We haven’t talked much about Rick Santorum here on the blog — actually, few people have so we aren’t too different in that, unfortunately — but he had a nice little spot on CNN in an exchange with Candy Crowley on whether or not Obama is an appeaser of foreign terrorists and tyrants.
Obama, of course, has been portraying himself as the ultimate anti-terrorist because he “got” Osamma bin Ladden, not to mention how he has severely damaged al Qaeda. But is that all there is to his record? Does that make him the perfect anti-terrorist? Santorum says no.
Rick is exactly right, here. Killing a few terrorists is not necessarily being tough on either terror or the dictators that push terror as a tool of the state.
Now, don’t get me wrong, here, I applaud Obama for the many terrorists he’s eliminated. He really has seriously damaged al Qaeda’s operations. In fact, the latest news is that al Qaeda has devolved into dozens of tiny, unconnected splinter groups. Obama has loped off so many heads of al Qaeda’s command and control structure that they have no one left that is big enough to lead them in a single direction, under a single masthead.
However, Obama has not followed that success up with a strong policy against the other terrorists the ones that run Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and the rest. In fact, he’s been a major appeaser of them. Killing a few terrorists here and there is all well and good but unless you follow that with a comprehensive policy of anti-terrorism all you are doing is spinning your wheels to a lessor effect. It’s like waiting at the gopher hole to kill gophers instead of setting taps IN the gopher’s burrows and rooting them all out from their homes. Sure you are killing a few gophers but you aren’t doing anything at all to solve the main problem.
On a side note, I have to say I think Santorum makes a very credible GOP candidate for the presidency. I have not said it before in print (not even on my home blog Joel Pollak)