Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum calls Iran’s leaders, ‘A death cult, they are a group of radical Muslims who are more concerned about the hereafter than they are the here and now.’
Ha’aretz
Short transcript:
(Scroll for the full clip)
Bill Maher: Ok, alright I’m surrounded by my friends. Rick Santorum what are your thoughts on the Iran nuclear deal? I’m guessing you love it because it’s Obama? Whatever he does your good with.
Sen. Rick Santorum: He violated the first principle, you don’t negotiate with terrorists and we negotiated with a terrorist organization.
Maher: Well Reagan did.
Santorum: You don’t negotiate with terrorists. We didn’t negotiate with terrorists.
Maher: Well Reagan did, is that not your boyfriend.
Santorum: We don’t negotiate with terrorists.
Maher: Reagan never negotiated with terrorists? He admitted it on the air with Iran-contra, that wasn’t negotiating with terrorists? Reagan not only negotiated with terrorists they also cut and ran. When the bombing happened in Beirut in ’83, George Bush, his Vice President went over there and said ‘this will not stand or whatever’ and then we cut and ran.
Santorum: Reagan was wrong.
Maher: ‘Reagan was wrong!’ Oh my god.
Santorum: Look, this was a relatively new threat way back then and you know radical Islam was emergent at this time, he had a whole different fish to fry, he had the Soviet Union he was trying to destroy, his attention was on that.
Maher: So the whole country has to be terrorists?
Santorum: Look it’s not who the country is, it’s who is running the country and the people running the country are a death cult, they are a group of radical Muslims, Shia Islamists, who are more concerned about the hereafter than they are the here and now.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher: Our problem, Bill, with what the policy has been over the years is that while we’ve been negotiating this rotten treaty, which is gonna give this regime a hundred and fifty billion dollars to spend on terrorism, all this time we have hesitated to help the people of Iran flight this regime.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub3b9p3LTws&w=560&h=315]
Reminds me of a Giraldi oldy on one of nature’s dumbest….Dubya flunky Karen Hughs.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=10632
” increasingly promotes women’s causes and talks about “inclusion,” though she continues to drop the occasional maladroit bomb. In a recent interview in Parade magazine, she referred to terrorists as a “death cult” that is “intolerant of others,” begging the question what an altruistic death cult would look like. Her solution to the killer cultists? “Say it’s not right to murder those who disagree.” ”
PG also noted she’d started confining her Utopian pontification to audiences that wouldn’t challenge her.
Been persuaded for a while that those who’d talk of agreeing-to-disagree—that is, that someone-other-than-themselves “can’t,” or that someone-other-then-themselves does x to “anybody who disagrees with them”—are pretty generally just dish-it-out-but-can’t-take-it types. Not to say it’s just not a concept with a proper place, but it is to say you’re unlikely to hear it from there.
E.g., the war-enthusiast would support-you-into whacking at least 90 percent nobodies, each on the premise that someone nearby was worth whacking. It’s fair to say they’ve not agree-to-disagree with nearer to 100 percent of those so whacked—especially on the issue of whether they shoulda been whacked. So if you were to, e.g., ride them on what a piece of sh-t that takes…well, then their dragnet of those-who’d-not-agree-to-disagree expands to you. They don’t get that they’re in a fight—right now with you. They were supposed to have just gotten away with the accusatory projection, didn’t imagine the consequences following them anywhere, and that’s pretty much the trick that worked for them before. Who’d disagree with such a high-minded principle like agreeing-to-disagree?
Is it possible to disagree on agreeing-to-disagree? No? I think you just can’t agree-too-disagree…