Santorum to CNN: Yes, Obama’s an appeaser

posted at 12:55 pm on December 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

My friend Joel Pollak at Big Peace catches this excellent exchange from CNN yesterday between Candy Crowley and Rick Santorum. Crowley tried to challenge Santorum’s assertion that Barack Obama has consistently offered appeasement in response to emerging threats to American security, playing Obama’s retort that we should “ask Osama bin Laden” if he’s an appeaser. Santorum doesn’t back down, however, and gives a point-by-point explanation of how Obama has blown the US response to Iran and appeased the mullahs:

CROWLEY: Appeasement? I mean this is a president who has killed more terrorists than were killed in the Bush administration. He took out Osama bin Laden. He has launched more drone attacks against terrorist targets than the Bush administration did, and yet you accuse him of appeasement–which is a very loaded word, as you know, toward terrorists.

SANTORUM: It’s a very accurate word. What President Obama was doing was continuing existing Bush policies with respect to Al Qaeda and respect to Afghanistan. I was talking about the new threats that have come up under his [Obama’s] administration. And at every single turn the President has appeased those who would do us harm. Let’s talk about President Ahmadinejad and the Iranians who are the biggest threat to Israel and to our national security. He has done nothing but appease the Iranians to say that he will negotiate, in fact did negotiate, tried to negotiate without preconditions–

CROWLEY: He imposed sanctions, did he not?

SANTORUM: He imposed weak sanctions. He opposed tough sanctions–

CROWLEY: Imposed.

SANTORUM: –and continues to oppose any meaningful sanctions, impose any meaningful sanctions on the Iranians. He has done nothing to try to stop their nuclear program. I mean we have a nuclear program that is under way. He is refusing do anything covertly or militarily to try to stop a weapon that will fundamentally change the national security position of this country and the world by having this purveyor of terror who has–

CROWLEY: Essentially, what would you like him–what would Rick Santorum do?

SANTORUM: Rick Santorum would be funding the pro-democracy movement, which President Obama has not done. It was a bill that I passed to help, I was author of back in 2006, that gave money–was supposed to give money to help the pro-democracy movement in Iran. The president has not spent a penny in Iran to try to do that. [I] would [be] imposing tougher sanctions, which the president has opposed. Number three, we would be using all of our assets to use covert activity to disrupt and destroy the capability of them to develop a missile technology, as well as nuclear technology. And fourth, I would be working with the Israelis and publicly stating that Iran must abandon this nuclear weapons program, must open it up to inspectors, or else we will work with the State of Israel to take out and degrade that capability via military force.

CROWLEY: Let me just–let me try to button this up by saying a couple things. First, I know the President has, in fact, imposed some tougher sanctions and has, in fact, said nothing’s off the table when it comes to Iran and its nuclear capabilities–

SANTORUM: Well, Candy, hold on. hold on. Candy, hold on. Stop, Candy. That’s just not true. Ask [Democratic Senator] Robert Menendez, and ask all the folks in the United States Senate who want to impose the real sanctions that will make a difference on Iran, and the president has opposed it. Now that’s just a fact. He also has recognized the state of Syria, called Assad a reformer, has continued to have an embassy there, when in fact this is a real thug that is a real threat to the State of Israel and to the stability of the region. And again, here’s the interesting link. It [Syria] is a client state of Iran–the greatest area he has appeased is Iran, which is the greatest threat and here he is, recognizing Assad, setting up an ambassadorship with a client state of Iran who is a great funder of Hezbollah, a threat to Israel and the region. You go to Egypt. Again, he supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Salafists, as it turns out, into overthrowing an ally in Egypt. There is a consistent pattern of contingencies that have come up under this administration where he has opposed the freedom fighters and has gone with the radical Islamists. That is a problem for the security of Israel and our country.

CROWLEY: Okay. let me move you on. I think we could probably go round and round a couple times on this…

People have forgotten Obama’s response to the Green Revolution in the first summer of his presidency.  While Iranians went out into the streets and challenged the mullahs, the Obama White House initially endorsed the legitimacy of the cooked election that prompted the protests.  All through the summer, Obama did nothing to back the Green Revolution, instead holding out hope that he could convince the mullahs to negotiate in good faith to end their nuclear-weapons program if he remained on the sidelines during the protest.

