The American Spectator

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 3:23PM

"Rick Santorum is a deeply honorable public servant."

I'll ask again. Are you DC types just putting his Iraq really had WMDs performance in the memory hole?

The guy made a fool of himself and you are talking about integrity?

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 4:14PM

CBowen....

Quin has hit the documented button...so the truth will change your mind...right? Doubtful....You have made up your mind and "who cares about the facts" is a familiar approach...

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 4:27PM

Jeff;

So you believe that Iraq had WMDS? For the record, if you could just be clear and post as much, I'll screen save it and book mark it--so it won't get lost down the memory hole.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 5:10PM

CBowen....

In addition to the link Quin has provided..uh.gee...you're thinking all those Kurds died because someone sprinkled fairy dust on them?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Suit yourself. Your memory hole does seem rather large at that. Righ...Saddam never had WMD. Nope. Never. Ever. Nah. It was fairy dust or maybe bad shrimp? Whatever....

Amazing, CBowen. Absolutely amazing.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 5:15PM

The topic was not if Saddam ever had chemical weapons (a topic The American Spectator covered in the 90s by James Ring Adams, revealing how the government sold them to him), but if Iraq had WMDs.

That you won't come out and say you think Iraq really had WMDs, proves the point- you had to, like a good DC Ruling Class type, make up a new topic to respond to.

My personal opinion is that the term WMD, like assault rifle, is a catch-all political term, and Bush was at least honest enough, as well as Rumsfeld to clearly state that Iraq did not have WMDs (or tell some lie like they were shipped to Syria.)

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 5:43PM

This is silly....the entire world knows that nothing in mass quantity was found after the war. This is like denying gravity. But was stuff found? Did he ever have them? Was his record massively demonstrative of his intentions? Absolutely! Would he be one huge problem right this minute if not undone? OMG, as kids say. The problem here is that you appear to be an isolationist....and frankly...knowing the historical record here...what you support has utterly failed. Really, really badly. Oh if we just mind our own business in the 1930's the world will leave us alone. Right. 400,000 dead Americans later...6 million Jews...who knows how many millions elsewhere....isolationism failed. Big time. We don't have to be everywhere...we need to be smart about this. But when the bullies are on the loose, hiding under the bed will, in the end, never be a good idea. Is Iraq better off today...is the world? Yes! That's the real disagreement here CBowen. This is a very, very ancient tale as old as humanity...and always there are people who never learn the lesson. And repeating the liberal mantra here will never make it true.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 6:15PM

LOL--now you are bringing up the 30s?

So you are saying, as you seem incapable of writing things in clear language, that the entire world knows that Iraq didn't have WMDs, only that Rick Santorum is correct that Iraq had at one point, WMDS and thus is a man of integrity--even though Bush and Rummy both agree that Iraq did not have WMDs the way they meant the use of the term.

That when Santorum was doing his "Iraq really had WMD's tour" he meant that they had used chemical weapons in the 80s, and had some shells left over, and this was an honorable thing to do.

Just come out and say, post it here, that Iraq really had WMDs. Just do it. Or do what the other hacks do, and say they were secretly moved to Syria, implying Bush and Rummy failed to go after them?

Don't start with the world is better now that Iraq is a Muslim state crap--and how did the Iraq war work out for Iraqi Christians, again?

Just come out and say it--what are you afraid of?

Let your flag fly--just say it-- Iraq had WMDS!

Quin, if this is the bench, well good luck with that.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 6:34PM

CBowen....

Hello? I've said it! Are ye deef? The massive quantities of WMD's Bush and a long list of others thought were there WERE...NOT...THERE. Let's say it
slowly...THERE...WERE...NO...MASSIVE...AMOUNTS...OF..WMD's...IN IRAQ. Period. But was there stuff there? This is..hello...DOCUMENTED!

What astonishes is that history means nothing to you...zip. This is why you are not a conservative...history and experience mean nothing. Everyday starts anew...no history...no facts...no record....no understanding of centuries of human nature. Tell me: when you go for a checkup, does the doctor really say to you: congratulations on being born this minute. You have no problems because life started over today! No chloresterol problems, no heart problems, no whatever problems you had the last time you were here...they are gone! Because it was so long ago!

