-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) really thinks George W. Bush was a fantastic president. In his major foreign policy address to the Brookings Institution, the possible Mitt Romney running mate puts himself strongly on the side of first-term Bush, Joe Lieberman, and the broader activist tradition. He also criticizes those who hold contrary views in his own party.
This is a battle that has been brewing for some time. I’ve written about the Tea Party foreign split between Rubio and Rand Paul, which has manifest itself in the senators’ disagreement over Georgia’s role in NATO, among other issues.
UPDATE: Rand Paul delivered a foreign policy address at Johns Hopkins University last year.
View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/25/marco-rubios-foreign-policy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
C Bowen | 4.25.12 @ 12:41PM
He chose the liberal Brookings Institute for this address, and none other than an introduction from Joe Lieberaman--another hyper-Leftist.
He even finished the quote from the disgraced Tony Blair, who has been trying to disown his support for the disastrous and likely criminal Iraq invasion.
Coupled with Rubio's support of Eric Holder getting involved in finding justice for Trayvon, what is left of serious conservatives should have nothing but derision for this hippie for fear Romney might actually consider him for VP.
JmsA| 4.25.12 @ 1:33PM
I'm more a conservative that you'll ever be, and I'll vote for Romney and anyone he chooses for VP over Obama any day of the week. Wish I could say the same for you, but I can't. So either stay home, no doubt like you did last election, or better yet, vote for Obama. You'll be a lot happier.
C Bowen| 4.25.12 @ 1:53PM
What is with these "conservatives" who talk about their statistically meaningless vote? Why take time out of your day to tell me about your god, democracy?
Trust me, when Rubio proposes his Amnesty Plan, and knowing the Stupid Party, they will have him do it during the Fall Session after they give him or don't give him the VP slot, the Republicans and Romney will have lost.
Jack in Wi.| 4.25.12 @ 2:33PM
Romney and Rubio are an unelectable ticket to disaster.
JmsA| 4.25.12 @ 3:08PM
I was a pro-American, conservative in a land where being so (not just typing divisive thoughts) had extremely serious consequences. In that same land, I saw many a real American hippie (with Marco Rubio nowhere in sight, by the way) marching hand in hand with communists, shouting anti-American slogans and praise for the revolution. You, and many others here seem to gazing much too much into the crystal ball to truly envision what's coming should Obama and democrats retain full control of the government, again. I suspect you're angling for a self-fulfilling prophecy: Romney's defeat, dire consequences be damned. I want to stem the socialist tide, and if Romney is the one with a chance to do it, so be it. I will support him, and I could give a rat's ass if you or anyone else doesn't, other than for, of course, your staying home and not voting to get Obama out of the White House. Should such come to pass, you will not do anything more than confirm you're anything but a conservative.
I believe that anyone opposing Obama and democrat's socialist agenda, is a conservative. Democracy is not my God; liberty is. I lost it once and regained in this great land, and I'll be dammed to sit and just take the divisive nonsense you spew. In case you haven't figured out, it's about winning and preserving liberty. Nothing else matters.
"After seeing it rise, quake, sleep, prostitute itself, make mistakes, be abused, sold and corrupted; after seeing the voters turn into animals, the voting booths besieged, the ballot boxes overturned, the results falsified, the highest offices stolen, one still must acknowledge, because it is true, that the vote is an awesome, invincible and solemn weapon; the vote is the most effective and merciful instrument that man has devised to manage his affairs." - Jose Marti
No one's vote is statistically worthless.
C Bowen | 4.25.12 @ 4:21PM
I don't understand your post at all.
We should imbibe in happy talk and lose so we can tell everyone how beautiful we were in defeat?
That is not tragic, that is losing.
And yes, your vote is statistically worthless--read the Stratfor e-mails on ballot stuffing in Ohio in Philadelphia that the put-up job McCain refused to pursue.
JmsA| 4.25.12 @ 4:39PM
You're the defeatist, not I. I stand by everything I wrote, irrespective of your understanding it or not--which frankly, doesn't surprise me. Your's is a divisive and demoralizing message. Stay home and don't vote; you will probably do less damage that way. All the best.
