying to defend this indefensible position, sounds exactly like that used by supporters of abortion on demand, who argue that abortion is always a sensitive decision that should be made by the mother.

But maybe he misspoke and will take it all back tomorrow?

***

The plot thickens. Katrina Trinko:

I’ve reached out to his campaign to see if they can clarify what he meant. But it’s worth mentioning that, as I noted the other day, Cain chose not to run for Senate in 1998 partially because he was unsure his views on abortion would be compatible with the most ardent pro-life voters. ”[W]ith the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing,” Cain told Nation’s Restaurant News, adding that he was “not a social-issue crusader” but a “free-enterprise crusader.” However, whatever his concerns were in 1998, he did run as pro-life (no exceptions in cases of rape and incest — the only exception he ran on was for the mother’s life) in the 2004 Georgia senate race, and won an endorsement from Georgia Right to Life that election cycle.

***

Santorum and Perry respond.

***

This story is getting a lot of reaction. Though it's a little unclear, I believe Cain in the clip was referring to cases of rape and incest. Key words: "you’re not talking about that big a number."

Trying to clear it all up, Cain has tweeted: “I’m 100% pro-life. End of story.” If only we knew what he meant by "100%." It usually means without exception. But that's obviously not what he means. As for "end of story," good luck with that.

This didn't have to happen. Lots of pro-life candidates hang on to those exceptions, in spite of the fact that it makes no sense morally or logically. Cain could have identified himself as one of those and avoided this whole mess.

***

Most incoherent explanation ever here. Watch the video with John Stossel.

***

Many thanks to Michelle Malkin for the Buzzworthy link.

Most recent posts here. Twitter feed here. Amazon store here.