Santorum: "I’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel"

[Rawhide]

I for one still fail to understand why we are being forced to choose between a flip flopping robot and an ill prepared Governor from Texas. There are more than a handful of candidates in this primary would not only soundly defeat the President next year, but would serve as valuable conservative leaders in the Oval Office.

From Rick Santorum's website:

Rick Santorum lambasted Rick Perry as a lightweight on Israel policy Tuesday, dismissing Perry’s speech in New York as boilerplate rhetoric crafted by political handlers.
“I’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel,” Santorum said during a conversation with POLITICO on Tuesday, while Perry was addressing a rally of people opposed to the Palestinian statehood vote in New York. “There he is, reading a speech that I’m sure he didn’t write, and has never taken a position on any of this stuff before, and [the media is] taking this guy seriously.”

In Washington for meetings that included a lunch with Senate Republicans, the former Pennsylvania senator continued the attacks on Perry that have become a central element of his fledgling presidential campaign in recent weeks, casting doubt on Perry’s conservative credentials — and his ability to stick to positions under pressure in the national spotlight.

“Rick Perry hammers Mitt Romney for being a flip-flopper and within a couple of weeks of being in the race, he’s already flipped-flopped on two issues,” Santorum said, citing Perry’s positions on Israel and the HPV vaccine. “It’s pretty amazing to see when these folks come into prime time and have to answer for their positions how wobbly these positions become. That’s not the case with me. You’re going to see someone who’s been out there, been tested and stood as a principled conservative in a state where it’s not easy to be a principled conservative.

Santorum has a valid point. In such a contentious political environment Republicans must nominate a candidate who can compete with the President on the issues facing the republic, especially foreign policy. With the President losing his ground to Jewish voters, you can rest assure that the left will use whatever is in their arsenal (eg, the assassination of Bin Laden) to tout the President's foreign policy muscles. We need a candidate who can stand up to that, and I agree with Santorum that Perry seems to be lacking in that department. As more and more debates come and go, and as the polls shift day to day, I wonder if the media's Romney-Perry obsession will actually follow through come primary season.

 

[Thunder]

Sick Rantorum....what a catch.

 

[StillBallin75]

Romney and Perry might be flip-floppers, but Rick Santorum is a certifiable dumbass, so I hardly think he's really in a position to criticize. I've watched all of the debates thus far, and his responses are tied with Bachmann for most idiotic, and he definitely won the idiot contest this last debate (because Bachmann wasn't asked as many questions by the mods).

The only candidates that I even remotely respect are

1) Ron Paul - generally more honest, intellectually consistent, etc., but libertarianism still sucks
2) Jon Huntsman - Most sane and moderate candidate, but his jobs plan still sucks ass
3) I suppose Gary Johnson would be a lesser-known version of huntsman.

 

[Rawhide]

Romney and Perry might be flip-floppers, but Rick Santorum is a certifiable dumbass, so I hardly think he's really in a position to criticize.

Rick Santorum is certainly more knowledgeable on the issues than both Romney and Perry and whats better is that isn't a flip flopper. He's a 'dumbass'? Let me know when you're ready to stop acting like a 5 year old and actually discuss the issue at hand like an adult.

 

[StillBallin75]

Rick Santorum is certainly more knowledgeable on the issues than both Romney and Perry

What makes you say that?

and whats better is that isn't a flip flopper.

an idiot that doesn't flip-flop is still an idiot.

He's a 'dumbass'? Let me know when you're ready to stop acting like a 5 year old and actually discuss the issue at hand like an adult.

Just calling a spade a spade.

 

[Rawhide]

Romney and Perry might be flip-floppers, but Rick Santorum is a certifiable dumbass, so I hardly think he's really in a position to criticize. I've watched all of the debates thus far, and his responses are tied with Bachmann for most idiotic, and he definitely won the idiot contest this last debate (because Bachmann wasn't asked as many questions by the mods).

The only candidates that I even remotely respect are

1) Ron Paul - generally more honest, intellectually consistent, etc., but libertarianism still sucks
2) Jon Huntsman - Most sane and moderate candidate, but his jobs plan still sucks ass
3) I suppose Gary Johnson would be a lesser-known version of huntsman.

You just listed three men who both sides of the aisle virtually agree have next to no shot at the nomination.

How are his responses idiotic? And who are they idiotic to?

 

[Rawhide]

What makes you say that?

Perhaps the fact that he has much more political experience with issues a Commander In Chief is likely to face. You obviously no nothing about Rick Santorum if you seriously think Romney and Perry could compete with him on the issues. You probably believe they can compete with Newt too.

an idiot that doesn't flip-flop is still an idiot.

