Rubio criticizes Obama for not being interventionist enough

[Brett85]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/15/rubio_response_obama_foreign_policy

[itshappening]

I'm not signing up can you paste what countries he wants to invade?

[Brett85]

I'm not signing up can you paste what countries he wants to invade?

I don't have to sign up to read it. The link works for me.

[Darguth]

It's making me try to sign up as well.

[Brett85]

Hmmm. I never signed up but can still read it. I'll just copy and paste the column.



"During Tuesday night's State of the Union address, President Barack Obama had an opportunity to engage in the debate about America's role in the world. Unfortunately, he failed to do so.

He speaks eloquently of America's role as a "beacon to all who seek freedom," but stood idly by as protesters took to the streets in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere, pleading for American support, only to be rebuffed.

He seeks a world without nuclear weapons even as rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran have advanced their nuclear programs on his watch.

The president talks of a "pivot" to Asia, while overseeing massive defense cuts that won't leave us with naval assets to pivot with.

America's free enterprise system has given us the means to protect our people and advance the goals of global liberty, prosperity, and safeguarding human rights. Unfortunately, our weak economy has not only made it difficult for people to find well-paying jobs; it has made it easier to give in to the temptation of disengaging from the world.

The biggest foreign policy problem facing the United States right now is not too much U.S. engagement, but the danger of a world in which we increasingly refuse to lead. There are few global challenges that can be solved without decisive American leadership.

What happens in Syria, where more than 70,000 people are dead after almost two years of fighting, is integral to our interests. The specter of chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and being used against U.S. personnel in the region or against U.S. allies should move us toward action even if the humanitarian toll does not.

The president spoke on Tuesday about ending the war in Afghanistan. But he failed to discuss why Afghanistan's stability is important to America and why we must ensure that this country -- in which we have invested so many American lives and so much support -- does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists who seek to attack us.

Similarly, potential instability in East Asia, caused by China's rise and North Korea's ongoing provocations, will directly impact our economic security and the system of alliances we have constructed in that region. That is why this week I urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold a series of hearings examining these challenges and cosponsored legislation that calls for new sanctions and enhancements to the U.S. military posture in the region in response to North Korea's nuclear test.

A crisis in East Asia or the Middle East will impact the bottom lines of many American households. It's not an exaggeration to say that what happens in faraway places such as Yemen and Mali might be felt by those living in the heartland of America -- and if not today, then very soon."

[Darguth]

Hmmm. I never signed up but can still read it. I'll just copy and paste the column.

Thank you! And yeah, Rubio is terrible. I think I threw up in my mouth a little while reading this. I think he might have been channeling Lindsey Graham.

[itshappening]

Dear lord, is there a country that Rubio doesn't want to invade and "spread liberty" ?

He's worse than Bush, he's already got his list of countries to take over. Unbelievable. He must be stopped and he'll never win a national election talking like this.

[Lucille]

Thank you! And yeah, Rubio is terrible. I think I threw up in my mouth a little while reading this. I think he might have been channeling Lindsey Graham.

I hope he keeps it up!


Since he first arrived in the Senate, Rubio has been going out of his way to associate himself with McCain and Graham to the point that he has become something of a caricature of a Republican interventionist (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/rubios-foolish-gamble-on-a-return-to-bushism/). This could be proof that “the neocons appear to be more firmly in control than ever,” as Heilbrunn says, but it may also be that Rubio is miscalculating and letting his ideology get the better of him.

If he aspires to be a competitive presidential nominee in three years, Rubio is doing things all wrong. That’s fine by me, but it makes me wonder what he could be thinking. A future Republican nominee needs to be able to claim credibly that he does not represent the second coming of George W. Bush. Right now, Rubio seems to working overtime to confirm that this is exactly what he wants to be.
[...]
Republican nominees have been hawkish internationalists to one degree or another for decades, but there doesn’t seem to be much advantage in being perceived as the neoconservative candidate in the primaries. A successful Republican candidate isn’t going to make active enemies of hard-liners and neoconservatives, but he isn’t going to limit himself to being their factional candidate, either. Rubio is already becoming just such a factional candidate. As for a future general election, Bushism is a proven loser, and Rubio is unwisely betting that returning to it will bring him success.

Like all neo-Trots, Rubio's interests are elsewhere (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/06/are-neocons-are-losing-red-faction.html):


One unmentioned factor here is that Rand Paul is an 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.

