« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Bachmann-Santorum Rule: We Can Be Extorted

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  November 14th, 2011 at 04:47 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There was one moment in the CBS News debate that has not gotten a lot of attention and should get a great deal of attention.

CBS News asked Rick Perry about Pakistan. Perry responded that Pakistan is not being controlled by its political leaders, but rather by its secret police and military. Likewise, Pakistan should not get foreign aid unless it can show it is our friend and right now it looks to be anything but our friend.

You can hear Rick Perry in his own words right here.

This was followed up by perhaps the most dangerous and willfully naive foreign policy view I have ever heard expressed by Republicans. Michele Bachmann had to disagree with Rick Perry and, by the way, Newt Gingrich. Rick Santorum chimed in to agree with Michele Bachmann.

We can call it the Bachmann-Santorum policy. It is to the left of Barack Obama. And if it is implemented, it will see the world turn into a far more dangerous place with many of us getting killed.

You can hear Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum in their own words. I have not edited the clips. What you will hear is two candidates for President of the United States say that because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, we must treat them as our friend whether they are or they are not.

Taking their statements together — and they were in agreement disagreeing with Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry — we have two candidates telling the world that if you betray us, if you harbor Osama Bin Laden, if you cooperate with the Taliban and terrorist groups, if you work with China to undermine our national security, we will treat you as our friend if you have nuclear weapons.

They say a million monkeys banging away randomly on a keyboard will eventually turn out Shakespeare. We now know what the foreign policy equivalent is: the Bachmann-Santorum Doctrine.

Here is Michele Bachmann disagreeing with Rick Perry.

She was followed by Newt Gingrich who agreed with Rick Perry.

Then Rick Santorum had to open his mouth.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • haumea

    They must – MUST – be our allies!

    Faith-based foreign relations ftw…

  • davesinsanantonio

    guarantee that every Mexican drug cartel, every Al Quaeda terrorist cell, every Somali pirate gang, heck, even the Mafia and inner city ethnic gangs here in America will be on the world market trying to buy nuclear weapons. Heck, or even just rent one.
    If this is all it takes to make people our “friends”, they will jump at the chance, because look how much money we have given our “friends” in Pakistan already, even without this insane policy being officially in place yet.
    With friends like Pakistan we hardly need enemies.
    What will they come up with next? Letting bank robbers off if they carry a bigger gun???

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …whereby he asserts he is highly critical of BHO because he’d be out of Afghanistan by election-day…as opposed to Mitt’s target-date of only THREE MONTHS LATER!

    This is akin to a “distinction without a difference” and allows for the same violation of common-sense that most R’s have decried, namely, announcing a troop withdrawal deadline. It deviates from the advice of the military and, candidly, it reinforces the rationale for maintaining [if not lowering] the glass-ceiling that Romney has noted in his polling.

    Coupled with how Cain celebrates his ignorance of Foreign Policy ["know nothing"-ism to the extreme], those commentators who gloss over the quotes [as opposed to the imagery] of what transpired in this debate are broadcasting their biases; Perry triumphed, and it was only the lack of tough-questioning of The Newt that rescued him from having his egg-head mentality punctured by the self-contradictory quotes he has uttered [both remotely and recently].

    Santorum/Bachmann would have us believe that their arguments are reality-based, due to the existence of Nukes in tenuous sites, and they would note that Chinese support of Pakistan is in the wings. The latter argument can be exposed as specious because such involvement comes at a price [as Africans have learned as their minerals have been exploited] and the former argument can be countered as incomplete because it is a MEASURED approach [a la Perry] that can be invoked to leverage the type of cooperation [coupled by the drones] that must be exacted if Islamists are to be exposed and deposed [if not "disposed of" by other means].

    This reinforces the support that thinking-feeling [double-entendre intended] people harbor when comparing/contrasting Perry with his competitors; as much as I fear it may be “too little, too late,” hope springs eternal [either for his recovery or, as explored elsewhere, the sudden entry of DeMint].

  • nathanalbright

    …”The Puntland [a piratey part of Somalia] pirates have nukes, so they must be our friends even if they butcher innocent sailboat tourists and kidnap workers on merchant ships.”

    …”The North Koreans must be our friends because they have nukes, even if they are a bunch of perfidious goons who starve their own people and keep shelling our friends the South Koreans.”

    You get the picture. That is the picture of total craven weakness. Even Neville Chamberlain calls that cowardly.

  • center77

    it was more of a , oh no, Rick said it, we better get someone in that agrees with Bachmann. The liberal loved it on Msnbc, they kept saying Perry wants to just cut funding, but failed to note that it was start at Zero, then when they are friends, they can get help, when they prove themselves. Bachmann will say anything to knock Perry, she just can’t get over how he deflated he numbers. Perry showed why he has the chops, conservatives should take note, this issue our champion. No baggage, all real.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …three approaches appear particularly effective.

    FIRST, he isn’t a flip-flopper, and the “yesterday’s news” attacks [fence, Gardisil, etc.] can be brushed-aside and/or reversed by reality-testing [can't built a fence in the middle of the Rio Grande].

    SECOND, he advocates a muscular foreign policy, as was evinced against all-comers during the most recent debate. As Center77 noted, it’s easy to puncture the PMSNBC-type pronouncements [and moreso when they emanate from RINO's] within but one rhetorical exchange.

    THIRD, I pull-out my “Heritage Foundation” version of the Constitution, and quote “Fed Up!” to illustrate his fealty to federalism, etc.