Rantly McTirade| 4.25.12 @ 4:41PM
You were '...in a land...'? You mean you were a foreigner by birth. You're not a wetbacker like
the cowardly parents of the chickenhawk blowhard
Rubio, who ran away from Castro rather than suck it up and fight in their own land, are you? If so, get out and make something of the land of your birth-and actually earn some respect.In any case, spare the delusional drivel about how one side of a dime is so different from the other.
JmsA| 4.25.12 @ 5:31PM
That's right, I'm a foreigner by birth (Cuba), and a naturalized American or U.S. Citizen, if you prefer. And I'm damm proud of it. I travelled to the U.S. legally, with a passport and an entry visa (refugee parolee), after waiting, in transit, for nearly three years in Spain, and prior to that, eleven years in Cuba, where I was ostracized, spat upon, and beaten up, just for wishing to live in freedom. I thank you for once again exposing all to your vitriolic and hateful ignorance. Cubans fought and died by the thousands against the communists in Cuba, with more often than not just shotguns and the like,from 1959 to 1966, when finally overwhelmed by tens of thousands of Castroite troops, equipped and trained by the soviets and eastern europeans. These same Cubans fought by themselves without any assistance from anyone, specifically the CIA, who withdrew all support following the Bay of Pigs (remember that one), per the Kennedy-Kruschev accord. So, please, don't mind me when I tell you, you're an ignorant f**k. Ultimately, though, you're an American, and as such, you're entitled to express your opinions, no matter how ignorant and base they may be. You don't have to thank me, I'm more than happy to do it for you. If Romney picks Rubio, I'll vote for them. If he doesn't, I'll vote for him still. !Viva los Estados Unidos de America! !Viva Cuba Libre! Let me know if you need anything else, ok?
Occam's Tool| 4.25.12 @ 8:07PM
JmsA: Bless you for your quest for freedom, and the willingness to do it the right way. (Like my babies did it.)
And happy 64th Birthday, Israel!
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.26.12 @ 9:17AM
Three cheers for you, free man, proud US citizen, Cuban emigre. Even if I disagree with you on Cuba and interventionism.
somnolence| 4.25.12 @ 2:30PM
I think Bush was great too, and he proved he had something by winning reelection. That doesn't mean I agree with a lot of his legislative meanderings, excessive, profligate spending, and misplaced priorities. I deplore the Patriot Act and the Medicare prescription drugs farce that he signed into law, not to mention the bail-outs. But compared to Gore, Kerry, or Obama he looks better and better every day, as it took him eight years to run up deficit spending on a comparative curve to Obama's three and a half years. I like Rand Paul, but I don't like TEPID approaches to the Muslim Brotherhood and Mexican or Colombian druglords, and I definitely think Rubio is stronger in that area. So I continue to believe that Rubio, Martinez, West, or Portman would be the top V.P. choices.
Jack in Wi.| 4.25.12 @ 4:02PM
The Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act. The Department of Homeland Security. The TSA. Drones flying all over the world looking for people to kill, including the USA. Bailouts for banksters, gangsters, and grifters. Whats not to like about the Bush-Romney-Rubio Republican party?
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.25.12 @ 2:33PM
Not that I'm fond of Rubio's particular foreign policy, but this blogpost by Jim Antle is deeply misleading.
When did Rubio say that he thinks George W. Bush was a "fantastic President" or that he "puts himself strongly on the side of the first Bush term"? Where is the evidence that he supports the "broader activist tradition" and what does Antle mean by that? (I guess that by that term he means anyone who does not support an isolationist foreign policy.)
The only thing that Antle is right about is that there is indeed a battle going on in the GOP between the vast majority of Republicans - who understand that America needs a strong defense, that we do not live in the world of 1789 or 1940, and that the US has to be engaged in the world (although there have to be defined limits on military interventions abroad) - and a small but loud minority, led by 9/11 truther Ron "Blame America First" Paul, which blames America for all of the world's problems, sees or hears no evil other than the US, and wants the US to completely withdraw itself from world affairs and refrain from exercising any influence on the outside world. They also support deep defense cuts and hope that the crocodile won't come to eat them. They support such policy for ideological, not practical, reasons. Their latest convert is Jim DeMint, who is either their useful idiot or a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Of course, Antle is on the side of that small, but vocal minority, so it's not surprising that he slants AmSpec's coverage of it in that tiny minority's favor.
W. James Antle III | 4.25.12 @ 2:50PM
Rubio described Bush as fantastic here:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....president/
Watch the video.
