In GOP Debate, Iran Takes Center Stage


Rick Perry had his usual inarticulate moments but had several where he shined. On Iran, he called for “shutting down” the Iranian economy and sanctioning the Iranian Central Bank. He was the sole candidate to bring attention to preparing for cyber war and predicted that “Communist China” will “enter the ash heap of history” if it didn’t change.

Perry’s biggest moment was when he said he’d start off all foreign aid at “zero dollars”  and then move forward in giving to the countries that deserve it. He won a huge applause for calling for an end to aid to Pakistan in retaliation for their help. He was criticized by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum for that stance, but Newt Gingrich supported him.

Perry had an endearing moment when the moderator mentioned that he’d abolish the Department of Energy. Perry quickly interrupted to say, “Glad you remembered.” The moderator responded, “I’ve had a long time to think about it.”  Perry finished the exchange with a humorous, “Me, too!”

Rick Santorum was the sole candidate to call for the U.S. to help Israel bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. He said that he disagrees with Newt Gingrich’s approach because there it will take too long. He also mentioned how the Bush Administration opposed his efforts to support the Iranian opposition. He was performing well but then criticized Perry for his confrontational attitude towards Pakistan. He described the Pakistani government as an ally that the U.S. needs and that allies need to “work through their problems.” When asked what he’d do if a Pakistani nuclear weapon got loose, he said he’d try to cooperate with the Pakistani ISI intelligence service.

Michele Bachmann spoke in detail about Afghanistan and appeared the most knowledgeable on the topic. She hit Obama for declining to provide the 40,000 additional soldiers as the commanders requested, instead only sending 30,000. She condemned the timeline for withdrawal and warned that the “table is set”  for a nuclear war against Israel. “Obama will stand with Occupy Wall Street but he won’t stand with Israel,” she was applauded for saying. She said that “it’s like we’ve decided we want to lose”  and claimed that the ACLU now runs the CIA.

Jon Huntsman was the only candidate besides Ron Paul to call for a speedier withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan than Obama is planning. He said he’d leave behind a small force to train Afghan security forces and gather intelligence. He opposed torture and waterboarding and criticized Romney for advocating a trade war with China. Instead, Huntsman said, we should reach out to the Chinese people, saying that 500 million Chinese use the Internet and 80 million are bloggers.

Overall, Newt Gingrich had the best night and Herman Cain had the worst and this was one of Rick Perry’s best debates. The next debate is hosted by CNN, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute on November 22 and will also be about national security and foreign policy. Get ready for round two.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • reasonableview

    The debate was especially interesting because there is no Republican orthodoxy on foreign policy, as there is on taxing and spending, so the debate was full of contrasting opinions. Rick Perry brought a personality full of passion and humor, while Herman Cain left his at home.

    Newt Gingrich was the center of the party. The media will start to trot out Newt's baggage in an attempt to taunt him into a response. Should be interesting. http://bit.ly/vVRl4t

  • StephenD

    Reason, you're right about them I think, in that they'll go after Newt's baggage. I would hope his team has all they need to compare to Obama. I can see it now,

    Inquiring Reporter: Mr. Gingrich, you have been associated with extra-marital affairs culminating in divorce.

    Newt: None of my associations were with the Weather Underground, Black Panthers or Communists.

    Kind of pales in comparison doesn’t it?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    First of all, the rules of the CBS debate were utterly ridiculous as most candidates' answers were cut off midstream. So all we heard were a series of half sound bites.

    Anyway, no surprises as we learned that none of the candidates for President really understand what Islam actually is and consequently the nature of the threat it really presents. For instance, all of the candidates don't understand that our two misguided nation-building missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were the two biggest strategic blunders ever in US history and couldn't have been more fantasy based and counterproductive. As both Iraq and Afghanistan, per the dictates of Islam, will remain our eternal enemies no matter how many trillions of dollars we waste over there or American troop lives' we stupidly sacrifice.