    This “worked” on Saturday-p.m. while “chatting ” with a Hospitalist who immediately reacted “You’re a TEA-Partier!” I told her I’d spoken @ three regarding ObamaCare and she said she had just emerged from a training program at which she had suffered PERSISTENT/VENAL ostracism [by both fellow house officers AND attendings!] after she had expressed support for Sarah’s ideas. She found my support highly-gratifying/reinforcing, and she is now plugged-in to multiple QUALITY news-sources!

  • nathanalbright

    Sometimes people need encouragement so that they don’t feel like they are being sent off to the leper colony for having a little bit of common sense.

  • ericblair00

    Everyone knows Pakistan is duplicitous. That is one of the best arguments for leaving Afghanistan rapidly. Working to keep Pakistan’s nukes secure is generally considered an important foreign policy priority, embraced by just about every serious foreign policy analyst. The only part of Bachmann’s comments that were silly was the bit about the table being set for a global nuclear war against Israel. That is nonsensical.

  • Michael Dugas

    They’re our new best buds? Naive is not an adjective that does that outlook justice. It’s just plan stupid

  • nathanalbright

    …so you actually support her craven stance that we should bribe duplicitous and treacherous nations, behave like Neville Chamberlain in drag with our white feathers in our bonnets, all because some rogue nation has nukes? So you’re a lily-livered poultroon? That’s good to know. And you think that the hostility of the ME towards Israel, a nation they have attacked numerous times in the past half-century, is nonsensical. You, sir, appear to have no sense.

  • ericblair00

    No, I think our aid to Pakistan should be greatly reduced, becuause — as I said — they are clearly duplicitous. The only point I made is that it is in our interest to make sure their nukes are properly secured.

    Press reports indicate that Israel has dozens of nuclear bombs. Exactly who is going to nuke israel?

  • ericblair00

    We should work very hard to prevent Iran from getting the bomb in the first place.

    But when a country like Pakistan already has multiple nuclear weapons — such that they cannot be removed — we should work to insure that those weapons are properly secured. Who is talking about making any of these countries into our friends?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because 85% of diagnoses are established by taking a good history.

    Here, after having slipped-in some “inviting” quotes and having received signals that a “rise” was transpiring, I persisted…and she was gratified!

    When contending with others who suggest they harbor an open-mind, I adopt the SOAP-note approach [Subjective/Objective/Assessment/Plan]. I detect soft-points, then quote info [providing a cite, if necessary], explain my conclusions and then maintain openness if any doubt exists regarding Perry [as OPPOSED to the other GOP candidates].

    Here, the physician [who had been a nurse!] was emboldened, feeling that her views had been [belatedly] validated [and we'll see if she invokes this version of a lifeline if/when she needs to be buttressed].

    This one-on-one approach is urgently needed, as the Primaries rapidly approach….

  • nathanalbright

    …even occasionally by you :B. But there are plenty of people in a place like this to encourage each other to remain true to principle and not sacrifice all on the false altars of expediency.

  • nathanalbright

    …smaller than the state of New Jersey (a fact I realized when I visited there, and stood on a mountain top looking into Jordan on one side and the Mediterreanean Sea on the other side). It’s not so hard for a nation to try to get a couple of nukes into Jerusalem and Tel Aviv (especially if you’re not so concerned about collateral damage to the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount) if they are really hostile. Sure, Israel would retaliate harshly, but part of their foreign policy has been not to allow any of their enemies that chance, which is why they attacked Iraq in the 1980′s.

    Furthermore, in saying that you agree that Pakistan’s aid should be reduced you agree with Rick Perry and disagree with Michelle Bachman. That’s why I was confused.

  • nathanalbright

    …that because Pakistan has the nuke we have to treat them like a friend even though they haven’t done anything to deserve that by their harboring Osama Bin Ladin, among other sins. That’s the whole reason for this blog, to say this is not acceptable, and it is a craven and cowardly foreign policy (which is why I used all those synonyms for coward in my above reply to your praise of the Bachman-Santorum rule).

  • Bill S

    That is exactly what I said in response to a email on this topic.

  • mickeydpekinil

    I listened to the clip 8 times and she used no English terms that was new to me, and I did not hear her say, “we are or should be friends with Pakistan”.
    I started with no candidate but I’m leaning to Perry because he looks and acts more like a human being capable of changing his opinions as new information comes in, instead of a robot that is pre-programmed to one point of view regardless of new circumstances, yet I feel that this kind of spin does not help our cause.
    Lets be better, and be honest, and LETS WIN!!!!
    GO PERRY>>>>

  • buddyp

    Erick,

    Do you advocate cutting off all aid to Pakistan immediately? What consequences would you anticipate of doing so?

    It’s easy to stand on principle, or engage in hyperbole. It also makes voters feel better, so it’s a good way for politicians and media personalities (including bloggers) to pander. Red meat tastes good.

    A more responsible approach considers consequences of Policy A vs. Policy B, etc.

    Surely there are arguments for reducing or even cutting off aid to Pakistan, or for threatening to do so unless it proves itself a much more reliable friend, and following through on that threat if it doesn’t. And it may be that such a policy is, overall, best. The threat may work. If not, the reduction/cut-off of aid may work. If not, it could serve as a lesson for other nations not to screw with us if they want aid from us, and it would save us a bit of money (unless the savings were more than offset by greater costs and logistical problems in supplying Afghanistan and/or other complications, as well as lost business for American military suppliers from whom I assume Pakistan buys with our aid money).