While we will never know if American support would have enabled the protestors to overthrow the mullahs, we do know that Obama’s appeasement then and ever since of the mullahs has not produced an iota of difference in their pursuit of nuclear weapons.  In the long run, the mullahs present a more significant threat to the region and to the US than al-Qaeda did when Obama took office, and while Obama was in a rush to throw the nominal American ally Hosni Mubarak under a bus when protests broke out _- waiting less than two weeks to demand that he step down from power — Obama never issued such a call to Iran’s mullahs, nor their Syrian toady Bashar al-Assad.  In fact, we’re in the process of restoring our diplomatic contacts with Assad.

This is a good moment for Santorum, and a desperately needed spotlight on one of the key failures of this administration.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Neville O’bama?

50sGuy on December 12, 2011 at 1:00 PM

I saw this yesterday. I loved Santorum’s resolve and fight. It’s one of the many reasons I’m voting for him in the primaries.

For more on Rick Santorum’s record, see: http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm

Stoic Patriot on December 12, 2011 at 1:01 PM

I truly believe Obama thinks Iran has the right to manufacture nuclear weapons. His idea of exceptionalism, that each country believes itself to be exceptional, squares with the idea he think Iran should be able to go nuclear without opposition.

ButterflyDragon on December 12, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Saw this live

Candy shut down real quick

Heh

cmsinaz on December 12, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Candy,Candy your not exactly hiding the fact that you are a professional Obama butt kisser are you?

sandee on December 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Should be you’re not.

sandee on December 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM

*** sigh ***

Another day, another “journalist” carrying water for the SCOAMF.

UltimateBob on December 12, 2011 at 1:06 PM

SANTORUM: Rick Santorum would be funding the pro-democracy movement,

Rick Santorum’s going for the Bob Dole vote, I see.

cabbie25 on December 12, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Hmmm. Could Santorum be the nominee to beat Newt and Romney?

NathanG on December 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I thought members of the press were supposed to be neutral. The way Candy went after the Senator, you’d think she was defending her boyfriend or something.

Oh, wait.

Flora Duh on December 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I still get a kick out of how 0bama got the little chair. Its very telling. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/11/18/177907.html

Bmore on December 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Frankly, these Santorum answers come off as childish and naive. How on earth did Mubarak and Gaddafi, both brutal dictators, qualify as freedom fighters?

And how exactly would the U.S. funding opposition groups in Iran help those opposition groups in a country where 80% of the population despises the United States. It would be the equivalent of Iran funding opposition groups here in terms of legitimacy.

AngusMc on December 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM

“Ok this is MY show so let me just have the last word and say that you, Mr. Santorum, are rethuglican scum and that I want to slobber-on and kiss every square inch of President Obama’s beautiful ebony body!

Alright, we will be back after this short commercial break brought to you by Acme Kneepads.”

Bishop on December 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I like so much of what Santorum stands for and says. It’s too bad he can’t get media coverage or get past his somewhat lacklustre personality. And his support of Arlen Spector doesn’t do much for him either. Still…ABO.

Deanna on December 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM

As a Palinista, I wish she would reconsider. Failing that, I support Rick Santorum.I am pro-life, pro-family, and want to support someone not tinged by scandal. I think he gets it. Is he electable, of course he is. The whole idea of a primary is to pick the candidate you believe in, and don’t listen to the sheepherders of the establishment. If Romney or Gingrich or even Perry win, the Repubs will lose. It will be a bloodbath as the MSM play gotcha.

MJScanlonOH on December 12, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Bin Laden?

The retort should have been Neda in Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d90bwM4No_M

PappyD61 on December 12, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Santorum or Bachmann 2012

…PRINCIPLES FIRST.

PappyD61 on December 12, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Could “Candy” be more of an Obama sycophant? This is what the MSM has devolved to: they’ve become the public defense wing of the Democratic Party.

MaxMBJ on December 12, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Bishop on December 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM

ROFL!

50sGuy on December 12, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Typical incompetence of a leader who votes “present.”

Why take a position for which you might be criticized later? Why support a pro-democracy movement that might fail? Why oppose thugs who might have long memories?

Maybe Barack’s early years didn’t just teach him about street organizing, but also taught him to be afraid of street bosses. He is certainly an appeaser and a bully/coward.

rwenger43 on December 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Rick Santorum may or may not be a strong republican candidate but he would still lose Pennsylvania in the general election

gerry(troll)

gerrym51 on December 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I would love to see Rick Santorum get more moments like this in the media. Honestly, it’s between the 2 Rick’s for me right now and they both had very good performances Saturday night. Plus now knowing that Perry had back surgery 2 weeks before getting in the race is new information that may make me reconsider voting for him.

GeorgiaBuckeye on December 12, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Candy probably believes DWS on unemployment as well. What a regime apologist.

