Tom Ferrick's column in today's Philadelphia Inquirer takes Santorum to task for "doing the waffle" over Bush policy in Iraq.
As pointed out on this blog (and others) a little over two weeks ago, Rick's claim that he has publicly expressed concerns about Bush's Iraq policies can not be backed up by any evidence. Santorum, clearly looking at summer polls that showed public opinion has moved against Bush on this issue, lamely responded that lack of evidence didn't matter. "I do a lot of interviews on TV, on radio, with print reporters who don't happen to write everything I say," he said. "The fact that it hasn't turned up in print doesn't mean I haven't said it."
Ferrick says that opens up some other possibilities, including: "Maybe he never made any critical statements but didn't want to admit it because he would look like an administration lapdog. Weef! Weef!"
Giving Santorum's staff their due, Ferrick points out that they did find this 2004 statement he made in 2004 about the security situation in Fallujah.
"There are concerns - I have concerns - about tactics and decisions that were made," Santorum said. "I think you'll find a lot of Republicans who are very willing to second-guess our tactics in Fallujah, for example."
He added: "And, in my opinion, it was not the right call, but you know what? That's not my decision."
Weef! Weef!
John Brabender, Santorum's media consultant, said: "This shows he is not afraid to stand up to the administration, or to say things could be better."
I'm not making that up. Brabender really said that.
Santorum's problem here is a political one. He has supported the administration's policy in Iraq and has not criticized any significant aspect of it. In short, he has been a loyal soldier.
But he faces a tough reelection campaign. He sees the opinion polls that show the public turning against the war. He knows others have raised legitimate questions over strategy, tactics and progress of the war.
So he's doing the waffle.
If it were Arlen Specter, we'd all shrug and say: Well, what else is new?
But this is Rick Santorum, the guy who has made his rep as a no-nonsense, straight-talker.
There's no mistaking Santorum's usual style, his take-no-prisoners prose. Want a sample?
Here's a Santorum statement criticizing the President for "once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell Congress how much this operation will cost. And, he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home."
, and as Ferrick notes today, that last statement was not aimed at Bush. It's Santorum in March of 1999, criticizing President Clinton's policy in Bosnia.
Santorum goes to great lengths to portray himself as courageous and independent -- as Ferrick says, "a no-nonsense, straight-talker." As noted time and time again on
this blog and
this website, that image doesn't stand up well against
the facts.
In this instance, Santorum wants people to believe he's been a bulldog, when the facts say he's just a lapdog.