    But just as surely there are considerations other than the fact that Pakistan is in some ways and at some times helpful, and in other ways/other times screws us over. We have to consider our interests and what policies serve our interests, not simply react emotionally to betrayal of a nation that should show more gratitude and loyalty. Our main interests are in keeping those Pakistani nukes in relatively safe hands, in logistics for our effort in Afghanistan (for the time being), and in the fight in Waziristan against Islamist terrorists and those supporting them (I don’t worry about radical Islamists taking over Pakistan, because they seem to have little public support in elections and I don’t think the army or even ISI has any interest in radical Islamists gaining power). Pakistan has also apparently offered some sort of base or port to the Chinese navy, and we’d rather not see that projection of power, so if we can influence Pakistan to back off that idea, that would be a plus.

    Before we reduce or cut off aid to Pakistan, we need to consider all these costs, benefits, and risks as they relate to policy alternatives and negotiating strategies. We need to approach stuff like this rationally, not emotionally.

    Again, it may very well be that, all things considered, we should show the Pakistanis and the world that we will even give up a relationship with some benefits to us if we aren’t seeing satisfactory behavior. But it surely should be a more considered decision than the equivalent of simply breaking up with a cheating boyfriend/girlfriend.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Rejoice. You have passed the threshold of toleration of at least three site moderators. I believe that some folks out there would score that as a win.

    Good-bye, ericblair00.

  • nathanalbright

    ….from supporting the Taliban or offering a safe home near their capital to Osama Bin Laden (!). I say we’re not getting any “bang for our buck” in what we give Pakistan by objective standards.

    And Erick (and the rest of us here) are not saying that one should never give money to jerks, but rather that we give money on our terms, because we negotiate from a position of strength and decide who is worthy of being subsidized by the American tax dollars, to make sure it is in our interest. We do not cravenly try to bribe bullies into peace like the Chinese did in past centuries, to be constantly hit up by extortion rackets all over the world (Somali pirates, Mexican drug lords, corrupt African, Asian, and Middle Eastern regimes). And by making the nation state their case we put the onus on them–if you want our money, show us you’re worth it. Make them audition and work for the money rather than handing to them in the (vain) hope that they will change their wicked ways.

  • renl57

    I listened to both clips.

    Michele Bachmann’s point was that Perry’s proposed cutoff of aid to Pakistan (which would likely be followed by a freezing of relations with Pakistan) would remove whatever diplomatic leverage the U.S. had to help secure Pak’s nuclear weapons away from terrorists.

    Some of the aid we give Pakistan is used for just that purpose. These developing nations may not have the strict “fail-safe” controls on nuclear weapons that we have on our weapons.

    Michele Bachmann sits on the Intelligence Committee, and she gets the reports on the very difficult balancing act the U.S. has to play with those people.

    OTOH, what Santorum said was nonsensical–and he really did use the word “friend.”

    So don’t tar both these candidates with the same brush. You can disagree with Michele Bachmann’s position but it’s a reasonable position.

    BTW, was that Scott Pelley asking Bachmann the question? He wasn’t just asking a question, he was arguing with Perry’s position.

    I wish Michele Bachmann had told Pelley (or whoever it was) that nobody cares about HIS opinions.

  • circlegranch

    and he rec’d very little backlash. Now, GOP candidates taking a hard line towards them and not wanting to automatically sign aid checks to them are having their positions questioned.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …Because Rick has demonstrated the candor to admit error [e.g., Gardisil] without sacrificing core-principles.

    BUT

    HE isn’t a FLIP-FLOPPER when seeking “common ground” [rather than pandering with "compromise" that undermines credibility].

    THIS makes him the ONLY candidate currently in the field who merits support.

    [tell your friends]

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because he STARTS @ “0″ and then MOVES depending upon circumstances.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because Michele was obviously basing her comments on knowledge of the risk of a Nuke escaping from Pakistan.

    BUT

    She represented only this one pole on the spectrum; this contrasts with the dynamism Perry communicated..

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …particularly on RS, because I know I’ll receive candid responses!

  • josephine

    If you will notice, Cain was asked that question first. He in very few words stated the same philosophy of Newt and Perry.
    I do not watch Fox anymore. They are manipulating the polls.
    I agree with Cain,Newt,and Perry. I am overwhelmed with respect for all three.
    If we want to beat O’Bama, save our economy thus our country,ward off the Islamism that is moving to take our country—elect Cain for President with Newt at the Sec. of State position and ask Perry to take care of our borders. It would be a formidable team.
    Cain is holding the lead even against all odds. The accusations are false. The people of this country know he can lead us to a strong nation again.
    Washington, Fox,and the liberal media are too powerful.. We must reign them in. Cain is leading in 21 states three to one.
    Dr Paul, Bachmann, Santorum,and Huntsman should be dropped from the race I think. I also think that the GOP has fallen into a trap with these liberal debates with liberal nazi like moderators. The Scott Pelley (or whatever his name is) was despicable. They got them with that email.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    is that all facets of an issue can not be appropriately articulated.

    This particular issue requires a bit more time to assess all the complexities. For example, if Mr. Perry were to cut off all aid to Pakistan, what’s his alternative plan for the 50% of our military supply routes into Afghanistan that currently traverse that country? Surely they won’t allow that to continue? Any military cooperation that currently happens will surely disappear? How about monitoring of their nuclear weapons? I am not being argumentative and partially agree with Mr. Perry. But this is a much more dynamic situation than the topical issues under consideration here.