Good heavens. Reading will help. Honest.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 6:50PM

We haven't begun a history discussion yet, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

What we have established, is launching a debt financed war against a secular country allowing it to become Iranian dominated, under the false assumption that Iraq was a threat, is, in your eyes, conservative.

From Burke to Reagan--nice try at appealing to Kirk. Of course, he thought George HW Bush should have been hung on the White House Lawn for the first Iraq War, so I guess, in your use of the term "conservative", you must mean another tradition.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 6:56PM

"LOL--now you are bringing up the 30s?"

"We haven't begun a history discussion yet, so I have no idea what you are talking about."

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 7:00PM

What are you trying to prove?

That by somehow, mentioning the 30s as it relates to the threat (well, as you concede non-threat) of Iraq, we had a debate about the 30s? Is that a debate you would like to have, Mr. Lord, or did you fantasize we had that debate?

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 7:20PM

You seem not to understand that human nature never changes. Ever. Through all of human history. Greed, fear, meglomania, anti-semitism, racism, lust...and a lot of good things are on the list too...but on and on and on the list goes. It is a constant in every generation of humans. When X trait surfaces one has hopefully learned what to do...or what NOT to do. You seem not to get this. Arguing over we see the same thing at work...fine. But in a day and age of high tech weapons....my conservative belief is to believe what I see...and what I saw in Saddam's actual on-the-record history was seriously bad.

The New York Times printed a story saying anti-semitism in Germany consisted of misbehaving kids - Hitler was no big deal. This on the eve of Hitler's take over. Hitler was a big deal not just because he was Hitler - but because he exhibited the classic behavior that can be found in a neighborhood bully. Except he ran a country he had armed to the teeth. If one can't understand this - and Chamberlain did not - disaster results.
And in that case - it did result.

If one does not understand that addicting human beings to the morphine of federal tax dollars will result in an insatiable demand for more! more! more! - one is clueless as to how we are now 14.2 trillion in debt. One doesn't have to be the director of OMB to get this behavior pattern....

That's all I'm saying here.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 8:13PM

That doesn't make any sense, Jeff. You yourself said that Saddam didn't have WMDs, but you say you saw a record that he did, but you now know and admit you were wrong.

Which what? Proves you were right?

Did you work for the Reagan Administration at the time Iraq was an ally?

WilliamR| 4.29.11 @ 6:27PM

Like most NeoCons you misuse the term isolationist.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 6:39PM

Nice try.

I'm a conservative. I don't do Neo-Paleo or compassionate. Just straight up from Burke to Reagan. And I certainly don't subscribe to the liberal propaganda of "endless war in the Middle East." Win outright - and come home. Getting under the bed until the next attack is decidedly not Reaganesque.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 6:46PM

Iraq didn't attack us, Jeff. Are you getting confused?

Occam's Tool| 4.29.11 @ 7:24PM

I believe they tried to kill GHW Bush, Mr. Bowen, the Iraqis did. And if it hadn't been for the Israelis, we would have been facing a nuclear armed Iraq during Gulf War I. They did attempt to attack our energy supply.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 7:58PM

Do you have proof of that Occam--"they" tried to kill GHW Bush? Is that was Rick Santorum was referring to by WMD--in an ever more broad sense? Or was that more nonsense and lies like Speicher as POW?

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 8:20PM

Huh?
You make your point. Sit still, do nothing. Let them kill X thousands of Americans...or millions....and then consider prosecuting them. Maybe. But don't send them to Gitmo. Bill Clinton redux.

Iraq attacked or invaded outright Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. I may be leaving someone out. Oh yes, those gassed Kurds.
Human behavior involved? Aggression, murder...and in the case of Saddam...it looked pretty clear this was your basic meglomaniac. So because, say, Hitler did invaded Poland but not Idaho...there was no problem? This is why humans - and the simplest of animals - usually have a mechanism that shrieks danger. What you are espousing here is nonsense. And in this day and age...its suicidal nonsense.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 8:48PM

Now you are saying that Iraq killed X thousands of Americans or millions?

Quin, cut this guy off before he starts to embarrass the operation.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 8:50PM

restated--now your are saying Iraq was going to kill thousands or millions of Americans?

So you thought Iraq was a threat to attack?

Quin, get this guy another, he is on a roll.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 9:22PM

We have established your position.

Until Hitler hits Idaho, he's no big deal.

Unless, of course, you wind up as an American kid being drafted out of your small town to hit the beaches of France... . How many American states were attacked in WWII by the Germans, anyway?

Let's see....Georgia? Massachusetts? California?
Um...no, no, and no. The other 45 of the day? No again. And the couple of guys left off on the beaches of Long Island didn't exactly constitute an invasion force. So what was the fuss?

According to you, nothing.

Thanks. Got it. We know where you are...the point of the exercise. Over and out.

C Bowen| 4.30.11 @ 4:50PM

Jeffery, Hitler didn't rule Iraq.

Were you drunk when you wrote that?

Occam's Tool| 4.29.11 @ 7:18PM

Actually, Jeff, with the exception of the Pauls, who are to the Left of Obama on foreign policy, I'll vote for any major Republican over his idiocy. Santorum is just fine.

I also appreciate you coming down to mingle with us peons.

Occam's Tool| 4.29.11 @ 7:21PM

I'm sorry...His IDIOCY, the defender of the Holy Cities of Honolulu and Chicago, etc. (Part of this stolen from Rob Long)

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 7:24PM

Occam...

The royal wedding today was lovely. I loved it. Good for the Brits.

But...gee. Like our ancestors of 1776 ...I don't believe in a world of Royals and peons. I'm in for "we the people". And even the dissenters here well classify for that respect. Or we all would have been on the invitation list for today!

Occam's Tool| 4.29.11 @ 7:26PM

You should have been on the list, Mr. Lord. You certainly are classy enough to deserve it. Not for this psychiatrist, however. Once upon a time I lived in the Commonwealth, and I'm glad I'm out of it. I'll say more when we cover rights of self defense.

You are always a pleasure.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 7:59PM

Occam;

We already know you will support the Pro Gay Marriage Bolton over anyone else.

Clint| 4.30.11 @ 7:07AM

Fixated Chickenhawk Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job has A Chronic Ax To Grind against Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr.Ron Paul And Our Tea Party Senator From The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Dr. Rand Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Diem.

William R| 4.30.11 @ 12:10PM

No, the Paul's represent old school conservatism on foreign policy. You on the other hand are a typical FDR, Truman LBJ liberal on foreign affairs.

Russell Kirk the father of modern conservatism:

"Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world. Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a "One World" candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs. "

http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html

Occam's Tool| 4.29.11 @ 7:29PM

I dunno, Jeff...I always thought getting rid of a maniac who gassed 300,000 of America's allies and tried to kill a US President was a good thing. But I ain't a sophisticated Liberal.

WilliamR| 4.29.11 @ 6:22PM

Santorum subscribes to the NeoCon ideology of endless war in the Middle East. He was also one of two Senators to vote against Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense because Gates advocated talking to Iran.

Doug Bandow hits the nail on the head with this article.

Rescue the Republican Party from the Interventionists

http://www.campaignforliberty......?view=1424

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 6:31PM

More importantly, William, is that Santorum rejected the council of Pope John Paul II, who was just also posted about on this blog, and favored attacking a country that was not a threat.

Bush and Rummy don't really care that Iraq wasn't a threat; they aren't Catholic. But it matters to pro-war "Catholics" because of the Just War theory they pretend to subscribe to.

WilliamR| 4.29.11 @ 6:52PM

Wolfowitz argued going to Iraq first because it would be easier. The NeoCons wanted us to invade 7 countries after 9/11.

As George correctly identified them " most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives” who “are the most radical people in this town”

Santorum is in very deep with the people that got us involved in this mess.

William R| 4.30.11 @ 12:01PM

"As George correctly identified them " most magnificently misnamed neoconservatives” who “are the most radical people in this town”

George Will

Occam's Tool| 4.29.11 @ 7:22PM

WilliamR,

we are in a 1400 year war with the denizens of Dar-es-Islam. They have financial and demographic ascendacy now over the West. You may not want to war with them, but they do with you.

