Washington (CNN)Rick Santorum hammered Barack Obama's foreign policy on Saturday, blaming the President for the terror attacks in Paris that killed more than 120 people in Paris.
"This president doesn't plan. ... This president has completely abandoned ship," the Republican presidential hopeful told reporters at the Sunshine Summit in Florida.
"This is delusional," Santorum added. "That's the only way I can put it. ... And people are dying because this president refuses to face the truth."
Santorum said Obama "has no intention of winning" the fight against ISIS and he warned that attacks could hit closer to home.
"I would say to a war-weary country that if we do not begin to take back ground back from ISIS, we will see war visit us here more dramatically and repeatedly," he said.
"I would be launching a major offensive against ISIS right now," Santorum added. "Four bombs a day? Are you serious? That's a public relations war. ... And now we're seeing the consequences ...The public relations value that the president gives ISIS every day by engaging in a war that he has no intention of winning is what you saw in France yesterday."
Santorum, who is lagging at the bottom of the GOP presidential field, called himself one of ISIS's biggest threats in the race and he noted that terrorists have listed him as an enemy.
"No other presidential candidate has been in ISIS magazine -- they know who I am and I know who they are," he said.
"Do we need another young, inexperienced president to come into office at a time when the world is on fire? ... Commander-in-chief is not an entry-level position."
The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment Saturday afternoon.
Regarding the bolded part: ISIS probably hates him because they Googled his name.
Washington (CNN)Rick Santorum hammered Barack Obama's foreign policy on Saturday, blaming the President for the terror attacks in Paris that killed more than 120 people in Paris.
"This president doesn't plan. ... This president has completely abandoned ship," the Republican presidential hopeful told reporters at the Sunshine Summit in Florida.
"This is delusional," Santorum added. "That's the only way I can put it. ... And people are dying because this president refuses to face the truth."
Santorum said Obama "has no intention of winning" the fight against ISIS and he warned that attacks could hit closer to home.
"I would say to a war-weary country that if we do not begin to take back ground back from ISIS, we will see war visit us here more dramatically and repeatedly," he said.
"I would be launching a major offensive against ISIS right now," Santorum added. "Four bombs a day? Are you serious? That's a public relations war. ... And now we're seeing the consequences ...The public relations value that the president gives ISIS every day by engaging in a war that he has no intention of winning is what you saw in France yesterday."
Santorum, who is lagging at the bottom of the GOP presidential field, called himself one of ISIS's biggest threats in the race and he noted that terrorists have listed him as an enemy.
"No other presidential candidate has been in ISIS magazine -- they know who I am and I know who they are," he said.
"Do we need another young, inexperienced president to come into office at a time when the world is on fire? ... Commander-in-chief is not an entry-level position."
The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment Saturday afternoon.
Regarding the bolded part: ISIS probably hates him because they Googled his name.
Leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Saturday that the recent terrorist attacks in Paris would've been "a much, much different situation" if the victims of the violence had been armed with guns.
I hope paris tells these asshats to go fuck themselves.
Quick, everybody guess which Republican candidate will try to connect Paris with Benghazi in order to make it sound like it's Hilary Clinton's fault. My money is on
A war with France/the west is the surest way ISIL can legitimate itself in the region as a credible defender of Islam against western colonial aggression. The inevitable calls for war will play right into their hands. It's like watching someone tune an instrument
stip wrote:A war with France/the west is the surest way ISIL can legitimate itself in the region as a credible defender of Islam against western colonial aggression. The inevitable calls for war will play right into their hands. It's like watching someone tune an instrument
Okay, but what is the alternative, exactly? Not even saying I'm with one side of the argument or the other, but it seems like there's really no right way to respond to this kind of thing anymore.
stip wrote:There is no good option. The most relevant question we can ask is how do we minimize the chance of making this worse. That's a bitter pill to swallow.
heh. Not exactly a rousing speech there.