    I won’t defend Bachmann, but perhaps the aforementioned seems part of what she was trying to express, albeit badly and laced with some curious statements. She should know better with her committee positions. She should have been the one to slow this down and briefly explain the complexities.

    Why is Santorum still on the stage? Somebody remind me?

    By the way, Perry’s plan for “zero-based” foreign aid is the most under reported, great idea from these clips. This was a solid performance from him and I wish we could have heard more.

  • texasroots

    Everyone starts at “0″, and no aid unless support US.

  • Darin_H

    Ronald Reagan’s missing speeches:

    “Because the Soviet Union has nuclear weapons, we must treat them as our friend whether they are or they are not.”

    “Mr Gorbachev, it’s okay to leave the wall up”

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because you correctly praise Perry for his innovation [which could be extended to the UN and other NGO's, BTW].

    But,

    You need not worry regarding your patter of questions, because Perry is properly reassessing the overall impact of this posture.

    For example, just now on FNC, Perry was mischaracterized as wanting to kill aid [rather than reassessing and titrating it accordingly], a point that Rubio just countered by citing the Millennium Challenge [invoking decision-metrics to support American Security and national interest].

    BTW, Rick is also pushing direct-mail to disseminate his message…
    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=9FB7D57B-F861-57F2-759E714F59F3BA50
    …and Rubio emphasized the need for the POTUS-candidates to push LEGAL Immigration policies. [And he then put the kabosh, again, on the veep-rumors.]

  • gunslingr45

    is he getting banned for what he said above or was it something else he posted?

    “For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a taste the protected will never know”
    IN GOD WE TRUST

  • gunslingr45

    Cain one of these “FLIP-FLOPPERS” you are talking about?

    “For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a taste the protected will never know”
    IN GOD WE TRUST

  • gunslingr45

    mind Moe. I seen his post on another page, My bad.

    “For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a taste the protected will never know”
    IN GOD WE TRUST

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …which have been well-documented on RS…and elsewhere [among the MSM/LSM who aren't fawning over him, to protect Mitt].

    He flipped on auditng the fed, supported bailouts, revels in his ignorance of foreign policy [for starterrs].

    He has no deliverables that could compete with those of Perry.

  • westcoastpatriette

    If I were a moderator, I would have blammed him yesterday–he really got under my skin.

    So glad you guys agree.

  • Scope

    Bachmann was a guest on Meet the Press on Sunday, and according to Matt Lewis she said this-

    “We are conducting a war on terror, but when we have-we have no jail for terrorists. So what this means is either we kill them or we release them.”

    I wasn’t aware that Obama finally made good on his promise to shut down Gitmo!

  • ss396

    I was wondering how far down in this thread I would get before finding a referenced to the Soviets. I was beginning to despair.

    We did not triumph in the Cold War by being friends with the Soviet Union. You are not friends if you find yourself shouting “Tear down this wall.” You are not friends when you engage in proxy wars all over the third world. You are not friends if you find yourself setting up a naval blockade against your opponent. You are not friends if you find yourself in a nuclear arms race.

    On second thought, and considering the Republican field for the Presidency, I think I shall continue down my path of despair.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    (Since Gingrich agreed with Perry I have to make assumptions about his response since I haven’t heard or watched it.)

    The points that the three candidates I heard said were all valid and yet somewhat naive at the same time – including Rick Perry.

    Yes, cut foreign aid and use it as leverage and a message, but that alone isn’t enough. Neither is taking a pure warhawk, puffed up chest stance.

    If countries such as Pakistan feel that they need or want outside funding and aid, they can just as easily go to Russia, China, Iran…

    Rick Perry’s stance almost sounds like removing the carrot from the stick and threatening to smack the donkey’s rump. Just be careful they don’t kick.

    Michele Bachmann didn’t call Pakistan our friend even if that’s what could be inferred. And as for what Mr. Santorum said, I take it with a grain of rhetorical salt.

    We have to try to talk and work with these people. What’s Perry going to do, pull funding and put up a diplomatic wall and think that’s going to solve our problems?

    We have to try to work with these people precisely because we have to try to work with just about every single nation and group that has some leverage which can positively or negatively affect our nation.

    Frankly I think Mr. Santorum and Mrs. Bachmann have a far greater grasp about Islam than Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich do.

    Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich seem to think that the Islamists and problem Islamic nations are troublesome, but can largely be dealt with as we have dealt with most Western and even far East nations. I think that is a naive approach, but it’s one that both the GOP and Democrats have tended to take as evidenced with Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and now Obama.

    I have no doubt that Mr. Santorum or Mrs. Bachmann, if either were President, would go to war against Pakistan if it were deemed necessary. Perry seems to want to take a default warhawk stance first, diplomacy second. I thought foreign policy was supposed to be all about good diplomacy? Why shouldn’t we try to use a carrot and foster good elements within a government?

    And, I agree with Mrs Bachmann’s line of thought concerning the world and Israel.

    Again, I seriously doubt Mr. Santorum or Mrs. Bachmann were trying to imply or would act like they’d play patty-cake with Iran or Pakistan, but instead take the Teddy Roosevelt “doctrine” of speaking softly while carrying a big stick. Perry and Gingrich’s doctrine might be compared to bellowing while nudging with their shotgun. Only problem is, when your opponent feels they have nothing to lose, they might be more willing to react first and fast if they feel threatened.

    I think both stances can be strong-horse positions, but Santorum and Bachmann’s seems to be the wiser one, while Perry and Gingrich throw out the red meat to the base.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    I’d have to listen to the whole thing to get the context, but it would seem that she suffers from the same malady as Mr. Cain. Talk before you think.

