Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) disagreed with Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) push to freeze foreign aid to countries that don’t protect U.S. embassies, saying now is not the time to “abandon being smart” in the region.
“Disengaging from the region is not the solution,” Rubio said in a floor speech today. “I don’t have a magic solution, but… we should expect more.”
Paul has tied Pakistan’s refusal to release a doctor who helped the U.S. track Osama bin Laden and the attack on and protests at U.S. installations together as reason to cut off aid to countries like Libya and Egypt until American interests are protected.
“They’re not just offended about a YouTube video,” Rubio said. “They’re offended that women serve in the U.S. Senate. They’re offended that women drive. They’re offended that little girls get to go to school. In some of these countries, converting to Christianity is punishable by death. Our whole culture is offensive to them, not just a YouTube video.”
“I believe, I don’t believe, I know, that there are millions of people in the Muslim world that do not want this future, but they are afraid to speak up. They are intimidated from speaking up because of these radical forces that need to be defeated.”
Rubio said it’s imperative to support those who want a better future, such as the Green Revolution in Iran.
“It’s a very clear choice: either they win, or we win. And the sooner we accept that, the better off we’re going to be. We have to accept that, on the one hand, there are millions of people who want a new, better future. We will side with them. We will support their aspirations. We will work with their hopes for civilian leadership, peace and economic prosperity. But for those who are radical Islamists, whose view is that they want to conquer and bring under their control everyone who is not who they are, we have to defeat them,” the senator said.
He said the fledgling Libyan government is trying to work with the U.S., and shouldn’t be let down.
“I hope Senator Paul and those who support his amendment will consider, at a minimum, restructuring that amendment to recognize that there is a difference between Libya and Egypt, and that we should take different approaches in that regard. We have a right to be outraged,” Rubio said. “We have a right to be angry. But we should never abandon being smart.”
So, giving money to people attacking you = smart, got that!
Right on Ben: the assumption that Rubio wants to plant is that Paul’s proposal was not thought out nor smart. He hasn’t proved that it isn’t smart, and has a lot of evidence AGAINST HIS position. AFAICT, the Middle east runs on graft, so threatening to turn off the spigot would have as great an effect on the people there as the threat of term limits and tax form disclosures would to congress critters.
I just want our money’s worth. And if we’re taking it in the panties I want our money back. How simple is that, Marco?
We got our money’s worth out of Egypt when Mubarak was dictator. Sure, we had to keep an eye on it and demand something in return for our money, but frankly now Egypt is, well … a gyp (LOL).
And why is the choice between shovel loads of cash going to mutts or nothing going to mutts. What’s wrong with the fleet of B52s and the stockpile of bunker buster bombs we never seem to get our investment out of? Fire ‘em up and give the mutts a choice: either our money or our bombs.
as his running mate.
Let’s not forget that Marco Rubio, along with Boehner and other GOP idiots, bashed Michelle Bachmann’s serious report on Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood connection.
So now, these latest remarks make me wonder whether he’s just another guy on the MB or Saudi dole.
Cut the jizya we are paying to our enemies to zero and do it NOW…
For the want of some spine, the republic fell.
RUBIO is absolutely correct. There is no gigantic Ummah of Muslims who are waiting just to overthrow the United States. FIRST, buying into that actually buys INTO Islamist and, particularly, AQ ideology and reason to war. In fact, dividing the argument and population into West v. ISLAM. That is not our war. SIMPLISTIC slogans make for simplistic strategies which do not win a global insurgency and is much more likely to create conditions for outright World War between not just Islam v West but actual world powers including China and Russia. Thank you, no.
Second, There are numerous divisions within the Middle East. These include nationalist, religious, ethnic and political. Imagining one definition for an entire area of millions and trying to apply one solution is, in fact, writing off real, potential allies in area & setting us up for failure. SEE World War comment above.
Third, Rubio is actually re-stating #US bi-partisan approved policy set out under president Bush in a National Security strategic document. The same formal document that established the Truman Doctrine for confronting Communism & USSR in Cold War.
THIS policy stated that the United States believes that the advent of extremist, totalitarian ideology is created by and in the boiling cauldron of suppression in the ME where the only accepted expression of discontent was through religious ideology. That it is our policy, regardless of which party is in power, to promote and assist in establishing democratic governments that gave people a voice in their government, to voice their grievances and, equallly important, anti-thetical to the tyrannical ideology of Salafi-Wahhabi that opposes democracy as blasphemy and idolotry.
President Bush, in laying out this strategy, described the effect as “domino” borrowing from European Cold War strategy. By policy, this would even effect our nominal allies. President Bush not only stated this but attempted to implement this policy through pressure on our allies.
The policy, in fact, is meant to even give Islamists the ability to participate in and even have power in governments as the idea was that government, particularly democratic, would force moderation and compromise on these organizations. Further, as non-state actors, the Islamists had few assets or power that could be points of pressure. As state actors in government, they have everything to lose including, most importantly, the reputation of their ideology.
The only question between Democrats and Republicans was the use of soft and hard power to accomplish this policy.
IN regards to what countries fell and the speed, there is an egotistical idea that the US could have prevented or slowed these events without resorting to hard power or being party to violent suppression that would provide a wider opening for AQ adherant surge into these arenas.
ON Paul’s suggestion, it is reactionary and, as Rubio suggests, intemperate disengagement that may gain some satisfaction in the short run that may actually lead to more and wider war. When in fact it is at this time we need to engage the most, support the more liberal minded and insure that we do get the most bang for our buck over the long run With the least cost.