But my point is that he isn't an idiot. He's a well respected former Senator who served 8 years on the Senate Armed Services committee. He knows more about the threats facing this nation than Romney and Perry combined. Try again.

Just calling a spade a spade.

You're a joke.

 

[StillBallin75]

You just listed three men who both sides of the aisle virtually agree have next to no shot at the nomination.

How are his responses idiotic? And who are they idiotic to?

His responses on foreign policy and gay issues (including DADT) were especially unimpressive to me.

We can begin with calling the repeal of DADT a "special privilege" and saying "sexual activity has no place in the military" (well, no **** Sherlock, that's covered in the UCMJ and has nothing to do with DADT)

 

[Rawhide]

His responses on foreign policy and gay issues (including DADT) were especially unimpressive to me.

We can begin with calling the repeal of DADT a "special privilege" and saying "sexual activity has no place in the military" (well, no **** Sherlock, that's covered in the UCMJ and has nothing to do with DADT)

Are you going to explain how his answers were not impressive or are we supposed to read your mind?

I think you completely misunderstood his answer to the DADT question. I'll let you take some time to figure that one out yourself.

 

[StillBallin75]

Perhaps the fact that he has much more political experience with issues a Commander In Chief is likely to face. You obviously no nothing about Rick Santorum if you seriously think Romney and Perry could compete with him on the issues. You probably believe they can compete with Newt too.

I'm not sure what you mean by "compete with him on the issues." I've seen him debate. While I disagreed with most other things the other candidates said, Santorum generally failed to impress me in any way.

But my point is that he isn't an idiot. He's a well respected former Senator who served 8 years on the Senate Armed Services committee. He knows more about the threats facing this nation than Romney and Perry combined. Try again.

Sitting on a committee does not make you intelligent. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are certainly knowledgeable when it comes to issues of defense and foreign policy. Yet they prosecuted a stupid war in an even stupider fashion, and had to later rely on the David Petraeus to fix their mess.

 

[StillBallin75]

Are you going to explain how his answers were not impressive or are we supposed to read your mind?

I think you completely misunderstood his answer to the DADT question. I'll let you take some time to figure that one out yourself.

His answer on DADT demonstrated a complete lack of faithfulness to reality. Let's break it down, shall we?

I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.

What the **** does that even mean...if it means troops should be sucking dick and licking ***** while on duty, well then no ****.

The fact they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to, and removing don't ask don’t tell. I think tries to inject social policy into the military.

So asking for equal treatment is a "special privilege"? What kind of alternative universe does he live in? Asking to not lose your job just because people know you're gay is asking for a "special privelege" and "injecting social policy".... smh.

All this bull**** about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell as "injecting social policy" simply let's me know that he has not a clue what he's talking about or how senseless DADT was.

I would also add his ignorant statement about how warfighting should be separated from politics. Anyone who thinks that the two can be separated lives in a fantasy world.

 

[Rawhide]

I'm not sure what you mean by "compete with him on the issues." I've seen him debate. While I disagreed with most other things the other candidates said, Santorum generally failed to impress me in any way.

Wrong. You obviously have not seen him debate. His rise in the polls is pretty much only contributed to his success in the primary debates. Just because his answers didn't "impress" some liberal from Maryland does not prove my assertion that he is a talented debater wrong. The facts are the facts. Prior to the debate Karl Rove had this to say about Santorum in his WaPost column:

"Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has, along with Mr. Romney, been the most consistently impressive debater. Getting into scraps with other candidates has helped, and he's had strong, even Reaganesque, moments on foreign policy. His challenge tonight is to get a shot at Iowa by shouldering aside Ms. Bachmann as the social conservative favorite."

The notion that Santorum is a good debater is generally virtually agreed to.

Sitting on a committee does not make you intelligent. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are certainly knowledgeable when it comes to issues of defense and foreign policy. Yet they prosecuted a stupid war in an even stupider fashion, and had to later rely on the David Petraeus to fix their mess.

Sure it does. You can't serve in the Senate Republican Leadership and the Armed Services Committee for 8 years without being intelligent. Are you kidding me? Just because you do not agree with the liberation of the Iraqi people does not mean that Cheney and Rumsfeld are not intelligent men. You have a philosophical difference of opinion with them, that does not give you the right to question the intelligence of statesmen who've contributed much more to the republic than you have.

You make less sense every time you post.