As I have pointed out in the past, it was always mistaken to conflate neoconservatism with Jews and the Israel First lobby. They are merely the most obvious example of what would be more accurately be described as Neoconnery, (there is nothing conservative about it), and is a concept that is as old as the Roman Republic. Back then, when Rome ruled over the Mediterranean just as America rules over the Atlantic and Pacific, foreign nobles would come to Rome and offer promises of allegiance, troops, and gold in return for a Rome-supported crown. These Friends of Rome were the neocons of their day.

On the one hand, it is encouraging that even the moderate conservatives are beginning to respond to the geostrategic and financial realism of the Red Faction's libertarians. On the other, it is depressing that even bankruptcy isn't enough to slow down those like Rubio, who talks a good game but appears to see America as little more than a tool to serve foreign interests.
[...]
On a stylistic note, full credit to Douthat for referencing John Quincy Adam's 1821 Independence Day address. Read it and mourn for an America that post-Americans like Marco Rubio have never known and would trample upon in their Wilsonian pursuit of "national greatness".

[kathy88]

Dear lord, is there a country that Rubio doesn't want to invade and "spread liberty" ?

He's worse than Bush, he's already got his list of countries to take over. Unbelievable. He must be stopped and he'll never win a national election talking like this.

Beg to differ. He'll win the Republican nomination talking like this. Golden Rule. BOO.

[COpatriot]

Enjoy!

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/15/rubio_response_obama_foreign_policy

[thoughtomator]

Amazing what a JavaScript blocker can do to all those annoying registration-hostage screens.

[cajuncocoa]

Hmmm. I never signed up but can still read it. I'll just copy and paste the column.



"During Tuesday night's State of the Union address, President Barack Obama had an opportunity to engage in the debate about America's role in the world. Unfortunately, he failed to do so.

He speaks eloquently of America's role as a "beacon to all who seek freedom," but stood idly by as protesters took to the streets in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere, pleading for American support, only to be rebuffed.

He seeks a world without nuclear weapons even as rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran have advanced their nuclear programs on his watch.

The president talks of a "pivot" to Asia, while overseeing massive defense cuts that won't leave us with naval assets to pivot with.

America's free enterprise system has given us the means to protect our people and advance the goals of global liberty, prosperity, and safeguarding human rights. Unfortunately, our weak economy has not only made it difficult for people to find well-paying jobs; it has made it easier to give in to the temptation of disengaging from the world.

The biggest foreign policy problem facing the United States right now is not too much U.S. engagement, but the danger of a world in which we increasingly refuse to lead. There are few global challenges that can be solved without decisive American leadership.

What happens in Syria, where more than 70,000 people are dead after almost two years of fighting, is integral to our interests. The specter of chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and being used against U.S. personnel in the region or against U.S. allies should move us toward action even if the humanitarian toll does not.

The president spoke on Tuesday about ending the war in Afghanistan. But he failed to discuss why Afghanistan's stability is important to America and why we must ensure that this country -- in which we have invested so many American lives and so much support -- does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists who seek to attack us.

Similarly, potential instability in East Asia, caused by China's rise and North Korea's ongoing provocations, will directly impact our economic security and the system of alliances we have constructed in that region. That is why this week I urged the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to hold a series of hearings examining these challenges and cosponsored legislation that calls for new sanctions and enhancements to the U.S. military posture in the region in response to North Korea's nuclear test.

A crisis in East Asia or the Middle East will impact the bottom lines of many American households. It's not an exaggeration to say that what happens in faraway places such as Yemen and Mali might be felt by those living in the heartland of America -- and if not today, then very soon."
page 2:

That is why we must ensure that our foreign assistance programs are effective and transparent, with meaningful monitoring and evaluation to ensure that taxpayers' money is being put to good use, and that poverty and lack of opportunity do not create new breeding grounds for terror and hatred.


The president's policies have often, in effect, been to just ignore many of these problems. He seems to believe that if left untouched, they will either go away or be solved by others, without consequences for the American people. Unfortunately, this misguided view is also shared by some in my own party.


Our prosperity depends upon the liberal international order that America has supported since the end of World War II. In addition to such economic and security implications, indifference or inaction undermines America's standing in the world and weakens the moral underpinnings of our republic. This nation and its timeless ideals have for centuries been a beacon of hope for those seeking to transform their own societies or who have sought better lives and greater opportunity for their children by fleeing to our shores.


