Santorum Brazenly Promotes More War and Destabilization

Just before the Iowa Caucus, I saw a graphic floating around the Internet which showed all of the Republican candidates together along with a tag that read, “If you supported Bachmann, then Romney, then Cain, then Gingrinch, and now you’re supporting Santorum – You might be getting spoonfed by the media.” I couldn’t agree more.

It is an unfortunate reality that those who pass for being informed in this country, meaning those who are strict adherents to the doctrines and dictates of political parties and the reporting of the mainstream media, are often much less informed than those who simply no longer care. At least those who no longer care are capable of recognizing there is something fundamentally flawed with both parties and that the entire election system is rigged.

I, myself, have known many Republicans (and Democrats when their elections roll around) who have explained to me which candidate they were supporting and why — their candidates and reasoning ironically following the same order as the Internet picture I mentioned above and directly regurgitate the propaganda given to them by FOX, CNN, or whatever other bastion of disinformation they are being led by.

The most recent media darling, Rick Santorum, whose very questionable “surge” just two days before the Iowa caucus when no one had previously given him even a passing glance, is no exception. Therefore, for the benefit of the easily duped, it might prove useful to take a second look at Rick Santorum.

Let us begin by taking a brief look at Santorum’s lunatic foreign policy which consists largely of beating the drums of war with Iran and fear-mongering the American people, particularly the war-prone Republican base, with a typical but quite militant brand of Islamophobia which was previously reserved only for the raving radio broadcasts of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.

Of course, there is virtually no difference between any of the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul), Obama, or Santorum when it comes to Iran. This much has been established time and time again.

However, the fact that a candidate would campaign with such open militancy in favor of war and conflict with yet another nation which has done nothing toward provoking war with the United States should be very concerning to say the least. Once, a pro-war candidate would at least have to veil his drum-beating under the pretense of using diplomacy first. Now, however, presidential candidates openly embrace war as almost the first act of international relations without batting an eye. Unfortunately, a large segment of the population is hearing this message and nodding their empty heads in agreement.

At this point, one can only guess whether or not Santorum truly believes in the raving war talk that he spews at every opportunity. His hatred could be of the organic variety, or he could simply be using the Iran war talk as a means to mobilize his base by invoking such a shrewd political gamble. Either way, Santorum is obviously a very dangerous person. If he truly believes his own rhetoric, then he is both idiotic and incapable of serving as President in any real sense. Indeed, if this is the case, then he would also be a prime candidate for the office of “puppet president” which is essentially the role that the winner of the next election will play regardless.

Nevertheless, if Santorum does not believe his own rhetoric and is using his incendiary statements as a political ploy, then he is nothing more than liar with psychopathic tendencies, a quality that would also make him a prime candidate for the position of “puppet president.”

In the end, Santorum’s own personal belief in his policies matters very little, because genuine belief in a foolhardy venture will not save a single life after one has embarked upon it.

The fact is that Santorum’s claims regarding Iran are patently false.  Take a moment to watch this video of Santorum debating Ron Paul regarding Paul’s rational policy of non-intervention in Iran as well other nations. In the debate, Santorum suggests that Iran has been at war with the United States since 1979, a relatively typical claim made by those beating the Iran war drums and by those individuals who have no knowledge of history. Thankfully, Paul points out that the conflict between the U.S. and Iran actually began in 1953, when the United States overthrew the democratically elected President and installed the Shah as part of Operation Ajax.

Santorum has long been a leading provocateur in regards to war with Iran. As far back as 2005, when he was a U.S. senator in Pennsylvania, Santorum sponsored a bill called the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which made U.S. policy officially that of sanctions against Iran, promoting regime change, and supporting insurgency groups inside the country with the purpose of overthrowing the Iranian government yet again. This act, which passed and became law in 2006, was criticized by Congressman Dennis Kucinich on the floor of the House as “nothing more than a stepping-stone to war.”

Of course, Kucinich was absolutely correct in this assertion. However, many, especially the Iranians, might consider the open funding of destabilization efforts to be more than just a stepping-stone.  There are many who would suggest that it is actually an overt act of war.

Ironically, in its attempt to destabilize Iran, the US government has been recruiting members of terrorist organizations like the MEK and creating spin-off groups from these organizations for different purposes in the region.  The MEK was the organization involved in the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, one of the incidents that Santorum has been so adamant about during his campaign.

Regardless of his past, Santorum has continued his sabre-rattling against Iran in recent appearances on mainstream media outlets, campaign stops, and political debates. He has openly advocated bombing Iran if the nation did not cave in to his unreasonable demands should he become president. Santorum has also declared his undying support for Israel in the event that it should attack Iran (or be attacked itself).

Santorum’s hatred is not isolated to Iran, however. In 2003, Santorum sponsored another bill entitled, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which was similar in scope to the Iran Freedom and Support Act in that it involved the implementation of economic sanctions against Syria for its alleged “support for terrorism” and attempt to “develop weapons of mass destruction.” If all of this sounds very familiar, that’s because it is. Erroneous claims and imperialist legislation like these preceded the invasion of Iraq years ago.

Santorum has since been very vocal in his calls for the resignation of Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, and has remained in support of the U.S. destabilization efforts ongoing today.

Santorum was also supportive of the horrific and devastating destabilization and destruction of Libya, criticizing Obama for not doing more than he was already doing with NATO forces to eradicate the living standards of the Libyan people and subsequently install a fundamentalist regime based on Sharia law.

Obviously, the senator was also in favor of the Iraq war, even going so far as to appear on national television and suggest that weapons of mass destruction were found Iraq. For all the hype, however, it turns out Santorum was citing a report that described the recovery of degraded, pre-1991 weapons that were examined and clearly dismissed as anything that wasn’t already declared by the Iraqi government. Even the Bush administration didn’t grasp on to that straw.   

Indeed, Santorum does not seem to be above suggesting military conflict with almost any nation for almost any reason with Israel being the lone exception.  Over the last ten years, Santorum has supported physical conflict with virtually every nation with which the United States has developed tensions.

With his enthusiastic support of the global war on terror, it is obvious that the American people are not beyond the scope of Santorum’s war-making ambitions either, particularly after the signing of the NDAA which gives the military the right to detain American citizens indefinitely with no due process of law and defines the Homeland (formerly known as America) to be a battlefield.

With such a minimalist track record of intellectual capabilities, as well as a consistent track record of warmongering, there is little reason that Santorum should be surging in the polls. Nor is there any legitimate reason that he should even be considered by the American voter.