    So willing to throw out a statement/answer, they stick their foot in their mouth even if it’s not necessarily what they mean or meant to say.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …was that BHO eschews use of both Gitmo and other secret-sites [for interrogation and/or incarceration].

  • cheetah2

    People are concerned about every way that tax money is being spent, including foreign aid. Americans are questioning the idea of giving piles of money to countries that are not our friends while our own country is spiraling deeper and deeper into debt.

    I think Rick Perry was brilliant to bring this issue to center stage in the debate on foreign policy.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    “What?s Perry going to do, pull funding and put up a diplomatic wall and think that?s going to solve our problems?”

    …because you have not countered the THRUST of what Perry is saying.

    He STARTS @ “0″ … and then STRATEGIZES!

    *

    “I think Mr. Santorum and Mrs. Bachmann have a far greater grasp about Islam than Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich do.”

    Think harder, inasmuch as what Rick courageously did @ the UN demonstrated a grasp of essential-truths in the Middle East that behaviorally dwarfs the competitors.

    *

    The press-conference in NYC regarding the UN vote on ?Palestinian Statehood? has been captured [compiled after much Internet-searching]. Experience the uniqueness of his standing astride Congressman Turner [who hired Rush, decades ago] and Deputy Knesset Speaker Danon [of the wing of the Likud that assuredly cannot stomach the mega-release of terrorists]. Then project the type of forthrightness that he will project when dealing with America?s enemies; his history of shooting a coyote that threatened his dog should serve as ample warning to political/military adversaries of the risk entailed when confronting his forthrightness.

    Perry distills the issue
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q0Sqlj_I9o

    turner
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q0Sqlj_I9o

    danon
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxgWSPMLu44&feature=related

    perry answers questions
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgsumGJswWk&feature=related

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    MADD worked with the Russians because they didn’t want to be turned into glass any more than we wanted to be turned into glass.

    It’s apples and oranges.

    We cannot be an immovable wall with Islamists nor should we necessarily go “threatening” them.

    We’re left with either shooting first and asking questions later or treating them with a carrot and stick while we hold a cudgel.

    These Islamists don’t care if they’re turned into glass, and they’ll happily turn their innocent neighbors, us and everyone else into glass at the same time.

    Reagan’s methods against the Communists worked, but it is has never been applicable against the Islamists. The problem is, our politicians on both sides of the aisle think that everyone thinks and operates the way we do.

    We think we’re acting like a strong horse, but in the Muslim eyes, we’re actually the weak horse, irrespective if it’s Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney, Perry or Gingrich.

  • cheetah2

    Perry was the one who showed that he would always negotiate from a position of strength. He will not give aid to other countries because we fear them but rather because it serves our interests.

    It is an excellent idea to reboot the system and evaluate every foreign aid expenditure to see if it meets the criteria of enhancing our position as the country that leads the world.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    We’re not going to get a good, proper, sound response from any of the candidates in 30 second sound bites given off the cuff.

    I think there’s a lot of knee-jerking going on around here and I see the positives of both sides of the discussion.

    The over-arching reality is that we cannot treat Islamists in the same way that we have treated the communists. To assume that money (either giving or subtracting) or MADD will work with them is naive.

    At the same time, we do not need to take an automatic warhawk stance nor a complete dove. Perry seems to be edging towards a warhawk, which is red meat for the conservative base. I do not see Santorum or Bachmann taking a dovish approach.

    Was I being a little hyperbolic and using absurdity before? Yep. Very difficult issues cannot be properly answered in an online comment form or even a single blog article.

  • craigbardo

    and is under constant threat of Islamists seizing them or deploying them in a rogue operation, it’s quite another to say that at any price we’ll keep them happy. The critique of Cain’s “know nothingism” is that he celebrates it or that he doesn’t know. I’d say, he’s honest because without an intelligence briefing that very few have access to, how can you know and make an intelligent determination about the approach – its entirely hypothetical with an infinite number of variables. He’s the only one with the integrity to say so, while others present things as if they’re certain to create the perception that they have what it takes. That kind of posturing makes me uneasy.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    he was against auditing the fed before he was for it

  • Tbone

    the IRS to leave me alone.

  • izoneguy

    What makes you think Cain will be any different?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    The ISLAMISTS do; indeed, they never forgot them … and are continuing to target the Judeo-Christian Ethic.

    Thus, your comment is on-point, but for a reason that differs from its thrust:

    “we cannot treat Islamists in the same way that we have treated the communists. To assume that money (either giving or subtracting) or MADD will work with them is naive. At the same time, we do not need to take an automatic warhawk stance nor a complete dove. Perry seems to be edging towards a warhawk, which is red meat for the conservative base.”

    The Islamists are WORSE, the threat is systemic [as The Newt noted somewhat obliquely] and the risk of being anything other than a “warhawk” is profound.

    Whether it is “automatic” or “measured” is irrelevant; Rick is Right when it comes to the need to confront the Iranian-Nuke threat…ASAP!

  • gekster

    and then proceed to analyse it.

    Go to the diary on top of the reco list, and the whole debate is posted in there.
    Watch it before analysing it.

  • sethellis

    I think you are misrepresenting Santorum’s position by only focusing on the nuclear weapons part. You are right when you say that we cannot say we’ll be nice if you have a nuke.

