I have always liked Santorum. I’ve read his book, It Takes a Family, which I thought was quite president someday.” He’s thoughtful and intelligent, and consistently conservative.
My hesitation I that his experience is more limited that some of the other candidates (particularly compared to Romney) in successfully persuading people. If he were to be the nominee, I would gladly support him. I don’t foresee that happening this time around, however. So, if I could see a future for him, I’d like to see him in a significant cabinet position, something that gives him experience that would place him in a good position eight years hence. (I’d also like to see more of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or even Michelle Bachman, all with more experience down the road.) I wouldn’t object at all to Santorum as VP.
It has been a disadvantage to Santorum in the debates to be behind, and therefore forced to be on offensive against candidates he mostly agrees with. But in the last debate, December 15th, there was a moment where he shined. His answer was juxtaposed right after Ron Paul for contrast. The question for both was essentially what he would do as president if he received solid intel that Iran had a nuclear weapon. Early last year I had a conversation with a Paul fan. He mentioned that he really didn’t like Santorum, because he was so pro-war under any circumstances. That wasn’t something I’d ever noticed about Santorum, so I’ve paid attention since then. I think my friend would look at this exchange and think Paul makes perfect sense. I, on the other hand, see it as clear evidence of what people say about Paul’s wrong-headedness on foreign policy, and Santorum gives a good explanation of the more accurate view.
You can see the debate here. The exchanges transcribed below can be seen from about 57 minutes in to just after the hour mark.
Brett Baier: Congressman Paul, the question was based on the premise that you had solid intelligence; you actually had solid intelligence [that Iran had a nuclear weapon] as President Paul. And yet you still at that point would pull back American sanctions. And again, as a GOP nominee would be running left of President Obama on this issue.
Ron Paul: Yes. All we’re doing is promoting their desire to have it [a nuclear weapon]. Ehud Barak, the defense minister for Israel, said that, um, that, if he were in Iran, he would probably want a nuclear weapon too, because they’re surrounded, for geopolitical reasons. So that’s an understanding. So, the fact that they are surrounded, they have a desire…. And how do we treat people with a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked with them; we talked them out of their nuclear weapon, and then we killed them. So it makes more sense to work with people. And the whole thing is, nuclear weapons are loaded over there: Pakistan and India; Israel has 300 of them; we have our ships there. We gotta get it in a proper context. We don’t need another war.
Brett Baier: Understood. And you make that point quite a lot. I’m gonna… I’ll try one more time. Iran is reportedly running exercises on closing the Straits of Hormuz, a key passage, as you know, for global trade. Now, what should the US response be if Iran were to take that dramatic step.
Ron Paul: Well, this is… The plans are on the book. All they talk about is when are we, the West, going to bomb Iran. So why wouldn’t they talk about… They don’t have a weapon; they don’t have a nuclear weapon. Why wouldn’t they try to send out some information there and say, “You know, if you come and bomb us, we might close the Straits of Hormuz down”? So, already the president, I think is wisely backing off on the sanctions, because it’s going to be an economic calamity if you take all the oil out of Europe. So I think that makes sense. He knows these sanctions are overreaching. Sanctions are an act of war, when you prevent goods and services from going into a country. We need to approach this a little differently. We have 12,000 diplomats in our services; we ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while.
Brett Baier: OK…. Senator Santorum, you have a very different thought about the threat from Iran. For several years, according to US military leaders, Iran has provided training, funding, and lethal arms to jihadists killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are those acts of war?
Rick Santorum: They have been continually. They just tried to plan an attack here in this country, killing the Saudi ambassador. They’ve been at war with us since 1979. The IEDs that have killed so many soldiers—they’re manufactured in Iran. This is… Iran is not any other country. It’s a country that is ruled by the equivalent of al Qaeda, on top of this country. They are a radical theocracy. The principle virtue of the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to President Amadinijad, is not freedom, opportunity; it’s martyrdom. The idea, Ron, that mutual assured destruction, like the policy during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, would work on Iran, when their principle virtue is martyrdom, is… Mutual assured destruction with respect to Iran would not be a, any kind of, you know, preventing a war; it would be an inducement to war. This is what their objective is; their objective is to in fact create a calamity. This is what their theology teaches. They believe that it is their mission to take on the West. They don’t hate us because of what we do, or the policies we have. They hate us because of who we are and what we believe in. And we need to make sure that they do not have a nuclear weapon. And we should be working with the state of Israel right now. We should use covert activity. And we should be planting a missile strike against their facilities, and say, “If you do not open up those facilities and close them down, we will close them down for you.”
No comments:
Post a Comment