As for the speech, I link to the transcript. People can come to their own conclusions. I think people would be hard pressed not to see similarities between his approach and the Bush Doctrine.
Here is one of Rubio's opening remarks:
"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. That was certainly the hallmark of the foreign policy of President Reagan, and both President Bush’s. But when I arrived in the Senate last year I found that some of the traditional sides in the foreign policy debate had shifted."
The references to Scoop Jackson, Kennedy and Truman, etc. don't come from nowhere. They come from a broader foreign policy tradition.
Finally, I'd be interested in how one would characterize this statement from Rubio's speech: "For while there are few global problems we can solve by ourselves, there are virtually no global problems that can be solved without us."
Jack in Wi.| 4.25.12 @ 3:56PM
Who wrote his speech Podhoretz and Perle? No to Romney and his clone Rubio. Lets have a revolt at the convention if not before. No more endless wars for Israel.
C Bowen | 4.25.12 @ 4:25PM
Jack;
Madeline Albright could have written it--Rubio's reference to Foreign Policy by Facebook Likes--Kony 2012 was insane.
Marco2| 4.25.12 @ 5:05PM
Please let everyone know where and when your "revolt" is going to take place. BTW, don't wear your tinfoil hats, it's a dead giveaway.
Rantly McTirade| 4.25.12 @ 4:43PM
You're assuming there are in fact 'global problems', then?
Just like blowhard hacks like Rubio want you to.
JmsA| 4.25.12 @ 5:46PM
"Finally, I'd be interested in how one would characterize this statement from Rubio's speech: "For while there are few global problems we can solve by ourselves, there are virtually no global problems that can be solved without us."
It sounds like an eloquently put, if not ultimately too idealistic vision of American exceptionalism in a largely dysfunctional world.
Clint| 4.25.12 @ 6:14PM
Ronald Reagan,
“Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines’ safety that it should have.
“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.26.12 @ 9:18AM
And that event sparked the formulation of the Weinberger Doctrine, which I believe should be reinstated.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 4.26.12 @ 9:16AM
"Rubio described Bush as fantastic here:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201.....president/
Watch the video."
That is true, but where did he say so in the BI speech?
Regarding the speech yourself, you wrote that:
"People can come to their own conclusions. I think people would be hard pressed not to see similarities between his approach and the Bush Doctrine."
People are entitled to their opinions and conclusions, but not their own facts. Yes, there are some similarities between the Bush Doctrine (its first incarnation, that is - there were four incarnations and the first one was defined by Charles Krauthammer, as the Wikipedia article on the subject notes), but that doesn't mean that Rubio is a hyperinterventionist like Bush.
The first Rubio quote you cite here is a general one; it merely proposes a general definition of conservatism, or a general principle for this philosophy. It merely says that American conservatism calls (or at least, used to call) for a "robust and muscular foreign policy" (although what exactly that means, other than maintaining a strong military, is debatable), and this was the hallmark of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy.
One can have a strong, muscular foreign policy without intervening frequently (or seldom at all) abroad. A country must have a strong military and make it clear it intends to defend itself and its allies with lethal force; such strength and clarity about intentions should be enough to fend off almost all aggressors (except the most irrational ones).
Ronald Reagan (as even Ron Paul's official blogger Jack Hunter admits) seldom intervened militarily abroad: in Lebanon (1983), Libya (1986, after the West Berlin nightclub bomb attack), and in January 1989 over Libya again. Oh, and he used F-14s to stop the plane carrying the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer. Other than that, he did not send US troops into combat. Why? Because he didn't need to - he rebuilt the military after disastrous defense cuts, and that was enough to fend off most aggressors. Everyone would admit that he conducted "a robust and muscular foreign policy".
Similarly, Pres. Bush I intervened only in Panama, the Gulf, and (reluctantly) in Somalia in 1992. But as soon as the Iraqis were expelled from Kuwait in 1991, Bush declared the mission over and brought the troops back home - and let the Iraqis and the Turks quell the Kurdish uprising of 1991. That's some realpolitik. And other Somalia, Bush I intervened ONLY when American interest were at stake.
So one can conduct a robust and muscular foreign policy while seldom intervening militarily abroad. As President Ronald Reagan said, a very strong military would stand a good chance of never having to fight, because no one would dare to challenge it.