    But the larger point Santorum was making still stands. Pakistan must be our friend. We simply cannot afford a radicalized Pakistan. Nuclear weapons aside we can’t have Pakistan be as far gone as Iran and Syria. We must do everything in our power to keep their government on our side. Failure to do so would destabilize the region even more.

    They may be duplicitous at times, but that does not mean we should give up. They can get their act together, we just need to give them time. The last thing we should be doing right now is turning our backs on them.

    T ishis the sort of policy that I think Perry et al would rethink if he was in office and had access to more information.

  • pttx333

    threat issue. Though all of these “grievances” – failing to come up with a better word for them – are insane to be carried down through the centuries (no one alive today was injured nor did anyone alive today cause said alleged injustices — either side), we must do all within our power to stop them.

    Rick is absolutely right on the need to stop Iran, or any other force that is a threat, because the alternative is not pretty. I believe that if we are not secure, as safe as is possible, then no other issue really matters. We must have the strength and power to head off any threats, and our current weakness is frightening and very dangerous. Whatever it takes to build us back to the power that we once were is fine with me.

    The two most urgent issues to consider, IMHO, are security and the economy, and once we begin to overhaul the damage that has been done to those two areas, THEN we can work to correct the others. Yes, I am conservative (pro-life, etc.), but I feel that if we do not face head-on the security and economy, then we are doomed to fail. If we suffer major damage from either of those issues, nothing else matters. So I say that we must elect the strongest in these two areas, then work out the details down the road on the others. In my view, that man is Rick Perry as the one to lead us in the healing process.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    the three audio clips Erick linked in the original article.

  • gekster

    “I have to make assumptions about his response since
    I haven?t heard or watched it”.

    I took it to mean that you hadn’t heard or watched it.
    What could I be thinking.
    mybad.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    I have very serious doubts that anyone who becomes President or retains the Presidency is really going to be effective in the Middle East. Whether Republican or Democrat.

    My real concern is whether or not the United States is going to be in any position to voice an opinion or muscle on the world stage and the world will listen.

    If our economic situation goes over the cliff, it doesn’t matter how much we try to muscle Iran or other countries. We’d not be able to have boots on the ground because we just couldn’t afford it. The only option left is missiles.

    Mark my words. There will be more war in the Middle East and I have serious doubts we’ll be taking part in it – much less having had a hand in trying to prevent it or work in it.

    I look at most of the Republican candidates and I see shades of red, specifically when it comes to foreign policy. Perry or Gingrich might be the reddest, but that doesn’t mean Santorum or Bachmann are skewing purple (that’s Romney’s gig). I have faith that most of the Republican slate of candidates would hire pretty sound advisors and officials – even if their perspective trends similarly to Bush Jr. So to me, on foreign policy, one’s as good as another for the most part, especially since none of the candidates have any foreign policy experience outside of thinking about it and talking about it (other than perhaps Huntsman) and that goes for Gingrich too.

    When I say warhawk, my impression is of someone with a puffed up chest and chin jutting out while they brandish their weapon. While that warhawk is blustering, posturing, threatening and cajoling, the opponent may just decide to act. Perry seems to be taking a stance closest to that image, which as I note, is red meat for the conservative base. And again, as I noted, I believe most of the candidates are “red. I want someone hawkish. Perry and Gingrich are that to be sure, but I believe Bachmann and Santorum are too.

    Since Islamists do not play by the same rules that we do, we are going to be left with the unpleasant, wholly non-politically correct option of obliteration – if we are financially able to do so.

    If our economy goes completely into the tank, all our talk about diplomatic action is moot while we sit on the sidelines and watch Turkey, Russia and China take over the rolls that the United States and Western Europe have held for a century.

  • papabear

    ericblair00 is so right The numbers were crunched by the Brookings Institution, possibly the most credible think tank in DC.
    The Atlantic quotes them. Isn’t that the definition of credible? The fact that Soros funds them is mere coincidence. George is just interested in the general welfare. This is his balance – funding for the conservative community.

    (/sarc)

  • papabear

    Following their logic, we should be allies w/N. Korea.

    NOT!!!

    They are even less ready for leadership than Cain!

    How could any “conservative” make such an asinine argument??

    So if Iran develops a nuke and has an unstable government we must be their friends too?

    How far should we go with this idiocy?

    Suppose they nuke Israel but still have a nuke left. Should we still be allies?

    Santorum and Bachmann need to go. NOW!!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but some are more equal than others!” [Animal Farm, George Orwell]

    First, let’s NOT assume the economy will die under GOP leadership and, second, let’s NOT assume that all candidates are “shades of red” and, third, let’s NOT assume that imagery is controlling.

    Rick emerges, for he will fix the deficit and grow the military, reflecting a maroon-red…and he will brandish American Exceptionalism unabashedly.

    Your somewhat defeatist posture is too diffuse to be applied to the complexities of the Middle East but, regardless, we must fight Islamists wherever they hide. .

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but he would deal from a position of strength.

  • d_lamar

    NT

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    I guess I’m a bigger picture sort of person, and I’ve always had a rather “pessimistic optimism” about life.

    I’m looking to the future, and I just do not see at present how our economy can tackle such debt. Sure, there’s always a cycle, ups and downs. The economy should eventually turn around, hopefully under the leadership of a fiscal conservative, even if a liberal winds up getting the glory (Reaganomics iirc was credited with the boom that finally hit during Clinton’s admin – though Democrats credited Clinton).