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 8:03PM

You aren't making any sense. It was you, Jeff, and Rick who supported a trillion dollar boondoggle to topple a secular nation, and let Iran fill the void.

You are the ones who are objectively pro-Islam.

Quin| 4.29.11 @ 4:00PM

Iraq really DID have WMDs. Just not very many of them. http://www.nationalreview.com/.....oy-murdock

C Bowen| 4.29.11 @ 4:25PM

So that is your position? That Iraq really had WMDs which you define the same as Santorum (but differently then Bush or Rumsfeld who would then be de facto liars), and Santorum was correct?

Next, Santorum said invading Iraq was a response to 9/11.

What did he mean by that as Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Or is your position the same as the columnist you quoted, as late as 2007, said he believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Is that your position as well Quin and Jeff?

I'll await your replies.

Quin| 4.29.11 @ 4:19PM

GREAT commentary, Jeff. Many thanks for your insights.

PattyMor| 4.29.11 @ 4:33PM

Sorry, but Romney, Huckabee, and Gingrigh are typical Ruling Classers. Trump toots his horn loudly, but he's not a Republican; no matter how many times he tries to say he is.

Me I'm waiting for Sarah, my number one pick. I could live with Bachmann, Cain, or even Santorum. We need bold, confident conservatives; not milktoast, warmed over, leftover Ruling Class Types.

And absoutely no one who has at one time signed onto global warming (or whatever they're calling it these days).

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.29.11 @ 5:33PM

Clean, clear, rational thought as always PattyMor!

Occam's Tool| 4.29.11 @ 7:19PM

Don't forget Bolton or WEST.

Chuck| 4.29.11 @ 5:40PM

Someone who lives in Pennsylvania and knows the state's politics please tell us what happened in 2006. When a sitting senator (two terms) is beaten by 18 points in his reelection bid something terribly went wrong. People will blame W. in a close defeat that would sell but not a drubbing like that. A defeat of that magnitude puts his state in play in the general election and that's what Republicans are worried about.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.29.11 @ 6:08PM

Chuck...

Happy to.

First, the 6th year of a presidential term is usually tough for the incumbent president's party. Second, Rick Santorum is, as noted, blunt spoken and had managed to make lots of enemies on the left (for supporting Bush etc) and the right(for supporting Specter over GOP primary challenger Pat Toomey etc.)

Third, and this is important. While the comparison is inexact, the Casey family is extremely well thought of by Pennsylvanians. Not unlike, say, the Kennedys in Massachusetts. Governor Casey first ran - and lost - for governor as a young state senator from Scranton in 1966. He lost. Two years later he was elected auditor general. Two years later he lost a second governor's primary race. Two years after that he was re-elected auditor general. In 1978 he lost another governor's primary. Finally, in 1986 - 20 years after his first try - he won both primary and general. As a governor he proved to be a JFK-FDR Democrat as opposed to a far left-wing McGovernite. He was also, quite famously, strongly pro-life. So much so the Clintons denied him a speaking slot at the 1992 Democratic Convention. Towards the end of his term - already popular - he was stricken with a very bizarre disease that required a full heart/lung transplant. He handed his powers to his number two - survived - and came back to finish his term. Not long afterwards he passed away as a still fairly young man.

Which is a long way of saying that his namesake son, a very nice guy, had an enormous amount of personal popularity and sentimentality giving him a huge tail wind. A tail wind he had already ridden to previous election as auditor general and treasurer.

In a bad year for the GOP - Santorum was extremely vulnerable.

In a nutshell...OK a big nutshell...that's what happened.

At this moment? Santorum is a mere 2 points behind Obama in the latest Pennsylvania poll. Obama, safe to say, is no Bob Casey.

Bob K.| 4.30.11 @ 5:46PM

Exactly! I'm from PA near Casey's hometown and I've never seen it explained better!

The big problem for PA Republicans in 2012 might be the current Governor Corbett. The Northern Tier Counties, solidly Republican all, are showing signs of revolting against the party because of the Governor's laissez faire approach to the Gas Industries development of the Marcellus Shale Gas beds.

