(Image source: CNN)

BY CHRISTINA HARTMAN

Some deep policy differences between the GOP presidential candidates.

And it only took... ohhhh, ELEVEN debates to really hash them out.

KABC: “There were significant disagreements...”

MSNBC: “We are seeing a divide here...”

KTVU: “They are at odds in almost everything.”

At the CNN National Security debate in Washington, the candidates highlighted their differences. On the Patriot Act for example...

PAUL: “You never have to give up liberty for security.” …
GINGRICH: “I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we’re gonna stop you.”

And on racial profiling...

BLITZER: “Who would be profiled?” …
SANTORUM: “Obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at.” …
PAUL: “Terrorism is a tactic; it isn’t a person. It isn’t a people.”

And on the war in Afghanistan...

ROMNEY: “I stand with the commanders in this regard... This is not the time for America to cut and run.” …
HUNTSMAN: “Commander-in-chief. Of course you’re gonna listen to the generals. But I also remember when people listened to the generals in 1967 and we heard a certain course of action in Southeast Asia that didn’t serve our interests very well.”

There was also a much-publicized kerfuffle between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney over the deportation of undocumented immigrants -- which we covered in earlier analysis. Politico’s Ben Smith writes this shows on national security -- the Republican Party really is a big tent.

“This isn't the narcissism of small differences. ... The 2008 Democratic debates, by contrast, were all about candidates arguing about tiny differences in present policy. … The Republican Party ... perhaps won't bind its president as tightly to any particular course of action.”

So, a real divide over Iran, troop withdrawal, foreign aid and immigration. Hawks versus doves. But The Washington Post’s Dan Balz and Amy Gardner conclude -- on the whole -- the party also offers a pretty big departure from the current administration.

“Despite the differences that emerged, the majority of the candidates offered a generally more hawkish view of the world than that enunciated by the Obama administration.”

But in an opinion piece for Fox News, Judith Miller suggests that’s not necessarily true, especially of the two front-runners.

“...neither Romney nor Gingrich seemed hungry for another military confrontation, not even to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Both endorsed tougher sanctions against Teheran; military action as an option should be kept on the table, but a last resort. In this, they may have more in common with the president whose policies they criticize than either of them might like to acknowledge.”