    I don’t take a defeatist “posture” so much as a realistic one. I believe the Bible. I believe what the Bible has to say, and what I’m led to believe is that there will be a major war in the Middle East unlike anything we’ve ever seen. The US will be powerless to stop it. Whether we take part in it remains to be seen – hopefully not, because according to the Bible, Israel will have zero assistance, zero friends, or at the very least whomever considers Israel somewhat of an ally will just sit by and watch.

    As for assumptions? I’m not assuming. I’m calling it as I see them. The Republican field looks fairly red to me with the exception of Ron Paul’s orangy libertarianism and Romney’s purplish moderation/liberalism.

    I cannot and will not jump on for a single candidate. I’ve never been a wagon-rider. Believing that Perry or any candidate is “the one” and will do things reeks of too much optimism, of unsubstantiated hope.

    Of course, every single presidential race is based in a measure of hope and change. Obama just used it as a campaign slogan what every Democrat, Republican and third party candidate promotes.

  • carolynr

    This is going to be cruel…it is emotional torture to the Left…and this is from a woman. No more money to our enemies. Stop it. Second of all….these people have been fighting since the world began. Let them kill off each other and we won’t be cited by the UN for human rights violations. Just let them do to each other what they would do to us. Why do we reward our enemies and punish our allies? Does that make sense to anyone or my solution to this supposed “complex” problem just to pragmatic?

  • changeforrickperry

    For all Santorum’s neoconservative proclivities, he is certainly naive.
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • pttx333

    boy, that takes me back quite a way! LOL

  • paladin1

    and I agree with your Biblical view. The place I would disagree on is that we cannot do much to affect it (by the candidate we select and the President we choose). The Bible is full of encouragement to the changes that can be wrought by prayer and by faith, in both the Old and New Testaments. One of the best stories illustrating this is found
    in Joshua Chap. 10 with the key verses 12-15. It is possible to delay the inevitable and to make changes to the benefit of a nation.

    Think hard about that pessimistic optimism.

  • tlhanger

    Go back and listen to Hillary Clinton sound bites of not so long ago. She said the same thing.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but recalling that Perry is an Evangelical [remember the Houston event, just prior to his announcement?], let’s allow your ?pessimistic optimism? tilt towards the latter term.

    Whomever is the GOP-nominee, he/she will work with a R-dominated Congress and, thus will slash spending; this, alone, should accomplish a balanced-budget [in Perry's case, by 2020]. And, notwithstanding worldwide dangers, America generates 25% of the world’s economy [and a far greater military %-age]. Thus, America can be anticipated to be able to influence others significantly, for awhile anyway [unless BHO gets re-elected, of course].

    Thus, one can hope that a muscular foreign policy will emerge, and there will be no more pandering to the world’s progressives. [OF COURSE, we know Rick would ensure that to be the case, right?]

  • center77

    because they set of a nuclear test, in fact that was the policy of Clinton. He too thought paying our enemies extortion money was affective. yea, that didn’t work.

  • cbartlett

    I think it was a Rush quote several years ago – How do you negotiate with someone whose starting premise is your death? Any time nuclear weapons are in the hands of crazy people (like Iran and Pakistan), America is in danger because they hate us. We do not need to be friends with crazy people. Perry will do his best to stop the threat. Won’t be quite as easy as shooting the coyote, but he certainly won’t be a wimp like our current POTUS.

  • eldstenorge

    I believe that the reason so many are so fed up with politics is because of things like Erick is saying here. Nothing positive, about anyone except who he wants in office, is ever said. Hate, negativity, prejudice, are all a part of his game to destroy anyone who disagrees with him. Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum have stood up for us for years. Many times they have been alone at it. They deserve respect. And, Rick Perry is so out of touch I would never support him for anything. I would rather not vote than cast a ballot for him. He is part of the evangelical clique which hates anyone who disagrees with him or who is not religiously compatible with what they say is the only was a Christian can believe and act, or they are not a Christian. It is the same hatred, insensitivity and unkindness shown by Mike Huckabee in this last election. I am LDS and proud of it. I pray every day and my Savior is with me and answers my prayers. It is a very beautiful experience to have such a personal relationship with my Savior. These people like our money, they like our support, as with Prop 8 in California, but beyond that, we get the same treatment as Rosa Parks, we have to go to the back of the pack as we are not good enough to hold office. I will not, under any circumstances vote for Rick Perry. And, I was once very attuned to him when he had the magnificent event at Texas Stadium to bring America back to God. But, he surround himself with those who are filled with hate and who are unkind. We, as LDS, have been admonished by our leaders with this statement: “Political differences never justify hatred or ill will.” This is where I stand and will continue to stand.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    but I realize that in the end, it’s all in God’s hands, it’s all according to His plan and He alone gets the glory because he’s ultimately in the driver’s seat, not us. We can do nothing on our own and may we never claim that something happened positively because of our own efforts alone.

  • http://wadingacross.wordpress.com logus

    I just see too many other factors that are weighing down any President’s chances of keeping the ship afloat.

    There’s another wave from Europe occuring, and it will hit us, among other things I haven’t the time to flesh out.

    If Obama manages to win re-election, we will most certainly have a Republican President in 2016 – barring some very unusual circumstances. If Obama loses next year – and here’s where I get very pessimistic – I don’t currently see a Republican getting a second term in 2016.

    Perry or some other Republican might do all that they can and succeed in some small or great measures, but overall, I think the tidal surge is just going to be too much in the next couple of years. And whoever is president will get the fallout because of it, regardless of how much they’ve tried to shore up the coast and build up the land.