    Anyway, we need to drop the misnamed “War on Terror” and institute in its place a policy of containing the spread and expansion of Islam, as Harry S Truman previously did with respect to containing the spread and expansion of Communism. As Islam is a form of totalitarianism very similar to Communism far more than it is a religion.

    Thus, the first thing we need to do in accordance with our newly reconfigured strategy is to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP and to thoroughly understand why those two nation building missions were totally fantasy-based and exceedingly counterproductive. In other words, we must also banish multiculturalism from the debate and understand that studying our enemies is no longer politically incorrect.

    The next thing we must do is abolish Islam and ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage ASAP, as Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the imposition of Sharia to make Islam supreme via demographic conquest.

    The next phase is the elimination of the most imminent threats currently plaguing the world, which would consist of eradicating the ruling Mullah regime of Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Followed by either confiscating or destroying the Pakistani nuclear weapons arsenal and nuclear weapons program. As Muslims under any circumstances must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

    Subsequently, we need to also seize the Mideast oilfields and confiscate the immense unearned oil wealth of the Saudis and the Gulf State Emirs, otherwise those resources will be used per the dictates of Islam to fight and wage jihad against non-Muslim unbelievers perpetually forever.

    Finally, we must isolate the Islamic world from the rest of the world to force the Islamic world into abject crushing poverty, as a poverty stricken society is a society that is incapable of fighting and waging jihad, and the isolation of the Islamic world from the rest of the world will ensure that the Islamic world devolves into abject crushing poverty, since the Islamic world is incapable of producing anything on its own other than jihad, murder, rape, mayhem, and tons and tons of misery. Then we should let them stew in their own Islamic paradise in abject crushing poverty for a few generations until Islam as a force becomes completely discredited.

  • NotaBene

    The first rule about covert operations is that you don't talk about covert operations, Newt you flaming idiot.

    • Stephen_Brady

      It doesn't matter. The enemy knows that we carry on covert operations, and no matter what they do, such operations have the capability to penetrate the most stringent security measures. Just the threat of covert operations makes an enemy over-react and become careless. I realize that this sounds counterintuitive, but it works.

  • mrbean

    For the west, an attack on Iran that destroyed its nuclear program and regime is long overdue. The purpose of such a strike would be to end the mounting threat from Iran, which has been waging war on the West for decades, and is now seeking even more powerful weapons. Retaliating against Iran doesn't mean embarking on an Iraq-like crusade to bring the vote to Iranians; instead, it means using military force to make the regime non-threatening–for the sake of defending American lives.

    Diplomatic attempts to persuade Iran to give up its quest for nuclear bombs have been going on for years, and produced no results other than to buy time for Iran's nuclear program and confer on that hostile and tyrannical regime unearned legitimacy as a peace-seeking nation. Iran's leaders are committed to a global Jihad against Western civilization; no negotiations are possible with those who seek its destruction. The West's only moral choice is to defend itself from this deadly threat.

  • BLJ

    You know what would be nice? If the media went after OBAMA'S BAGGAGE. It would fill up the baggage hold on a 767.

    Gingrich (and maybe Romney) are the two Repubs who would crucify the Chosen One in any type of "debate". I would love to see Newt take him on in a Lincoln-Douglas style one. It would be an early KO.

    Diplomacy has not and will never work with the Iranians. They are hell bent in their desire to destroy Israel and Western civilization. No words, sanctions or threats will stop them. Only force will work.

    Getting the Islamic enabler out of the WH is step #1.

  • Herman Caintonette

    You folks should stop thinking with your Cheneys and engage your brains.

    What happens if Israel attacks Iran? Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz. Pakistan and Iraq — if any country has a valid grudge against us, it is Iraq — join in on the Iranian side, and we already know that Afghanistan will follow suit. 75,000 of our sons, trapped like rats! And you can bet the house that the ChiComs will side with the Islamists.

    There is no positive outcome for us that can possibly come from that course of action.

    • BLJ

      It might be time to get rid of a few nukes. If you know what I mean.