Santorum: Obama Only Pretending to Fight ISIS

Rick Santorum is running for president and is cranking up the absurdity to 11 already. In an interview on the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch radio program, he claimed that President Obama isn’t really fighting against ISIS, he’s just pretending to do so.

This is not an attempt by the president to defeat ISIS, it’s an attempt by the president to convince America that he’s trying to do something and by flying these very limited strikes that are having no tactical success because they’re not sufficient to achieve any tactical victories. So you have a political war, in a sense. If you go back and look at the war that I grew up with as a kid, which was Vietnam, you didn’t have a commitment, you didn’t have a commitment by the political leadership to have success.

Jesus, am I tired of this bullshit idea that we didn’t really try to win in Vietnam. We spent twice as much time fighting in Vietnam than we did in WW2 and dropped more tonnage of bombs on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia than all sides in WW2 combined. We threw hundreds of thousands of American soldiers at it, got more than 50,000 of them killed and killed at least two million people ourselves. If that isn’t trying to win, I’d hate to see what that would look like.

As for this nonsense about ISIS, we’ve conducted more than 1,000 airstrikes on them in only a few months. Then he and Tony Perkins trotted out a lie that was debunked years ago, proving once again that no lie that is useful for the right wing will ever die.

“I believe there is a correlation between the increase in the persecution of Christians globally and the increase in intolerance towards Christianity here at home,” Perkins said.

Santorum responded by bringing up the phony right-wing talking point the Obama refuses to use the words “freedom of religion”: “You have a president who is increasingly hostile to people of faith and in fact has changed the term he uses from ‘freedom of religion’ to ‘freedom of worship’ and sort of narrowing the rights that even Americans have. And when you have a president who is clearly assaulting religion here at home, it is sort of hard to then turn around and say ‘I’m going to defend religion around the world.’”

The recent rash of violence against Iraqi Christians started after Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a war that Santorum voted for and still supports.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good irrational rant?

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • colnago80

    In fairness, Santorum was born in 1958 and was thus too young to serve in Vietnam. It doesn’t appear that he was ever in the military, although he was not a draft dodger as he was still less then 18 when we went to a volunteer force.

    The notion that the Vietnam war was lost because of the opposition at home is a favorite talking point of the neocons, most of whom avoided the draft via education deferments. The only way the war could have been won was to level North Vietnam using nuclear weapons, which would have led to WW 3 with the former Soviet Union and China.

  • John Pieret

    President Obama isn’t really fighting against ISIS

    The tip-off was (which he has on as good authority he has ever had) that all those American planes are firing Nerf® missiles.

  • eric

    It would be interesting if, during the primary season, someone nailed him (Santorum) to the wall on what foreign policy he would propose instead of the current administration’s air strikes. Because I’m guessing neither he nor most of his neocon running mates would want to publicly commit to more than air strikes themselves. They’re all basically hawk-pretenders, not actual hawks. They want to imply they’d do more than just air strikes, but I’m betting few to none would say they want to put tens or hundreds of thousands of US troops into a ground fight against ISIS.

  • grumpyoldfart

    He knows his audience.

  • dugglebogey

    Santorum (defined as: That frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.)

    Christians feel persecuted because they’re not allowed to force their religion on people as much as they once were. Boo fucking hoo. Try some perspective, you entitled little shit stain.

  • matty1

    You have a president who is increasingly hostile to people of faith and in fact has changed the term he uses from ‘freedom of religion’ to ‘freedom of worship’

    I prefer freedom of conscience myself, I’ve never been happy with the idea that people’s freedom to hold and act on their values is only important if they get it from a religion. Why for instance should ‘my church is pacifist’ be a better reason for letting someone off conscription* than ‘I believe war is wrong’?

    it is sort of hard to then turn around and say ‘I’m going to defend religion around the world

    I’d be more interested in defending people, including defending their right to believe in and practice any religion or none rather than defending religion as a category. Apart from anything else what would that even mean? are the gods under attack?

    *I’m also against conscription but that’s another argument.

  • http://composer99.blogspot.ca composer99

    From Vietnam down to the present, never let a good Dolchstoßlegende go. Any military defeat, no matter how inevitable based on local conditions, can be blamed on liberals .

    Actually, I should probably fix myself for me:

    From Vietnam the Civil War down to the present, never let a good Dolchstoßlegende go. Any military defeat, no matter how inevitable based on local conditions, can be blamed on liberals and other unsavoury types, such as Jews, Negros, and so on (and on and on and on…).

    There.

  • http://composer99.blogspot.ca composer99

    Ah, a mis-spelling. Curse the lack of an edit function!

  • raven

    If you go back and look at the war that I grew up with as a kid, which was Vietnam, you didn’t have a commitment, you didn’t have a commitment by the political leadership to have success.

    The chickenhawks, John Birchers, and other lunatic fringers have a variety of excuses for why we lost in Vietnam. It changes often at their convenience.

    1. It used to be….Journalists and the Media. Who knew a few guys with glasses and pony tails were far more dangerous than elite units of Rangers and Green Berets?

    2. I haven’t heard the domestic antiwar demonstrators one much. The fact is, at the end, the Vietnam war was deeply unpopular and led to Johnson’s decision not to run again. It was the fault of the voters and the American people.

