Rick Santorum - via the Trib

Salena Zito has a pair of articles in today's Tribune Review on our favorite soon-to-be former Senator, Rick Santorum (God, I LOVED typing that!). One is an interview and the other a summary of the interview.

In the interview Rick does have some interesting things to say - and if you peer between the lines a LOT of interesting things to say. Case in point:

Trib: Is there any scenario in which you would consider running for president in 2008?

Santorum: For the year 2008 the answer is, I am not going to be running.

Take a close look. Now closer. He only ruled out running in 2008. Pretty much means we'll see a Rick Santorum campaign someplace in maybe about three years or so, doesn't it?

Some of the questions bordered on softball. Take a look at the first one:

Trib: Did you ever envision when you first ran for Congress, and stood on the corners of Cochran and Washington Roads in Mount Lebanon with your homemade signs, that your career would lead you to a final-act speech on the growing threat of Islamic fascism?

It really only makes sense if one agrees that there is a "growing threat of Islamic fascism." (That, of course, is a separate issue.) The interviewer and interviewee have to already agree on the concept before the question can be answered. Kind of frames the rest of the interview, don't it?.

Though Zito does get in something challenging:

Trib: Any plans to move back to Pennsylvania? Or will your future keep you close to the Washington Beltway?

Santorum: I am in the process of figuring that all out. I will make some decision here in the next few weeks.

Wait a sec. The question implies that Rick doesn't live in Pennsylvania. What's up with that? What happened to all that stuff during the campaign about his "legal residence" being in Penn Hills? And could there be a more tepid response?

Here's Rick on the media:

Trib: The media -- how do you think they have played a role in the public's perception of the threat of Islamic fascism, the effects of the war in Iraq?

Santorum: I gave a speech at the Valley Forge Military Academy a little over a year ago, and I talked about the role of the media -- I was very critical of them.

They felt it was their obligation to go out every day and report as they do. And they report death- as I say, "one side of the story." I understand why they do it, and I am not saying that they don't have to do it.

But understand, by doing so, all you do is accomplish exactly what the terrorists want you to do, which is to weary the American public of this war -- and eventually cause us to stop fighting it. That is the end result of what we are doing.

I have always said that if World War II was covered like this war, I really, very seriously doubt that we would have ever won that war. Certainly, we might have been willing, when the losses got so high, to negotiate a compromise or negotiate some sort of surrender. The death that went on -- I always remind people that we lost more people in a couple of hours on D-Day that we have in the entire war (in Iraq).

The amount of death and destruction that occurred in the previous wars, under the current media coverage, would not have tolerated by the American public.

The bottom line is, the media -- and I am not saying that they are intending to do this -- but simply by what they are doing, without question, it is aiding the terrorists and their objective.

And that may just simply be the function of a free press in a democratic society. ... I would argue that covering the bad things that are going on Iraq, and not covering the greater complexities that I have talked about in my speeches and highlighting the threat, is a disservice to the American public. And, I think, will have far-reaching consequences.

Let's take it apart section by section:

I gave a speech at the Valley Forge Military Academy a little over a year ago, and I talked about the role of the media -- I was very critical of them.

They felt it was their obligation to go out every day and report as they do. And they report death- as I say, "one side of the story." I understand why they do it, and I am not saying that they don't have to do it.

But understand, by doing so, all you do is accomplish exactly what the terrorists want you to do, which is to weary the American public of this war -- and eventually cause us to stop fighting it. That is the end result of what we are doing.

So by reporting the deaths in Iraq, the media is helping the terrorists.

I have always said that if World War II was covered like this war, I really, very seriously doubt that we would have ever won that war. Certainly, we might have been willing, when the losses got so high, to negotiate a compromise or negotiate some sort of surrender. The death that went on -- I always remind people that we lost more people in a couple of hours on D-Day that we have in the entire war (in Iraq).

That last part might not be accurate. From the D-Day Museum website:

How many Allied and German casualties were there on D-Day, and in the Battle of Normandy?

“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.

In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics). [Italics added]

And US casualties so far in Iraq? As of today (1219/06): 2950 dead and 46,880 "non mortal casualties." To be sure, the numbers will go up.

But given that the accuracy of all the D-Day numbers is hazy, I won't hold Rick to this. But let's assume for the sake of the argument that Rick is correct. That more US Servicemen died in a "couple of hours" on D-Day than were killed in the 4 years of Bush's war. So what? More people die in car accidents on the nation's roads. Does that make an illegal war legal? Does that suddenly make what was a meaningless death a meaningful one?

The amount of death and destruction that occurred in the previous wars, under the current media coverage, would not have tolerated by the American public.

The bottom line is, the media -- and I am not saying that they are intending to do this -- but simply by what they are doing, without question, it is aiding the terrorists and their objective.

And that may just simply be the function of a free press in a democratic society. ... I would argue that covering the bad things that are going on Iraq, and not covering the greater complexities that I have talked about in my speeches and highlighting the threat, is a disservice to the American public. And, I think, will have far-reaching consequences.

So to sum up. The media, though Rick is careful to say that he doesn't think it's intentional, is aiding the terrorists simply by reporting what they see. If only they'd parrot more of the nonsense that the administration (and Rick Santorum) has been saying over the last few years, the war would be over and we would have won it. Why can't the media just show us nice pictures of bunnies and sunsets? That way, the serious, important people can finish the job with no pesky interference from the public.

Yea, that's it. The media's fault and the public's fault for not buying that tripe.