Rick Santorum made an odd comment in North Dakota on Wednesday. Praising the state for its energy production, he warned his audience that its success in the field might lead to terrorist attacks. CNN reports:
Rick Santorum warned a quiet North Dakota audience Wednesday that their state’s booming oil industry positioned the region as a prime target for terrorism.
“Folks, you’ve got energy here. They’re going to bother you. They’ll bother you, because you are a very key and strategic resource for this country,” the Republican presidential candidate said. “No one is safe. No one is safe from asymmetric threats of terrorism.”
Santorum pointed to Iran as the source behind future terrorist attacks, ramping up his rhetoric on a country he frequently discusses on the campaign trail.
“That’s what Iran will be all about unless we stop them from getting that nuclear weapon,” Santorum said.
Still, such fears didn’t discourage Santorum from supporting the building of a massive oil pipeline through the state:
He also blasted the president for opposing the controversial Keystone pipeline project, which would run through North Dakota and carry crude oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The rest here.
Oh please. The headline is ridiculous, clearly trying to portray Santorum as a loon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe IS a loon!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusehe isn't one?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum and the other 2 stooges are loons. I am with Ron Paul, If Iran is really a threat lets take the case to congress and get approval to go to war. Then lets go, win and leave. No more nation building. No more policing the world.
As a long time Christian and Republican I can't wait to vote for Ron Paul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShortly thereafter, speaking in San Francisco, Santorum called for America to reduce its reliance on petroleum, because "If the Iranians nuke North Dakota, it will warm the atmosphere and kill polar bears." Police were called after a fight broke out in the audience, regarding whether losing a few polar bears was worth it, as long as North Dakota was nuked.
Well, that didn't happen. But It won't surprise me if it does.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis nonsense from the same guy who claimed the WMDs had been found in Iraq. There's your next GOP presidential nominee, folks. Clear-thinking, rational and an 18-point loser last time around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does speaking the truth bother you so much?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWMD's have been found in Iraq, as well as both active and in-active WMD programs.
Not true. Heavily coroded useless remnants of the past. Nothing more. They just probably forgot about them or did not care about them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere were they found and when and by whom? Did they only tell you or was it broadcast somewhere?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is really the best GOP can do? Romney and Santorum?
What an embarrassment for the GOP and for the nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have my cordial invitation to blame it all on Paul Ryan, the genius perfect candidate who decided not to run.
Or, to blame Chris Christie, that conservative stalwart, with his judicial selections.
Or Mitch Daniels, whose call for a truce on social issues, in the face of the abortifacient mandate, would be seen now as quite well-timed.
By the way: In what year were your choices any better? Hmm?
If you say 1980, you're a liar. Most GOP members who voted for Reagan did so out of protest against HW Bush, who had led a rather non-ideological career path before then.
Reagan, too, was the lesser evil.
Pining for the good ole days of 1996?
CAPTCHA:
"The all-new Chevy Sonic"
How much of our tax dollars went to creating THIS latest concoction?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI fail to see why commenting North Dakota might be a target would somehow mean you should not support the Keystone pipeline? I do not see a problem with what Rick Santorum said there. New York is obviously a target, yet I see plenty of investment and infrastructure being built there. If it is important to take Upper Midwest U.S. and Canadian oil to market, a pipeline should be built. And yes it would be a potential target for terrorists.
BTW, Byron York noted that Mitt Romney has not ruled out Rick Santorum as Veep choice. Did anyone ask if Rick Santorum ruled out Mitt Romney? Perhaps we should?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEBL, you beat me to it. Just because Santorum mentioned an obvious fact doesn't mean he was suggesting no one should produce or transport energy. "Still, such fears didn’t discourage Santorum from supporting the building of a massive oil pipeline through the state:" may be one of the dumbest statements I have heard, this silly season.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, what a fool Rick is. As we all know, Iran has nothing to do with terrorism at all. And terrorists are only allowed to attack New York and Washington. It's right there in the rules.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd if 9/11 showed us anything it's that terrorists have no imagination at all, and would never attack a strategic target.
You forgot to mention another reason why this is insane: Clearly, that goofy Santorum doesn't realize how tightly secured our borders are!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEspecially the longest peaceful border anywhere on Earth.
That thing is pursed up tighter than a ... than a ... drum (to keep it rated G).
Our northern border is more secure than the White House during a gala ball.
(OK, actually, that might be true, considering how a couple of low-fallutin' society types managed to sneak on in.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is this post newsworthy or even the significant contradiction suggested? Terrorists in the Middle East have been blowing up pipelines for years. Why should strategic targets inside the U.S. be considered completely safe? Seems to me our foreign policy has always been to develop our strategic assets and defend them aggressively. I'm sure people in North Dakota figure they are as far away from the GWOT as any humans on earth, and comments like Santorum's help bring home the dangers posed by far-away terrorist regimes.
This "contradiction" is no different than telling your neighbor that the $100,000 he invested in his house, and the Porche he shows off in the driveway, might make him a target for criminals if he leaves the garage door and windows wide open.
If these are the best arguments against a Santorum candidacy, then Romney is in big, big trouble.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, SIR!
The best argument against a Santorum candidacy is that he ... ready for this?
He voted to increase the debt ceiling!
A Senator Romney, if he had defeated Ted Kennedy in '94, would've gone to Washington, won re-election in 2000 (!), and would've proceeded to vote against any hike in the debt ceiling.
Between the years 2003-2007, Mitt Romney, if in the Senate, would've been to the right of Jeff Sessions, and both Senators from Wyoming.
THAT is the best argument against Santorum, at least as currently formulated by the campaign team of Mr. Inevitable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell good. I thought maybe you were going to cite his sweater-vest which is almost definitely in their Top 10 list...
I think people have kinda caught onto their schtick at this point.
Kind of like Obama, a lot of people have just tuned Obama out at this point.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously?
I realize some NRO contributors are testy and depressed over Romney's collapse in the polls, but I expect more constraint than this lame piece on the Corner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse