PDA

View Full Version : Rubio's speech - all you expected! Speaks out against non-interventionist trend in GOP




Valli6
04-25-2012, 01:37 PM
Horrid! HORRID!

In a wide-ranging foreign policy address Wednesday, freshman Florida Sen. Marco Rubio passionately countered what he perceives as the current non-interventionist drift in American foreign policy, including among Republicans.

“I am always cautious about generalizations but until very recently, the general perception was that American conservatism believed in a robust and muscular foreign policy,” Rubio, who is considered a prime candidate to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential choice, said in a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

“But when I arrived in the Senate last year I found that some of the traditional sides in the foreign policy debate had shifted … I recently joked that today, in the U.S. Senate, on foreign policy, if you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left.”

Echoing a recent book by conservative foreign policy scholar and Mitt Romney adviser Robert Kagan, Rubio asked for people to imagine what the world would look like today if America had not been robustly engaged in international affairs after World War II.

“Could we say with certainty that it would look anything like America’s vision of an increasingly freer and more open international system, where catastrophic conflicts between great powers were avoided, democracy and free market capitalism flourished, where prosperity spread wider and wider and billions of people emerged from poverty?,” he asked.

“They were achieved because the United States had the vision, the will and means to do the hard work of bringing it into existence and then maintaining it.
 
We had the will and means to defend its norms and institutions and the security of our partners, face down its challengers, assist other peoples in attaining their liberty, keep its trade routes open, and support the expansion of free market capitalism that accelerated the growth of the global economy.”

Rubio also attacked the Obama administration’s foreign policy of “leading from behind,” though without using those words.
“So yes, global problems do require international coalitions. On that point this administration is correct,” he said.

“But effective international coalitions don’t form themselves. They need to be instigated and led, and more often than not, they can only be instigated and led by us. And that is what this administration doesn’t understand. Yes, there are more countries able and willing to join efforts to meet the global challenges of our time. But experience has proven that American leadership is almost always indispensible to their success...”
continued: hxxp://dailycaller. com/2012/04/25/possible-vp-nominee-marco-rubio-speaks-out-against-non-interventionist-trend-in-gop-america-foreign-policy/

eew! There's more. Here's the video. "Joe Liberman is a statesman." :eek: eew! eew!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hb31bEa0mg

READ FULL TEXT:
hxxp://xxx.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/4/senator-rubio-delivers-remarks-at-the-brookings-institution

Pisces
04-25-2012, 01:51 PM
Here's Michael Dougherty's take on the speech: http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-golden-boy-gives-a-speech-calling-for-war-with-almost-everyone-2012-4?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=politics


Just consider this one paragraph:

I always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of [our] lives is directly impacted by global events. The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Our cost of living, the safety of our food , and the value of the things we invent, make and sell are just a few examples of everyday aspects of our lives that are direcly related to events abroad and make it impossible for us to focus only on our issues here are home.

This is a prescription for endless war.

It is also patently untrue.

Not even the Soviets could bring peace to all the small hamlets of Afghanistan, and we haven't been able to do it either, despite being vastly more sophisticated, wealthier, and spending much longer in that nation. If our security depends on the safety of villages in Pakistan, a basket-case nation in Asia that has received an enormous amount of American aid and protection since World War II, we can never consider ourselves safe.

BUSHLIED
04-25-2012, 01:57 PM
Rubio must be stopped...there must be a major effort to run a challenger against him! He's a hawk, we can't allow him to become entrenched!

Lucille
04-25-2012, 02:02 PM
Rubio’s Warped Understanding of International Engagement (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2012/04/25/rubios-warped-understanding-of-international-engagement/)


This is all rather insulting. The first part is insulting to non-interventionists and many internationalists alike. International engagement cannot be reduced to armed ideological crusading, and refusing to make everyone else’s conflicts our own is not a refusal to engage with the rest of the world. Throughout the speech, however, Rubio uses “engagement” as a euphemism for using force or otherwise interfering in other nations’ affairs. Not going abroad in search of monsters to destroy doesn’t require complete disengagement from the world. On the contrary, the foreign policy tradition with which this view is associated takes for granted that the U.S. can and should maintain good relations and engage in commerce with all nations if possible. Rubio actually says at one point, “I always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business.” No, it isn’t! It is insufferably arrogant and irresponsible to assume that this is true.
[...]
Update: Michael Brendan Dougherty marvels at how recent foreign policy debacles have made no impression on Rubio:


Rubio’s speech is a remarkable political document. It shows that some Senators have learned nothing from the past decade.