  • pttx333

    never have I seen anyone comment in a negative way about LDS – never. I’m a Christian, but feel no animosity or bias toward Romney or Huntsman because they embrace Mormonism. I do not support either because of their political stances – plain and simple. There is no other reason.

    No one is pounding you over the head about anything. If you don’t want to support Perry, or anyone else, pleae don’t do so. No one, and I mean no one, is holding a gun to your head. But do not dump everyone into the same pile, and particularly don’t come out with that “you are biased against my religion” stuff. Not a nickel’s difference between that and the tired, worn-out, pathetic race card.

  • quad4x4

    It is time for Bachman to run for Senate and Santorium to quit and then help a wide area of people elect an entire new Senate and House Membership that is over 4 years in office.

    The CBS “show ” was the worst I have ever seen and biased? Yeah and so obvious. All seem to Hate The GOP and America.

  • quad4x4

    Newt is really showing that he is already ready and eager to lead. And the Press and the Pres. are starting to smell a victory is possible, and not for Obummer….

    The Country is now ready for Newt and He will bring in a strong cabinet that knows America and Loves America… the commie lovers and all their socialist friends will be run out of DC, in droves. Wish them luck in Cuba or elsewhere that has True Socialism…

    Is that truth and repectful?

  • quad4x4

    Take heed and honor the wisdom of his thoughts. For he speaks of things that many have ignored or are un-learned in medical things and the politics that is trying to distroy the system..

    It has become an INDUSTRY, which I dislike, but it has cured me of many things. I live for another day due to doctors and nurses that really helped me. The whole me, not just a part.. Of course not all in the profession see me (or Us) that way. Keep the Faith Oh Wise one.

  • quad4x4

    This CBS biased so called moderator was so bad that he put off the line of question and answers. Who and what was the question.

    I think a lot of canidates had a comfort feeling on the issue of our money to be used as AID… A long standing problem in our past and current administrations. Difficult can be done faster than impossible, but as it was said at Apple, nothing is really impossible. It just requires a brain willing to think through the problems.

    That brings about the Newt up and Rick Down, with Cain and all the others as also ran. Wish some of them will be in the new cabinet positions. None were BAD or ill informed, just not on the mark.

  • quad4x4

    Therefore they have said in court> Lie, of course, I am your enemy and it is ok to lie to you<.

    This is not a minor problem, rather a real problem of supporting countries that we can not or will not agree with them on all issues.

    Try living in Saudia and visiting places like Iran, and India, most real people are similar to us, but have different belief systems in the religious sense. Lots of conflict, lots of answers, and to them a single ruler has been their answer to viable control of the lands,for Centuries. We have our wackkkkkko's and they theirs.. It is not easy being Right.. But we must be true to our people first..

  • quad4x4

    When I worked in Star Wars project, I was upset to learn that one of Clintons chief’s change the security standings at all non-military sights, so that you only had to state who, what, where and when for the past 5 years. Not your whole life, and if you just got a citzenship, you were OK.. I saw the large numbers from Iran and Indian and Packy hordes in our defense industry. Learning how we work, what we knew, and how we defended ourselves. Now the worm has turned and we are welcoming the China students..

    Our Brain Drain is or has been decline ever since Clinton. Obummer says we are lazy, But where does he get his learning?

    We are our own enemy….RESTORE AMERICA.

  • quad4x4

    I have read the above posts and agree, War Will Come. It is only a question of timing and where we stand when it starts. We will be dragged into it at some time, regardless of the doves and hawks positions.

    Thank you both..good discusions, are Nation Needs more clarity.

  • greyeagle

    the US needs to deal with the Islamic nations, Russia and China from a position of strength. That is what they understand and respect. Obama merely bows to the respective leaders of Islamic nations and treats Israel our true ally with disrespect.

  • greyeagle

    You don’t have to vote for Rick Perry, but you don’t need to trash him either. He personally does not hate anyone. He has worked with all religions while Governor in TX. I have never heard him say mean comments about any religion.

  • pttx333

    of whats-his-face since I had my hissy fit at him either. I hear crickets, though, don’t you?

  • olds88er

    You cannot cut off aid to Pakistan until our troops are out of there. Pakistan controls the supply routes to our troops.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    When you refer to “These people,” are you not evincing overt prejudice?

  • nathanalbright

    I certainly think that the LDS has a lot of wacky beliefs, but as a non-Trinitarian keeper of the Seventh Day Sabbath and biblical Holy Days plenty of people think the same thing about my religious beliefs. And thanks to the First Amendment you get to enjoy your religious beliefs, and I get to enjoy mine, regardless of what “these” magical straw people think. Amazing country, isn’t it?

  • http://thetroglodyte.com thetrog

    What is implicit in Bachmann’s response and is explicit in Santorum’s is that our relationship with Pakistan today is very different from that with Iran, for example. Moreover, they are arguing that the risk of being “unfriendly” through zero foreign aid is to foster Pakistan becoming like an Iran, or a North Korea, without even the levels of isolation those bad actors experience today, and with Pakistan’s potential for much more direct ties to Al Qaeda and the like.

    You can legitimately argue whether the carrot, or the stick, is the better approach, which is fundamentally at the heart of this disagreement. To extrapolate this to how a Bachmann Administration would embrace a nuclear Iran, or a Santorum White House would cozy up to Mexican drug cartels, is sophomoric.

  • lisamiller

    Considering the negative aspects of foreign aid, we should challenge Bachmann on this. She is on intelligence and may well have an explanation needing more than 30 seconds. Nuclear weapons is a good reason to discuss this further.