    It’s that democracy thing. I’m sure Satanorum thinks voters are a pretty useless idea.

    3. I grew up during the Vietnam war and knew people killed over there. It was a bitter unhappy time for a whole lot of people, especially those millions who fought over there for nothing and the millions more who had their friends and relatives come back in a box. (Not to mention the Vietnamese who had a million or so killed.)

    I’m just going to say it. Satanorum is an evil sociopath who was too wacko even for Pennsylvania, which declined to reeelect him senator.

  • busterggi

    ISIS is only a diversion to make us forget Benghazi anyway.

  • raven

    There is one bright side.

    Satanorum doesn’t want to be president, he wants to be a New Dark Age Pope.

    He’s left a long paper trail of his hates, lies, and hypocrisy behind him including among others public education and contraception. In the last GOP presidential primary wingnut festival, he came in pretty much last.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraEd:

    Jesus, am I tired of this bullshit idea that we didn’t really try to win in Vietnam.

    We can’t admit there’s such a thing as a problem that can’t be solved by military force, so clearly we simply didn’t use ENOUGH of it.

    Get ready to hear the same pig-ignorant platitudes on Iraq as well — as the entire region plunges into civil war, probably ending with a dictatorship far more hostile to the US than Saddam ever was, we’ll be hearing more whinging about how we COULDA won if those yellow commsymp terrist-lovin’ librul politicians had let us.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake Zaraeric:

    It would be interesting if, during the primary season, someone nailed him (Santorum) to the wall on what foreign policy he would propose instead of the current administration’s air strikes. Because I’m guessing neither he nor most of his neocon running mates would want to publicly commit to more than air strikes themselves. They’re all basically hawk-pretenders, not actual hawks. They want to imply they’d do more than just air strikes, but I’m betting few to none would say they want to put tens or hundreds of thousands of US troops into a ground fight against ISIS.

    Sure they would; they’d be trying to one-up each other with the catchiest slogan for limitless military escalation. “Nuke, baby, nuke!” Their target audience would eat it up: Movement conservatives have giant throbbing boners for warmongering.

    And since the US no longer conscripts (and most of them are well past draft age anyway) there’s no chance of any of THEM having to risk their lives in a foreign land. Hell, since we prefer our wars unfunded these days, they won’t even feel the bite at tax-time. (And this is why we should bring back the war tax — if it’s important enough to kill or die for, it’s damn well important enough to pay cash on the barrel head.)

    Far from being unwilling to talk about it, I’d wager “we should do MORE bombings and airstrikes against our designated Big Scary Threat du jour” will be a major talking point for the GOP in the 2016 election.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1360322113 aaronbaker

    I’m beginning to suspect that Rick Santorum really is a frothy mix of feces and lubricant. It would explain a great deal.

  • wscott

    [history geek mode on] Santorum’s analysis of Vietnam is…overly simplistic, to be charitable. But he’s not 100% wrong. If you read LBJ’s archives, it’s painfully obvious he saw Vietnam as an annoying distraction from the Great Society programs, and his actual stated goal was to devote as few resources to the war as he could get away with while not actually losing. Hence the focus on holding actions, incremental escalation, etc. And most historians acknowledge that one of the reasons the public never supported the war* was because the Johnson Administration made a deliberate decision NOT to get the public whipped up, again because they didn’t want to distract attention from his domestic agenda. That’s not the same thing as trying to, y’know, win, no matter how many bombs we wound up dropping.

    .

    Whether or not the war was “winable” at all is another debate. (I’m not convinced it was, personally.) But the way Johnson & Macnamara mis-managed it is the textbook exampe of how NOT to win a war.** Or at least, it was until Bush-Cheney took us into Iraq.

    .

    * Plus the fact that the whole thing was morally questionable and none of our business, granted. But it’s not like THAT ever stopped us before.

    .

    ** I don’t mean to let Nixon off the hook, but for purposes of this discussion I think that war was lost long before Nixon inherited it, and there’s not much he could’ve done to change that even if he’d wanted to.

  • wscott

    I just defended something Rick Santorum said. I need a shower…

    .

    But I would love to see someone actually pin him and the other chichenhawks down about exactly what they would do differently. If you’re not willing to commit to another lengthy ground war that has no public support, then STFU.

  • colnago80

    I find it curious that Santorum makes some of the same comments about the alleged ineffectiveness of the US bombing campaign in Syria that Syrian dictator Assad does. Actually, although progress is slow, we are making some headway against the ISIL using air power to support the Kurdish ground troops opposing them in both Iraq and Syria. It is telling that the Kurds in Iraq feel confident enough to send reinforcements from the Peshmarga in Iraq to bolster the Kurdish forces in Syria.

  • vereverum

    @ eric #2 wscott #16

    He would reply that he’d be more than happy to but it would jeopardize national security so he can’t but be assured that top people are working on it. Top people.

  • vereverum

    actually that’s eric #3 though I’ll admit that everyone probably figured that out.

  • cry4turtles

    Santorum is not just a war monger; he’s a punishment monger! Go ahead and run again asshole. Obviously PA didn’t give you a clue.