The Pentagon announcement easing the ban on women serving in combat led Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum to express his concerns that missions could be put in jeopardy “because of other types of emotions that are involved.”

But today, Santorum attempted to clarify his seemingly sexist statement in an interview with ABC News:

RICK SANTORUM: I was talking about men’s emotional issues, not women. That’s something I’ve talked about repeatedly. [...] Men in our culture are focused on if a woman is in trouble, obviously, to react to try to help to protect and care for that person. That is something that is built in culturally. So my concern is that being in combat in that situation, instead of being focused on the mission, they might be more concerned about protecting a woman in a vulnerable position.

Watch it:

Having put to rest the allegation that he was suggesting women were emotionally unfit to serve in combat — and instead having argued that men are emotionally unfit to serve alongside women — Santorum went on to emphasize that he has no problem putting women’s lives in danger.

Blogger Jennifer Rubin describes her interview with Santorum:

He says, “It’s not a matter of putting women in dangerous roles.” He tell[s] me, for example, that women are fully capable of “flying small planes.”

So it seems that for Santorum, it’s okay for women to fly the puddle jumpers but save the heavy bombers for the men. While Rubin goes on to commend Santorum for his fearlessness in “refusing to censor his views” and possibly “provoking the ire of women,” his views on women in the military may pose a challenge for his campaign which finds itself in the media spotlight after primary victories in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.

In the past 24 hours, Santorum: accused Obama of helping Iran acquire nuclear weapons; suggested that male soldiers are incapable of controlling their emotions around female comrades in combat; and said women are better suited to “flying small planes.”

A newly released poll by YouGov and YouGov-Cambridge led the Christian Science Monitor to report that “nearly half of Americans now say they would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities to stop its uranium enrichment in order to halt its advances toward an ability to build a nuclear weapon.” Indeed, the poll found that 44 percent of Americans supported bombing Iran’s nuclear installations while only 35 percent opposed, a strikingly different result than a United Technologies/National Journal poll released last week which showed that only 17 percent of the U.S. public supported military action against Iran.

Why the discrepancy? An examination of the polling methodology reveals a very different set of questions between the two polls.

The YouGov poll asked respondents [PDF]:

Suppose a number of countries decided to take action against Iran in order to
stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Would you support or oppose your country’s Government taking part or assisting in each of the following?

Respondents were then asked whether they supported or opposed a number of actions including, but not limited to, air strikes. The question puts forth a situation in which a “number of countries” are acting multilaterally to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This hinges on the hypothetical situation that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon — an assertion that neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence officials say there is enough evidence to definitely support — and a multilateral coalition coming together to conduct air strikes.

The United Technologies/National Journal poll released last week asked respondents:

As You May Know, Many In Congress And On The WH ’12 Campaign Trail Have Said That Iran Should Not Be Permitted To Produce A Nuclear Weapon. How Far Do You Think The U.S. Should Go To Prevent This?

This question poses no hypothetical scenarios about Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon or a multilateral effort to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The takeaway from the two contrasting poll results is that Americans are not unconditionally in favor of or opposed to military action against Iran. The IAEA and U.S. intelligence officials have expressed concerns about potential military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but the YouGov polling question presumes a situation in which Iran is verifiably seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. Details such as whether Iran must be stopped from constructing a nuclear weapon and the presence of a multilateral military campaign, are very important in determining American support for military action.

But the Christian Science Monitor’s headline, “Bomb Iran? Nearly half of Americans say ‘yes’ to halt nuclear program,” completely overlooks the complexity of the polling questions and the YouGov poll’s revealing insights into American thinking on military action against Iran.

Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, hot off his primary victories in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, accused President Obama of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.

According to the former Pennsylvania senator, because the Obama administration rejected the Keystone pipeline, it “knows” America will need oil. And where will the U.S. get that oil? Iran. And how will the U.S. get access to Iranian oil? According to Santorum, Obama will throw “Israel under the bus” and allow Iran to get nuclear weapons:

SANTORUM: They know that oil is drying up. And they know that not building that pipeline we’re not going to have access to oil reserves. And they know they’re going to be more dependent upon OPEC and so what are we doing? We’re throwing Israel under the bus because we know we’re going to be dependent on OPEC. We’re going to say ‘Oh Iran, we don’t want you to get a nuclear weapon, wink, wink, nod, nod, go ahead just give us your oil.

Watch it:

While Santorum’s accusations that the president is allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon at Israel’s expense is a serious allegation, Obama’s track record on Iran sanctions and Israel simply don’t match up with the former senator’s harsh rhetoric.

Neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon and last week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Members of Congress that economic sanctions were the best strategy to weaken the government in Tehran. The IAEA and the Obama administration have expressed concern over possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.

And on Monday, Obama tightened sanctions, freezing assets of any entities that do business with Iran’s central bank.

Indeed, a nuclear weapons possessing Iran would pose a security threat to Israel but accusing Obama of being a weak ally to Israel has become a right-wing talking point as Republican presidential candidates struggle to attack the administration’s national security track record, which includes killing Osama Bin Laden and participating in NATO operations that brought the end of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s 42 years in power.

While Santorum may claim that Obama “threw Israel under the bus,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in May that Obama made an “iron clad commitment to Israel’s security. [...] And he has backed those words with deeds.”

After a year-long review ordered by Congress, the Pentagon yesterday announced easing the ban on women serving in combat. Women service members will now be allowed to be permanently assigned to a battalion “as radio operators, medics, tank mechanics and other critical jobs.”

The news isn’t sitting well with GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Last night, CNN’s John King asked Santorum about the news and the former Pennsylvania senator said he’s worried that “emotions” might get in the way of the mission:

SANTORUM: I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country. And they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. And they’re a great addition to the — and have been for a long time, to the armed services of our country.

But I do have concerns about women in frontline combat. I think that can be a very compromising situation where — where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that’s probably — you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But it’s — but it’s — I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. And I think that’s probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.

Watch it:

The Pentagon announcement only formalizes military practices that were already taking place, and thus far “emotions,” as Santorum says, haven’t been an issue.

And Santorum also happens to think the same way about gays serving in the military, saying — despite evidence to the contrary — that it “would cause problems for people living in those close quarters.” And he’s been wrong about that prediction too.