As modern day activists struggle for their fundamental human rights, it is our duty to speak out on their behalf and, where possible, provide assistance. That is why when we fail to adequately assist the embryonic Libyan government in confronting instability in that country, ignore the plight of persecuted minorities in Egypt and elsewhere, or neglect to stand up to tyrants like Vladimir Putin in Russia, we are in danger of losing part of ourselves.


Of course, the United States can't be involved in every conflict or solve every problem. But our failure to address our fiscal problems at home has unfortunately given our allies -- whether longstanding ones like Israel, or potential future partners in the Middle East and Asia -- cause to question our staying power and commitment to their security and our shared ideals.


There is no question we need to get our fiscal house in order. But we cannot do so by sacrificing our national security and by forcing our men and women in uniform to bear the brunt of paying to fix a debt problem they did not cause. Congressional Republicans have proposed ways to offset the sequester, automatic budget cuts set to go into effect next month. It's time for the president to propose a way forward other than just raising taxes.


Fulfilling the promise of America will only be possible if we embrace, not continue to run away from, the essential role that our country has played in contributing to global stability. This is a role that has aided our own prosperity and an important part of what makes our country exceptional.


That will require assertive leadership both home and abroad. It's time to take up the challenge.

[DaninPA]

"...when we....neglect to stand up to tyrants like Vladimir Putin Marco Rubio in Russia Washington, DC, we are in danger of losing part of ourselves."

FIFY, you warmongering douchebag.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Rubio Vs Hillary... lol. I am failing to see the difference between the two.

[Brett85]

I've never read a foreign policy article this bad. This is literally bad enough to make you throw up. Rubio is 10x worse than even Romney was on foreign policy issues.

[Brett85]

And what exactly is the "liberal international order?"

[supermario21]

This isn't a surprise. I think either Rand or someone else put in an amendment on something calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan and turning over power/security to the locals and Rubio voted against that.

[itshappening]

There's no way Rubio wrote this, it was probably written by Conda (the genius behind Dick Cheney)

[GunnyFreedom]

Rubio Vs Hillary... lol. I am failing to see the difference between the two.

I'm still not convinced that Rubio isn't just Hillary in drag...

[GunnyFreedom]

There's no way Rubio wrote this, it was probably written by Conda (the genius behind Dick Cheney)

LOL after that SOTU response? I wouldn't be surprised at ANYTHING this guy says...

[itshappening]

LOL after that SOTU response? I wouldn't be surprised at ANYTHING this guy says...

No I mean Rubio wouldn't have penned this himself, one of his neocon handlers did. Probably Conda, it sounds just like him:

http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Cesar_Conda_2531EEF8-3E8B-4D7B-9A74-C0CAF28F2CAE.html

That's Rubio's chief of staff. He was trying to defeat Rand in 2010:

-
Recognizing the threat [of Rand Paul], a well-connected former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convened a conference call last week between Grayson and a group of leading national security conservatives to sound the alarm about Paul.

“On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us,” Cesar Conda wrote in an e-mail to figures such as Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor and Marc Thiessen.
-

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/neocons-target-rand-paul/
-

These people never go away, they just re-invent themselves and pop up again.

[GunnyFreedom]

No I mean Rubio wouldn't have penned this himself, one of his neocon handlers did. Probably Conda, it sounds just like him:

http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Cesar_Conda_2531EEF8-3E8B-4D7B-9A74-C0CAF28F2CAE.html

That's Rubio's chief of staff. He was trying to defeat Rand in 2010:

-
Recognizing the threat [of Rand Paul], a well-connected former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney convened a conference call last week between Grayson and a group of leading national security conservatives to sound the alarm about Paul.

“On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us,” Cesar Conda wrote in an e-mail to figures such as Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor and Marc Thiessen.
-

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/neocons-target-rand-paul/
-

These people never go away, they just re-invent themselves and pop up again.

OK, I have no doubt that someone else operates this guy's mouth while someone else projects their voice in his direction. At first it sounded like you were saying Rubio probably didn't agree with the article.

[itshappening]

OK, I have no doubt that someone else operates this guy's mouth while someone else projects their voice in his direction. At first it sounded like you were saying Rubio probably didn't agree with the article.

Rubio - through Conda - has an array of neocon writers at his disposal. They're the ones who are behind his speeches and articles. It would not surprise me if Billy Kristol himself is penning it. Rubio doesn't write the stuff himself but he's their guy and is just an actor .

Look at the people on Conda's email list when he warned them about Rand:

Liz Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dan Senor and Marc Thiessen.

That's Team Rubio right there and they're behind his moves, speeches, articles and policies.