 

[StillBallin75]

Wrong. You obviously have not seen him debate. His rise in the polls is pretty much only contributed to his success in the primary debates. Just because his answers didn't "impress" some liberal from Maryland does not prove my assertion that he is a talented debater wrong. The facts are the facts. Prior to the debate Karl Rove had this to say about Santorum in his WaPost column:

"Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has, along with Mr. Romney, been the most consistently impressive debater. Getting into scraps with other candidates has helped, and he's had strong, even Reaganesque, moments on foreign policy. His challenge tonight is to get a shot at Iowa by shouldering aside Ms. Bachmann as the social conservative favorite."

The notion that Santorum is a good debater is generally virtually agreed to.

You can attack and get into scraps with all the rest of the candidates all you want. You can be as consistent as you want to be. If that's what makes you a good debater, well then fine. Santorum's views, and his answers, are still idiotic, and I just provided you with an example.

Sure it does. You can't serve in the Senate Republican Leadership and the Armed Services Committee for 8 years without being intelligent. Are you kidding me? Just because you do not agree with the liberation of the Iraqi people does not mean that Cheney and Rumsfeld are not intelligent men. You have a philosophical difference of opinion with them, that does not give you the right to question the intelligence of statesmen who've contributed much more to the republic than you have.

You make less sense every time you post.

Cheney and Rumsfeld - depends on what you mean by intelligent. As bureaucratic pugilists, they are unmatched. As foreign policy-makers and strategists, they were absolutely retarded.

And I've already explained above why Santorum's foreign policy views are idiotic. I could come up with more examples if you like...for instance comparing gay marriage to a glass of water/beer.

 

[Rawhide]

You can attack and get into scraps with all the rest of the candidates all you want. You can be as consistent as you want to be. If that's what makes you a good debater, well then fine. Santorum's views, and his answers, are still idiotic, and I just provided you with an example.



Cheney and Rumsfeld - depends on what you mean by intelligent. As bureaucratic pugilists, they are unmatched. As foreign policy-makers and strategists, they were absolutely retarded.

And I've already explained above why Santorum's foreign policy views are idiotic. I could come up with more examples if you like...for instance comparing gay marriage to a glass of water/beer.

You did not provide me with an example of anything. You gave a quite poor analysis of a debate answer that wasn't so much particularly directed at the policy but by the left's numerous attempts to interject social policy (typically involving homosexuals) in places where it shouldn't be. A large number of Americans agree with him on the issue and I fail to see why you are having such a hard time understanding his position. Perhaps you should reread it a few times.

Your one-line responses simply don't have enough substance for me to even respond to quite honestly. You can keep calling those on the right "retarded" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that there is clearly only one retard in this thread..

 

[StillBallin75]

You did not provide me with an example of anything. You gave a quite poor analysis of a debate answer that wasn't so much particularly directed at the policy but by the left's numerous attempts to interject social policy (typically involving homosexuals) in places where it shouldn't be.

I'm pretty sure he was addressing just DADT. And ain't it twisted when asking to be treated like everyone else is "injecting social policy."

"Oh yeah, we just want our sexual orientation to not play a role in whether or not we lose our jobs. We just want to be able to put photos of our loved ones in our desk without getting fired." Nope, you can't have that, that's injecting social policy where it doesn't belong :roll:

Our military should not be about a persons sexual orientatio*n, its a private matter.

So why reinsitute a policy that targets persons of a specific sexual orientation? "Oh and by the way, I'm also against big government, except when that government spends thousands upon thousands training a soldier for combat and then kicks him out for being gay. That's ****in awesome."

A large number of Americans agree with him on the issue and I fail to see why you are having such a hard time understanding his position. Perhaps you should reread it a few times.

I understand his position perfectly. He isn't saying anything that hasn't been said before. It's still a position that is full of ****ty reasoning.

Your one-line responses simply don't have enough substance for me to even respond to quite honestly. You can keep calling those on the right "retarded" all you want, it doesn't change the fact that there is clearly only one retard in this thread..

If you hadn't realized, my ire wasn't directed at "the right," it was directed at Mr. Santorum in particular. I've told you why some of his positions and answers were idiotic, and you haven't addressed any of that.

 

[jasonxe]

Santorum will go to war without hesitation....im not joking. Another military invasion is a dream come true for him. He is so war propagandist and will consider invading China (wouldn't put it pass him) and enact a draft to make his mad ****ing dreams come true. Chicken hawk is all I have to say.

And yes he is the only one who still thinks the Iraq war was right...and is proud of it.