Aplombed on December 12, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I condemn myself for what I’m about to write but, really CNN … Candy Crowley? This is your idea of an info-babe?

I mean, seriously.

MaxMBJ on December 12, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I’ve noticed this attack on canidates who raise any issue about Obama’s foreign policy a lot lately from the talking heads in the media.

Roymunson on December 12, 2011 at 1:18 PM

In principle, either Rick 2012…

hillsoftx on December 12, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Donald Trump said recently what Republicans need to start saying … Obama did not “take out” Osama bin Laden. He didn’t even make a tough call. It was the only option he had and even then, he hesitated. As Trump said, what was he supposed to do when the military told him they could get OBL. Say no? He could never have survived that politically.

MaxMBJ on December 12, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Amanpour, the liberal and muzzie paramour, is always delusional.

Schadenfreude on December 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM

This is my candidate…why is he doing so badly?
I don’t know who he is when I see him on the stage!

KOOLAID2 on December 12, 2011 at 1:29 PM

And how exactly would the U.S. funding opposition groups in Iran help those opposition groups in a country where 80% of the population despises the United States. It would be the equivalent of Iran funding opposition groups here in terms of legitimacy.

AngusMc on December 12, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Not sure that is accurate. I was under the impression the average Iranian, especially the younger ones, is pretty well disposed towards the U.S., and the only thing that might change that would be an attack on their country to destroy their nuclear facilities. Am I wrong on this? Is there a link to support what you say?

a capella on December 12, 2011 at 1:30 PM

gerrym51 on December 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I disagree.

On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion?

listens2glenn on December 12, 2011 at 1:30 PM

there will be hell to pay for this appeasement too.

jp on December 12, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Let’s not forget that he was afraid to recover and/or destroy the lost drone because it might be construed as an act of war.

Instead, we just let them have our most advanced technology to share with Russia and China.

John Deaux on December 12, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Yeah, and I hear Opeacenik is taking another victory lap today–this one for the end of the Iraq War–yet another war he opposed but won and ended singlehandedly.

stukinIL4now on December 12, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Hey Obama! You can choke on your appeasement!

Flora Duh on December 12, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Bin Laden begs to differ……..

liberal4life on December 12, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Bishop on December 12, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I certainly agree with you in spirit; don’t know that I would have used those exact words . . . : )

listens2glenn on December 12, 2011 at 1:42 PM

It depends on your definition of the word “appeasement”.

Lily on December 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Not sure that is accurate. I was under the impression the average Iranian, especially the younger ones, is pretty well disposed towards the U.S., and the only thing that might change that would be an attack on their country to destroy their nuclear facilities. Am I wrong on this? Is there a link to support what you say?

a capella on December 12, 2011 at 1:30 PM

It’s what I have been told by college-age Iranians here in the U.S. They tell me that the younger generation of Iranians is fairly open to the U.S., say those in their teens and 20s who grew up on the internet, but that older generations grew up indoctrinated by state-run media and thoroughly hate the U.S.

AngusMc on December 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Let’s talk about President Ahmadinejad and the Iranians who are the biggest threat to Israel and to our national security.

Sen Frothy, you are high, sir.

The biggest threat to our national security isn’t Iran. It’s China. Iran is way down the list.

JohnGalt23 on December 12, 2011 at 1:43 PM

50sGuy on December 12, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Yeah, it’s hard not to, isn’t it? : )

listens2glenn on December 12, 2011 at 1:44 PM

MJScanlonOH on December 12, 2011 at 1:10 PM

You took the words right out of my mouth.

pannw on December 12, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Amanpour, the liberal and muzzie paramour, is always delusional.

Schadenfreude on December 12, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Amanpour is ONE butt ugly dude.

Long haired country boy on December 12, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Could “Candy” be more of an Obama sycophant? This is what the MSM has devolved to: they’ve become the public defense wing of the Democratic Party.

MaxMBJ on December 12, 2011 at 1:12 PM

These people are so far beneath contempt that I am speechless.
Look at the way she defends Obama.

I first noticed pretty little “ate too much Candy” during the 96 election. She covered the Dole camp oh so favorably (sarc). Only after he lost did they do a positive piece on him. Dole had been portrayed as a sinister, dark republican. Then they showed his interaction with restaurant workers during the campaign and how genuinely decent the man was. Sure funny that footage was never aired during the campaign.

arnold ziffel on December 12, 2011 at 2:03 PM

That’s some red meat for neoconservatives. Of course, Santorum is a guy who thinks conflict with Iran began in 1979 and that Iran was the initiator.

Dante on December 12, 2011 at 2:10 PM

It’s not “Neville O’bama” it’s IMAM Hussein Obama.

baron scarpia on December 12, 2011 at 2:10 PM

CROWLEY: Okay. let me move you on. I think we could probably go round and round a couple times on this…

Why, it’s almost like Crowley is an advocate for Obama rather than a neutral reporter……

But that’s just crazy talk! The media is completely impartial!! I know, because they told me so!!!

tom on December 12, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Moments like this have me pining for a brokered convention with Rick Santorum as the nominee.

mckeej65 on December 12, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Santorum would have my vote if he took his branding more seriously. All he has to do, I REPEAT, all he has to do is successfully outgame Google and the perv Dan Savage. Doing so would make him bulletproof.

Santorum is the most consistently conservative. Also his “gaffes” require no retraction. This clip shows how firm he is willing to stand.

But as long as he allows himself to be mistreated I can’t vote for him.

Capitalist Hog on December 12, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Here is Van Jones lackey in CA now wanting Lowe’s to appease muslims :
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_19525491

A state senator from Southern California said Sunday he was considering calling for a boycott.

Calling the Lowe’s decision “un-American” and “naked religious bigotry,” Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, told The Associated Press he would also consider legislative action if Lowe’s doesn’t apologize to Muslims and reinstate its ads. The senator sent a letter outlining his complaints to Lowe’s Chief Executive Officer Robert A. Niblock.

burrata on December 12, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I don’t think Santorum and everyone backing him in this thread really knows what “appeasement” is: making concessions to a foreign power avoid war.

So, Santorum says Obama is an appeaser and backs it up by saying the sanctions he put in place aren’t tough enough. That’s not appeasement.

Tom_Shipley on December 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM

I don’t understand why they (Republican candidates) don’t throw in a “I know you are an apologist for Obama” type remark to put these journalist in their place.
Just a, “I know you need to support Obama”, just to make sure that what they are doing does not go unnoticed, or a “You are a great advocate for Obama, but I think you are wrong, not as an advocate, that’s your prerogative, but your facts are wrong.”
What many people are disgusted in, is the inability for the Republicans to take on the MSM, that is what many are waiting for, and many cheer when that happens.

right2bright on December 12, 2011 at 2:56 PM

So, Santorum says Obama is an appeaser and backs it up by saying the sanctions he put in place aren’t tough enough. That’s not appeasement.

Tom_Shipley on December 12, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Siiiigh, here we go, just wanting to read what you want, and not the total post.
How could you possibly miss this? Unless?

He also has recognized the state of Syria, called Assad a reformer, has continued to have an embassy there, when in fact this is a real thug that is a real threat to the State of Israel and to the stability of the region. And again, here’s the interesting link. It [Syria] is a client state of Iran–the greatest area he has appeased is Iran, which is the greatest threat and here he is, recognizing Assad, setting up an ambassadorship with a client state of Iran who is a great funder of Hezbollah, a threat to Israel and the region. You go to Egypt. Again, he supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Salafists, as it turns out, into overthrowing an ally in Egypt. There is a consistent pattern of contingencies that have come up under this administration where he has opposed the freedom fighters and has gone with the radical Islamists.

Wow, Tom, not too bright as usual….just a “little” oversight…

right2bright on December 12, 2011 at 2:59 PM

I’ve liked all the candidates at one time or another so I think it’s time I jump in, pom poms in hand, and shout SANTORUM 2012!

BarbieGayin on December 12, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Santorum is just another chicken-hawk not too much unlike Obama or Bush.

MoreLiberty on December 12, 2011 at 3:01 PM

the president announced today that the United States has officially asked Iran to return a downed U.S. surveillance drone.

Please…pretty please…

right2bright on December 12, 2011 at 3:02 PM

right2bright on December 12, 2011 at 2:59 PM

That paragraph you just posted is simply idiotic. First off, we’ve always recognized Syria as a state, right? Why would we stop? And how would recognizing it constitute appeasement. Second, Obama has been calling for Assad to step down since August. He just today reaffirmed that call for resignation. Third, Obama gets criticized by the right for not doing enough to support freedom fighters in Egypt, then when he does support them, he’s now in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood. The guy can’t win.

And last… again, how is any of this appeasement?

Tom_Shipley on December 12, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Rick Santorum has been under the radar (thanks to the MSM). The MSM is aware of their tarnished reputation, so they talk about Mitt and Newt just enough to get the public off their backs.