The industry has refused to take responsibility for the extensive damage to the infrastructure of local roads and bridge that is happening because of their exploration.

Governor Corbett has refused to come out in favor of an extraction tax which all other states with a gas industry have and he has yet to do anything to lower the 9.9% corporate Income Tax either. So the companies have incorporated in Delaware.

As for, Santorum, he is on his own when it comes to a Presidential race, just like everyone else running he has his past record attached to him.

MikeN| 4.29.11 @ 6:31PM

Santorum was set to lose close but comfortably then he puts out the ad about Iran, and loses the race by 20 points. This was 2 years after Toomey was set to beat Specter and then he runs an ad supporting Bush in Iraq, and loses the race. Perhaps the first criteria should be to not nominate someone from the Bill Kristol wing of the Party.

Michael L. Hauschild| 4.29.11 @ 11:30PM

Bloviate, rationalize, make excuses, and change the subject, all for naught. The Santorum bandwagon has a “Specter for Senate” bumper sticker on the back.

Oldefarte| 4.30.11 @ 1:59PM

Jeffrey, As I blogged under Quin's commentary, I just don't think that Santorium is what is needed either by Republicans or this country. To my knowledge, he has never operated a business nor a state. His legislative career is typical of most lawyers [I'm assuming he's one]and is beneficial to congressional-type jobs, but not administrative-types, which is what is needed. At this point I'm more partial to a Pawlenty or a Daniels run, as both are/were governors which again highlights the administrative function. Our main/crutial problem in this country is our defecit/debt with its included excessive governmental spending element. Bein pro-life etc is admirable and morally just, but it's not what this country needs now!!!!

TR Sterling| 4.30.11 @ 10:05PM

Santorum was a supporter of establishment candidates who lost against Rand Paul and Nikki Haley. Whaddy know, this is the same guy who supported Arlen over Pat Toomey! Rick spends too much time trying to pick the winning side (being #3 in Senate means he was political climber, thats all). His brash talk and preppy smile wont get him elected although he might be a reasonable cabinet member for a Republican President.

Ore Gone| 4.30.11 @ 10:34PM

I like anyone that will make the pretender in the WH go away!

PCP Smoker| 4.30.11 @ 11:38PM

Good piece as usual. Santo or anyone on the right will do well if he can clearly tie the current troubles to the liberal policies of the past. So far Michelle Bachman, H Caine, and La Palin have been able to do this. I hope Santo can too. The last thing we need is Huckaphony or RomneyCare causing disruptions.

Jim Hlavac| 5.1.11 @ 10:09PM

Rick Santorum has called for the outlawing of gay people's existence -- he's clear, he's adamant. And he's hiding behind the repeal of Lawrence v. Texas as if we will sit back and put up with his nonsense. But let me be clear -- if the Republican party - through Santorum or anyone else -- thinks there going to outlaw us again -- because we're "Evil" and "terrible" and "domestic terrorists" you all are crazy. And I'm a Tea Party Libertarian Republican gay guy.

We shall demand to be arrested. We shall stage civil unrest unbeknownst to you. And demand you incarcerate us -- so we can live off of your dime. You will pay for Santorum's plans. Anything less is the typical hypocrisy which comes from mush heads like him. Outlaw us? Arrest us! Now!

You will call it "punishment" and we shall call it the weirdest Club Med ever devised by the folly of man.

Here, here's the most popular Santorum site -- for your enlightenment of the disaster that man is:

www.spreadingsantorum.com

Be grossed, as I am.

And really now, is it rational to call for the spending of billions of dollars to round up all the gay people, incarcerate us, and enforce a "cure" on us? Are you serious? Are you? Well, knock yourselves out -- it's your dime. You will pay for this -- we will demand it! We shall live in gleeful happiness with millions of gay men -- and you will pay for it. -- For that's what Santorum is calling for.

We are tired of morons like this cretin.

And if this is the best you all can come up with -- then you will get Obama for another four years. It' s your lives too - -not just ours.

Try Gary Johnson, he's got a brain.

Cheers.