I think Vox (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-neocons-are-losing-red-faction.html) has that globalist goon's number:



Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy. In the Senate, he’s constantly pressed for a more hawkish line against the Mideast’s bad actors. His maiden Senate speech was a paean to national greatness, whose peroration invoked John F. Kennedy and insisted that America remain the “watchman on the wall of world freedom.”

One unmentioned factor here is that Rand Paul is a native American. Marco Rubio is not. He may have grown up in the United States, but he is a Cuban raised in a community that has been agitating for the USA to overthrow the Castro regime for decades. So, it should come as little surprise that Rubio is so content to ignore the American national interest in favor of the latest neocon cause du jour. Because neocons, regardless of their background, have limited allegiance to the national interest, they see the nation primarily as a means rather than an end.

I have to wonder how many election cycles have to pass before we can finally be rid of those neo-trots, and they go back to the Democrat Party from whence they came, because it's obvious that they will never learn.

Badger Paul
04-25-2012, 02:08 PM
It should be made clear he's unacceptable as a VP nominee.

The Goat
04-25-2012, 02:14 PM
So whats the difference between him and Lyndsey Graham or John McCain for that matter?

Valli6
04-25-2012, 02:17 PM
In the video, the sound is cut out at 4:42 till 4:54 - after he says
"and support the expan….(silence)… and we did it without coveting other country's territories or seizing their assets"
Expansion of what? Anyone read lips?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hb31bEa0mg

Eh. From the full text @ hxxp://xxx.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2012/4/senator-rubio-delivers-remarks-at-the-brookings-institution

and support the expansion of free market capitalism that accelerated the growth of the global economy.
another one - missing audio at 6:45 to 6:51:

"Second, the security of our ally, the strongest and most...(silence)...and shared values and affection would improve as well."
It's actually

...Second, the security of our ally, the strongest and most enduring democracy in the region, Israel, with whom we are bound by the strongest ties of mutual interest and shared values and affection would improve as well.

ctiger2
04-25-2012, 02:18 PM
So whats the difference between him and Lyndsey Graham or John McCain for that matter?

Nothing, they're all part of the pro-war corporate fascist neocon/zionist regime just like McCain, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, Palin, Obama, etc.

aclove
04-25-2012, 02:20 PM
Mark my words, 2016 will come down to Rand vs. Rubio. Guaranteed.

James Madison
04-25-2012, 02:32 PM
Another chickenshit politician with no military experience wanting to send me off to die.

odamn
04-25-2012, 02:39 PM
Mark my words, 2016 will come down to Rand vs. Rubio. Guaranteed.
There is no 2016 for America. It will be the NAU by then ...

RonPaulFanInGA
04-25-2012, 02:54 PM
This is who the "Paul should never be Romney's Vice President" crowd essentially wants as the nation's #2 instead.

RonPaulFanInGA
04-25-2012, 02:56 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/25/video-marco-rubio-makes-the-case-for-interventionism/

Valli6
04-25-2012, 03:17 PM
We need to move forward to bring both Canada and Mexico into the Trans-Pacific Partnership

It's a "Trans-Pacific Partnership" now, instead of "North American Union".
Then he says we can all build a "strong energy partnership" with parts of South America, once Hugo Chavez is gone.

He actually wants to increase foreign aid.

In every region of the world, we should always search for ways to use U.S. aid and humanitarian assistance to strengthen our influence, the effectiveness of our leadership and the service of our interests and ideals.

AngryCanadian
04-25-2012, 03:57 PM
So whats the difference between him and Lyndsey Graham or John McCain for that matter?
There is none thats why CNN wants him to run in 2016 along side with Jeb Bush.