Friday, February 10, 2012

Rick Santorum's Mad Obsession with Iran

According to Foreign Policy, he has written 40 articles on Iran and has concluded:
There may be no better window into Santorum's views on Iran than his writings as a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) -- a position he held between losing his Pennsylvania Senate seat in 2006 and entering the presidential race in June 2011. He joined the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, which aims to apply the "Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy," back in 2007 to establish and direct the "America's Enemies" program -- an initiative that, unlike America's adversaries, folded after Santorum's departure, according to the EPPC. And, for Santorum, Iran was Public Enemy No. 1. "I know that I'm not the foremost scholar in the world, but I can offer a lot of ideas," he told National Review as he settled in at the think tank.

So, just what were those ideas, and how do they compare to Santorum's rhetoric on the campaign trail today? Under the disquieting rubric "The Gathering Storm," Santorum penned roughly 40 articles on Iran during his EPPC stint...

Here's a look at some of what Santorum had to say on the subject...


Expressing no doubts about Iran's determination to build nuclear weapons, Santorum described Iran as an existential threat to America's ally, Israel -- an enemy "well on its way to achieving nuclear capability as it also straddles a long track record of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah."

But early last year, Santorum warned that the United States itself could be vulnerable to an Iranian electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack -- a scenario in which a nuclear weapon is detonated above the United States, knocking out electricity and communication technologies across the country (the New York Times has noted, however, that many nuclear experts dismiss the threat). "An EMP attack would require only one nuclear missile detonation to bring our nation to its knees," Santorum warned, citing similar concerns voiced by former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ). "Whether by using EMP or other [weapons of mass destruction], Americans are still constantly under the threat of terrorism."

If anything, Santorum has adopted even more of a doomsday approach on the campaign trail, telling voters in Florida, Missouri, and South Carolina that they would not be safe in their states if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon. He says a Santorum administration would authorize more research on EMP threats and develop a plan to prevent "severe terrestrial and space emergencies that would take down our information systems or electrical grids" (Newt Gingrich has issued dire warnings about an EMP attack as well)...

He thinks an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities may be inevitable and has pledged his support, even threatening that, if president, he'll authorize the destruction of Iran's nuclear program himself if Tehran refuses to dismantle it. He also wants to treat scientists working for Iran's nuclear program as enemy combatants who could be targeted for assassination.

14 comments:

  1. Santorum is certifiable. The man is completely untethered from reality. He desperately needs therapy. Lots of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can see it in his face, he's got crazy written all him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve, all the therapy in the World won't help that maniac. I've never seen a human more scared of another nation than dumb Rick is of Iran. He is absolutely scared to death. It'd almost be amusing or humorous except for the fact he's advocating large scale assassinations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Israel is important. There are many far better reasons to be worried about Rick Santorum - http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/team-mitt-or-team-rick-reality-check.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. A conservative calling for war is akin to a liberal calling for more taxes. Color me shocked, this is just more proof that it's just more of the same.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is the real reason for the U.S. political establishment's hard-on for Iran?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy..." Yes, from the Medieval Age.

    "Santorum administration would authorize more research on EMP threats and develop a plan to prevent "severe terrestrial and space emergencies..." that could interfere with his porn access.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I heard that somebody said to Santorum once that he was flatulant, so Santorum starting whipping the guy...

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anon 11:33 - "What is the real reason for the U.S. political establishment's hard-on for Iran?"

    Pays the bills if you own Halliburton and Raytheon... Just ask Dick Cheney.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Love it to be Paul but Ron Paul has failed in the public arena of articulating his message of freedom from less government and more free market. You cannot go on national tv and spend 80% of your allotted time telling the average American that it's our fault that the rest of the world hates us.
    That's what the Marxist in charge has been doing for the last 3 years. The average American is sick of hearing that.
    Ron Paul needs to spend 80% of his time explaining how student loans,the minimum wage,guaranteed banking systems labor unions..things that directly hurt the average American everyday,can be changed through the free market.
    IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon 3:09 - "You cannot go on national tv and spend 80% of your allotted time telling the average American that it's our fault..."

      First, Paul has never blamed Americans. He blames foreign policy. Big difference. Do you ever find fault with gov domestic policies... apparently you don't like minimum wage. Are you blaming America for minimum wage laws?

      But he doesn't spend 80% on foreign policy. It would seem that you only listen to him 20% of the time. Open your ears.

      Even if what you say were true, how is it that he just starts talking about any issue he wants rather than respond to the questions he gets? If he did, people would then just say he's evasive.

      Anyway, Americans *do* need to hear the truth about US foreign policy... Sometimes the truth hurts and Paul just tells it like it is. Americans need to start acting like grown ups and admit that actions have consequences... like 911 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

      Delete
  11. At least he did not vote for the bailouts. The other two who have a chance of getting the nomination did vote for the bailouts and probably would again the next time around. So ask yourself where we would be if Santorum had been elected instead of Obama. It probably would have been 1980 all over again. Which actually would have been good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huhhh....Gingrich was not even in congress in 2008 IIRC?!!

      Delete