As a Palinista, I wish she would reconsider. Failing that, I support Rick Santorum.I am pro-life, pro-family, and want to support someone not tinged by scandal. I think he gets it. Is he electable, of course he is. The whole idea of a primary is to pick the candidate you believe in, and don’t listen to the sheepherders of the establishment. If Romney or Gingrich or even Perry win, the Repubs will lose. It will be a bloodbath as the MSM play gotcha.

MJScanlonOH

Well said. I’m predicting that Obama will get re-elected if the Repub establishment picks Mitt or Newt.

conservablogger on December 12, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Obama gets criticized by the right for not doing enough to support freedom fighters in Egypt, then when he does support them, he’s now in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood. The guy can’t win.

Thats simplistic imo.

The question is the definition of “freedom fighter”..and which group of “freedom fighters” he chooses to support.

But you are right…”the guy can’t win”…but we probably differ on why he can’t win. My position is that he can’t be allowed to win because he is mentally ill.

Mimzey on December 12, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Rick Santorum may or may not be a strong republican candidate but he would still lose Pennsylvania in the general election

Nobody will know for sure if he will lose PA-but I have to write that I have NOT seen a TV ad from Rick Santorum. They’re all Perry. Yep, Perry. Perry is working real hard NW Pennsylvania-if anybody here from PA in another part of the state is seeing any ads, please let me know. I am sick of the what I wrote the other day “Dalmatian puppy perfection” where we all want a spotless candidate.

I am glad that Sarah gave him a shout-out, that the “little engine that could” is getting a teeny bit of more traction, and he must still listen to his family…and to this I must add, be positive, Rick. Sarah is, amidst all that happened since 2008. She’s still got the fire in her belly, so I hope that she reconsiders as well.

If Rick Santorum wants to win Pennsylvania, there’s no other way around it. He has to fight for it, and so far the only one looking over here is Rick Perry.

ProudPalinFan on December 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM

the president announced today that the United States has officially asked Iran to return a downed U.S. surveillance drone.

On Twitter last night, during and after the game (my guilty pleasure): Watch the Broncos w/Tebow while reading #tebow. One of my favs: “Send Tebow to Iran to get the drone back-with just a knife”

ProudPalinFan on December 12, 2011 at 3:54 PM

And last… again, how is any of this appeasement?

Tom_Shipley on December 12, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Well, there is no appeasing you, Rick laid out some facts and you called them idiotic…that pretty much ends the debate.
Anything that you don’t support or believe is idiotic, no sense in carrying this any further, it would be idiotic.

right2bright on December 12, 2011 at 3:59 PM

But you are right…”the guy can’t win”…but we probably differ on why he can’t win. My position is that he can’t be allowed to win because he is mentally ill.

Mimzey on December 12, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Nice…but Tom thinks it’s idiotic…

right2bright on December 12, 2011 at 4:00 PM

And last… again, how is any of this appeasement?

Tom_Shipley on December 12, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Wait, I missed a great opportunity…

And last… again, how is any of this appeasement?

That statement is idiotic…

right2bright on December 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

gerrym51 on December 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM

ProudPalinFan on December 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM

This is my take from a previous thread that questioned Santorum’s electability.

2006 was a bad election year for conservatives all over the US.
Santorum refused to back-off from his stand on supporting the war in Iraq.
At that time, support for the war in Iraq had severely eroded in Pennsylvania.
The Democrat party, smelling blood in the water, got Bob Casey to run. The Casey family is almost considered royalty in PA.
Between the eroding public support (in PA, anyway) for the war in Iraq, and Bob Casey’s “name recognition”, defeating Santorum wasn’t that hard.
If Santorum were to run against Bob Casey TODAY (he’s up for reelection in 2012), and use Casey’s ‘Obama Care vote’ against him, I think he could regain his old Senate seat.
listens2glenn on December 9, 2011 at 10:07 PM

If Rick wins the nomination, should he pick Sarah as his veep?

listens2glenn on December 12, 2011 at 4:48 PM

The longer Newt stays in the front-runner position the more likely uncommitted voters will look elsewhere. Newt can try to run out the clock–and really, there’s a good chance he’ll be successful. However, days on the campaign trail can feel like weeks and months. My guess is that Tea Party voters can accept Newt but are still holding out hope for someone else…and if you look at their platform and issues, Bachmann and Santorum are the only remaining choices for Constitutional conservatives. I think Santorum gets a 2nd look (maybe even 1st look) in remaining weeks.

Deep Timber on December 12, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Google

thirtyandseven on December 13, 2011 at 2:13 AM