Santorum dives off the deep end (into shallow water)

By Lee Russ

Friday, August 11, 2006 at 05:43 PM

Rick Santorum certainly can't claim to be the most honest candidate around.

But he's really gone off the deep end with his latest rant about how the U.K. "liquid bomb" plot goes to show "the need to pursue the 'traitors' who recently leaked information about classified government programs."

NOTE: Never one to be cautious, Santorum also bravely declared that the incident showed the importance of intelligence-gathering.  Up until Rick's courageous statement, I'm sure most people thought intelligence gathering was worthless in defending against terrorism.

Now, calling people who question the propriety of secret surveillance programs "traitors"--especially as we head toward an election that will be bitterly contested--sure could be viewed as using the U.K. incident for political gain.  But Slick Rick is too smart for that. According to Rick it's the Dems doing that:

In several interviews as he toured Southwestern Pennsylvania, the Republican accused Democrats of politicizing the war issue...Asked if he believed that anti-war Democrats were motivated by electoral calculation rather than by genuine opposition to the Iraqi conflict, Mr. Santorum said, "I don't think there's any question that they're playing to their political left. They're reacting to the hard core left of their party that is beating the drum, you saw it in Connecticut, that this is a huge political issue for the Democrats."

That's right, folks, in the middle of a campaign trip around the state to politicize the war, he accused Dems of politicizing the war.  Tell me the man didn't learn well at the knee of Mr. Rove.

Just for good measure, you should know that the The Great Santorum also:

1. Claimed that the lack of successful attack on the U.S. since 9/-11-01 means that ""We must be doing something right...It's not like these people don't want to attack us."  [Any bets that while lack of attack means the Bush team is effective, the presence of attacks would merely show that we need the Bush team to protect us?  Remember when decreasing attacks in Iraq meant we were winning, and increasing attacks in Iraq meant the terrorists were desperate because, once again, we were winning?]

2. Acknowledged that he did not know whether the activities under the warrantless surveillance program or other programs recently revealed in the press had played any role at all in heading off the alleged terrorist plan to smuggle explosive components onto passenger airliners.

If he got any more irrational or more partisan, he'd be qualified to be President.