Replace "FREEEDOM!" with "HOW CAN WE NOT MAKE THIS ANY WORSE!"
stip wrote:A war with France/the west is the surest way ISIL can legitimate itself in the region as a credible defender of Islam against western colonial aggression. The inevitable calls for war will play right into their hands. It's like watching someone tune an instrument
Okay, but what is the alternative, exactly? Not even saying I'm with one side of the argument or the other, but it seems like there's really no right way to respond to this kind of thing anymore.
I think what needs to happen is a reevaluation of what our goals are. Is the goal "no more attacks against the west"? Is it "eradicate ISIS"? Is it "stabilize the region"? Because I think the plan would be different for each of them, and they would all have different collateral damage, they would all cost different amounts of money, and they'd all require different compromises of values that I think most of us hold dear. I think we're going to start to see lots of debates having to do with the calculus of human value in the coming years, and it's all going to be fucking sickening.
stip wrote:A war with France/the west is the surest way ISIL can legitimate itself in the region as a credible defender of Islam against western colonial aggression. The inevitable calls for war will play right into their hands. It's like watching someone tune an instrument
Okay, but what is the alternative, exactly? Not even saying I'm with one side of the argument or the other, but it seems like there's really no right way to respond to this kind of thing anymore.
I think what needs to happen is a reevaluation of what our goals are. Is the goal "no more attacks against the west"? Is it "eradicate ISIS"? Is it "stabilize the region"? Because I think the plan would be different for each of them, and they would all have different collateral damage, they would all cost different amounts of money, and they'd all require different compromises of values that I think most of us hold dear. I think we're going to start to see lots of debates having to do with the calculus of human value in the coming years, and it's all going to be fucking sickening.
If reevaluating our morals results in positive action, it can't be all bad. we should probably always be doing that.
BurtReynolds wrote:"The nazis have taken over continental Europe. The real question is, How can we not make this worse?" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Europe was full of viable partners who could stabley govern the regions liberated from the nazis, and the people who did the liberating (in the west) had a long history of cooperation and broadly shared values. So basically the situation is perfectly analogous to today.
Fortunatley for us, there is a small thermal exhaust port right below the main port. A precise hit will start a chain reaction, which should destroy ISIS.
stip wrote:A war with France/the west is the surest way ISIL can legitimate itself in the region as a credible defender of Islam against western colonial aggression. The inevitable calls for war will play right into their hands. It's like watching someone tune an instrument
Okay, but what is the alternative, exactly? Not even saying I'm with one side of the argument or the other, but it seems like there's really no right way to respond to this kind of thing anymore.
I think what needs to happen is a reevaluation of what our goals are. Is the goal "no more attacks against the west"? Is it "eradicate ISIS"? Is it "stabilize the region"? Because I think the plan would be different for each of them, and they would all have different collateral damage, they would all cost different amounts of money, and they'd all require different compromises of values that I think most of us hold dear. I think we're going to start to see lots of debates having to do with the calculus of human value in the coming years, and it's all going to be fucking sickening.
If reevaluating our morals results in positive action, it can't be all bad. we should probably always be doing that.
This part is true. But trying to decide whose lives matter and whose don't is gonna be uuuuuugly.
stip wrote:Fortunatley for us, there is a small thermal exhaust port right below the main port. A precise hit will start a chain reaction, which should destroy ISIS.
Good thing Star Wars taught a generation how to be heroic
stip wrote:A war with France/the west is the surest way ISIL can legitimate itself in the region as a credible defender of Islam against western colonial aggression. The inevitable calls for war will play right into their hands. It's like watching someone tune an instrument
Okay, but what is the alternative, exactly? Not even saying I'm with one side of the argument or the other, but it seems like there's really no right way to respond to this kind of thing anymore.
I think what needs to happen is a reevaluation of what our goals are. Is the goal "no more attacks against the west"? Is it "eradicate ISIS"? Is it "stabilize the region"? Because I think the plan would be different for each of them, and they would all have different collateral damage, they would all cost different amounts of money, and they'd all require different compromises of values that I think most of us hold dear. I think we're going to start to see lots of debates having to do with the calculus of human value in the coming years, and it's all going to be fucking sickening.
And they are all going to proceed under the assumption that we can be successful if we're just willing to compromise enough, rather than asking whether or not victory is even possible.