 

[Crosscheck]

Santorum will go to war without hesitation....im not joking. Another military invasion is a dream come true for him. He is so war propagandist and will consider invading China (wouldn't put it pass him) and enact a draft to make his mad ****ing dreams come true. Chicken hawk is all I have to say.

And yes he is the only one who still thinks the Iraq war was right...and is proud of it.

A lot of guys who never served in the military sure like to later in life thump their hollow chests.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Santorum: "I’ve forgotten more about Israel than Rick Perry knows about Israel"

This may be a controversial thing to say, but in my opinion we would be a lot better off as a country if everyone in Washington would "forget about Israel".

 

[Thunder]

This may be a controversial thing to say, but in my opinion we would be a lot better off as a country if everyone in Washington would "forget about Israel".

what are you talking about? a nation HAS to have its priorities.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

what are you talking about? a nation HAS to have its priorities.

I am saying that I could care less what a candidate's knowledge of Israel is. We have been Israel's biggest nation supporter for decades now and have gotten nothing in return for it other than headaches in terms of foreign policy. Israel has no oil, they have nothing to offer us that we cannot get from dozens of other nations, so why do they get more foreign aid from the U.S. than any other nation? I firmly believe that Israel and the Palestinians would have hashed out their issues by now if we just stayed out of it.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Thread moved to the Middle East forum. Martial Law is now applicable. http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/99774-me-forum-martial-law-concordance.html

 

[mbig]

.... Israel has no oil..

But they may be exporting NG soon.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/88806-big-natural-gas-find-sparks-frenzy-israel.html

they have nothing to offer us that we cannot get from dozens of other nations, so why do they get more foreign aid from the U.S. than any other nation?

That's completely false.
We get Tech from Israel who is second to the USA in NASDAQ companies.
Intel is building a larger factory there, home of the Pentium chip.

We get Weapons systems from Israel- some of the best electronic targeting systems and drones. ie,
USATODAY.com - U.S. military employs Israeli technology in Iraq war
and
Hiding Israel'S Contribution To The U.S. Military
We get humintel and electronic intel from Israel on the whole Middle east.
We won the Cold War in the Middle East relatively inexpensively by having strong ally Israel as the local power, turning several Arab countries/Soviet client states, losers of the '67 war, into our allies.
(many links for the above available including a ref/credit for my last claim http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...get-its-alliance-israel-6.html#post1059235835 .

I firmly believe that Israel and the Palestinians would have hashed out their issues by now if we just stayed out of it.

And everyone else stayed out of it too.
Of course it's in our interest to be in the neighborhood.
More so than, say, in Korea or Japan.

I love it when strings are thrown down here - Kinda like the old Roman Collosseum.

 

[What if...?]

Perhaps the fact that he has much more political experience with issues a Commander In Chief is likely to face. You obviously no nothing about Rick Santorum if you seriously think Romney and Perry could compete with him on the issues. You probably believe they can compete with Newt too.




But my point is that he isn't an idiot. He's a well respected former Senator who served 8 years on the Senate Armed Services committee. He knows more about the threats facing this nation than Romney and Perry combined. Try again.




You're a joke.

Technically he is a joke. Just google it!

The sad thing is he'll never get the stain from the joke out!

 

[lpast]

You may not like what santorum believes in...but he is neither dumb nor dishonest...actually I believe hes the most honest of the entire republican field...that statement doesnt mean I agree with everything he says and im not looking to get into a pissing contest over him...but a candidate should not be judged on his opinion on one issue....every one of them have a position on something that anyone can take issue with and whats a terribly important issue to you may not be to me...lastly in politics theres always going to be fors and againsts...thats why the abortion issue has been going on for 40 yrs and it still can bring emotional responses and you still have politicians for an against it...

 

[StillBallin75]

You may not like what santorum believes in...but he is neither dumb nor dishonest...actually I believe hes the most honest of the entire republican field...that statement doesnt mean I agree with everything he says and im not looking to get into a pissing contest over him...but a candidate should not be judged on his opinion on one issue....every one of them have a position on something that anyone can take issue with and whats a terribly important issue to you may not be to me...lastly in politics theres always going to be fors and againsts...thats why the abortion issue has been going on for 40 yrs and it still can bring emotional responses and you still have politicians for an against it...

It's really not just one issue, I could come up with more examples. I'll put it this way, if Santorum would debate on DP the way he debates on television, he would get completely shredded by a lot of the posters here. And from what I've seen throughout these first four debates, he has yet to say anything of substance, IMO, with regard to how we should solve our country's fiscal and economic problems, and his answers on foreign policy were just primarily empty rhetoric as well.