Wolf Blitzer Pulls Quote From Liberal Political Activist to Grill Santorum
Pressing Rick Santorum on his opposition to women serving in combat, CNN's Wolf Blitzer quoted a liberal veteran who harshly criticized Santorum's policy. Blitzer did not identify the veteran or his group as "liberal," thus failing to address the critic's possible political motives against the conservative candidate.
"A very angry response from one veteran," Blitzer noted, before quoting the co-founder of VoteVets.org. The group identifies itself as the "largest progressive organization of veterans in America." [Video below the break.]
As a political action committee, VoteVets.org has contributed overwhelmingly to Democratic political candidates in the last three election cycles. And their political leanings are no secret to the liberal media.
The group was listed by the Washington Post as one of multiple "liberal advocacy groups" attacking Republican presidential candidates, in 2008. The New York Times said in 2007 that VoteVets was "closely aligned with Congressional Democrats."
Santorum's statement in question involved the issue of female soldiers serving close to the front lines in combat. He said their "emotions" may compromise the fulfilling of their combat duty, and that "that's probably not in the best interests of men, women, or the mission."
Blitzer was quite dire in his assessment of the remark, saying Santorum "potentially could be hurting his chances with a broader group of voters."
The response to Santorum by the veteran, Jon Soltz, is as follows: "It's impossible to put into words how infuriating that is to me, as someone who has served twice in Iraq with women who were already serving ably in combat, even thought the Pentagon didn't officially recognize that up until now."
A brief transcript of the segment, which aired on February 10 at 5:02 p.m. EST, is as follows:
[5:01]
WOLF BLITZER: On a day when a Republican presidential candidates are appealing to conservative activists, Rick Santorum potentially could be hurting his chances with a broader group of voters. He's under greater scrutiny right now after his three contest sweep on Tuesday. And a remark he made right here on CNN about women serving in the U.S. military in combat roles has stirred up controversy. Stand by for my interview with Rick Santorum but first, listen to what he told CNN's John King last night about the prospect of female troops serving closer to the front lines.
(Video Clip)
RICK SANTORUM, Republican presidential candidate: I think that could be a very compromising situation where people naturally, may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that's probably – it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But it's – I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat and that's probably not in the best interests of men, women, or the mission.
(End Video Clip)
BLITZER: And joining us now, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. Lots of reaction, Senator Santorum, to what you told our own John King on your opposition to women serving in combat units in the U.S. military. A very angry response from one veteran, who writes this, co-founder of VoteVets.org, an Iraq War veteran:
"It's impossible to put into words how infuriating that is to me, as someone who has served twice in Iraq with women who were already serving ably in combat, even thought the Pentagon didn't officially recognize that up until now."
What's wrong with women serving in combat?
(...)
BLITZER: A lot of women are irritated, though. Because under your line of thinking, they say, women shouldn't serve as firefighters or police officers, because those are jobs that require them to be on the front lines and could be endangered – their lives could be on the line as well.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
I don't know that there's anything "wrong" about women
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 8:33pm.
fighting in combat; however, given that they nurture and give life, it doesn't quite seem part of the natural order.
How did Santorum respond?
Submitted by CM on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:45pm.
How did Santorum respond?
CM........The answer to your question is below.
Submitted by Rush Fan on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 11:47pm.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: What's wrong with women serving in combat?
SANTORUM: Well, there's lots of things wrong. There's lots of roles that women can play. In fact, roles that are, in fact, very dangerous, but it's very different than have them out there on the frontlined and into the position (ph) where there are all sorts of physical issues. I mean, that gear (ph) out there, for example, in a group where it just with two people.
And you have some people, because of women have, as you know, with respect to physical capabilities, they have -- they don't have the same requirements that men do in the military and maybe in a position where, you know, someone is injured and has to be brought back. And that's one example.
The other example is just simply the emotions of men in dealing with women in combat and not focusing potentially on the mission, instead of in protecting -- the natural instinct to protect someone who's a female. I mean, these are all reasons that armies throughout the world. I mean, look at the Israeli army, which is an army that has a lot of women in it, and a lot of women in very important positions, but not in combat.
There's a reason for that. We have to look at mission effectiveness. We can't look at, you know, other reasons why people may or may not want to be in combat. We have to look at what the effect of this and safety of those who would deploy in that mission.
---------------------------
CNN Transcript - The Situation Room
Weather one agrees or not
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:03am.
With Rick, I certainly didnt hear anything wrong with what he said.
Every opinion has to be ridiculed and admonished, jeez
Conscription for Women?
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 9:54pm.
Does this mean the left will be OK with drafting women for military service then? I doubt it very much. That would be way too much equality.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
I remember him.
Submitted by NeoKong on Fri, 02/10/2012 - 10:45pm.
He was a big hero on The DailyKos because of his left-wing policies and even harassed an active duty soldier at the Yearly Kos because he dared to ask a question in uniform. He made an ass out of himself. He even campaigned for Kerry while calling himself a conservative.
The guy is a dick.
Read about him here.
This ain't hell.
I think those fools will
Submitted by tobiasdog on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:56pm.
I think those fools will change their tune when they see wives, mothers and daughters coming home in bags. And I can just imagine the wrath the surviving male counterparts and commanders will incur for not protecting them from harm enough. Also who do you think will get most of the more dangerous jobs out there on the line? Having worked with women on an "equal" basis, I know how the shit jobs always get assigned to the men, and when a women has to preform some kind of physical duty of their job they always ask the nearest man to help them "I can't lift this its too heavy" was the constant refrain from these "equal work for equal pay" types.
Sorry, that"s the way it is.
Note how easy the "Liberal" tag comes out
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 3:08pm.
Note how easy how a group is introduced as "Liberal" with glee by the media when the group consists of members one would associate with the hateful entity, in this case the republican party. You won't see "Liberal environmentalists," or "Liberal trial lawyers" or "liberal union members," but when it comes to vets who are not republican or moderate, then it's "LIBERAL veterans."
This is a take on "Name that Party" that the media loves to dance around.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Frankly, I don't see a problem with women in the military
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 10:56pm.
As a conservative who has served with the 82nd Airborne Division and the 5th Signal Command in the US Army during the 70's and 80's, I wanted to clarify the women situation as it really stands. The problem is that most soldiers and troops are in their late teens and early 20's. When I was a younger troop, I was less-seasoned, therefore more prone to being attracted to women. In addition, attractions develop far more readily that would threaten overall unit stability, as jealousy over relationships could override crucial mission objectives. I've experienced that as both a troop and as a platoon sergeant.
However, we are a generation past that point. Sex is generally a bit more acceptable even within the confines of military duty; for instance, officers and enlisted can date if they are not in the same unit and don't do it in uniform.
Another factor, though is that our military is becoming less battalion-oriented and more squad-oriented in military operations. The troops are far more professionally trained than even a decade ago, with means the professionalism level is very high. But overall, I do not see a problem with women in the same unit, as long as they are professionally competent to be there. I'll be blunt: Most elite units are very difficult to get into as a male; females would have far less chance based upon physical stamina. But if they are qualified to pass the physical tests, then they should be qualified to be part of the unit.
The bottom line: troop disruptions come in many different ways, such as undisciplined troops, addictive troops, and other things that affect performance. But keep in mind other factors; the enemy may use female troops as bargaining chips and threaten them with rape that they could not with male troops. That is another aspect and must be considered in the discussion. I still feel that women should have the right to be part of elite or front-line units; ultimate, it is the individual commanders who make decisions on personnel assignments in operations. I'd like to keep it at that level, and not at the congressional level myself.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER