During President Obama's State of the Union speech he made some very specific claims. Two days later on the Republican debate stage those claims were categorically disputed and his actions, or inactions, thoroughly lambasted. I get that. That's politics, especially in a presidential election year.
The question is how would any of the candidates on that stage have handled any of the issues differently? Of particular concern to me is the issue of so called "leadership" and their role as Commander-in-Chief. What would they do differently in that role? Is it enough to simply say that they would be tougher and stronger as leaders? What does that really mean, anyway?