As for Scoop Jackson, he supported the same policy as Reagan - peace through strength. Kennedy deterred the Soviets and won the Cuban Missile Crisis without firing a shot. Truman did not intervene militarily abroad (in Korea, in 1950) until he had no choice. When NK invaded the South in 1950, the US had no choice but to either let this aggression be successful or repel the aggressors. Before that, President Truman always chose means short of war to resolve international crisis - and usually succeeded.
But none of these successes would've been achieved if America retrenched after 1945 like Sen. Taft advocated and like pseudoconservative RINO Ron Paul advocates today.
As for Rubio's statement that
"For while there are few global problems we can solve by ourselves, there are virtually no global problems that can be solved without us."
this is a general truism that no sane person would deny. How many global problems (e.g. the world economic crisis, the genocide in Darfur, the rise of a neo-KGBist Russia and an aggressive, expansionist China, the Middle Eastern peace process, etc.) can be solved without America? None. These problems can be solved only IF and WHEN America chooses to address them.
Of course, a military intervention is not always the solution to these problems and should never be the first choice. Also, the US cannot be engaged everywhere and cannot handle everything. No country can do that. So US policymakers must choose wisely where, when, and how the US should involve itself.
I shall conclude by saying that Rubio might actually be exactly as interventionist as you portray him to be, and far more interventionist than I can stomach (not to mention Ron Paul and his supporters). But his speech, and the quotes you've pasted here, prove nothing. Overinterpretation can make even Mother Theresa into the new incarnation of Adolph Hitler.
C Bowen | 4.25.12 @ 7:52PM
The only 9/11 Truthers of any historical importance were the lunatics and traitors in the Bush Administration who launched a propaganda campaign to connect Saddam to 9/11.
Truthers indeed-- talking about Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Rumsfeld who oversaw the project.
somnolence| 4.25.12 @ 2:57PM
I concur with both of those statements by Rubio. He IS living in the real world, while many others want to live somewhere that actually NEVER WAS, and never could be; especially now. Thank God for lucid statesmen like Rubio.
somnolence| 4.25.12 @ 2:59PM
"Unelectable", huh? Rubio in debate against stuttering, confused Joe Biden? Keep on thinking unelectable, as I suppose anyone can believe anything if they repeat it over and over.
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 4.25.12 @ 3:34PM
Marco Rubio is one of the many reason's that the Tea Party is more of the same neo-conservative G.O.P. nonsense just with a different wrapping paper. Bringing Georgia into NATO would be insanity. America needs to stay out of Russia's near abroad and Ron and Rand Paul understand this very well. Unless the Americans want a modern day repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis they should leave Russia alone.
Rantly McTirade| 4.25.12 @ 4:47PM
The original tea Party got co-opted by professional Republican hacks and leeches , of which Rubio is a great example. He's a Republican Obozo, good a superficial-and stupid-rants, no useful skills and a hidden background-another intel groomed stooge?
JmsA| 4.25.12 @ 4:51PM
You, of all people, should be bringing up the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Russians were the ones that put the missiles there, after swallowing up all of Central Europe. I'm all for thwarting Russia's expansionist aims. Why do think Putin's in charge? They will never change.
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 4.25.12 @ 6:31PM
Russia has no expansionist aims it just wants America and Western Europe to stay out of its backyard. I recall the Monroe Doctrine did something similiar for the United States. It is the United States that has been an aggressor in the world with interventions in Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, drone strikes in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan and the NATO bombing and special ops missions in Libya to overthrow Ghaddafi. In that time Russia has only been involved fighting rebels in its own Southern Caucusus and responding militarily to Saakashvilli's attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia. America is the aggressor not Russia and the ABM treaty with Poland, Romania, Czech Republic and Turkey is just more of the same US aggression towards Russia.
Occam's Tool| 4.25.12 @ 8:11PM
Dmitry: you are full of what Norman Mailer would have referred to as shit. The desire to expand has been a Tsarist trait going back way back. And it continues, despite the fact that modern Russia is an ecological and demographic nightmare of the first order, producing mutant homonculi like, oh say, you, for instance. Male life expectancy under 60 years at birth.
Dmitry Aleksandrovich| 4.25.12 @ 10:52PM
The likes of you Occam were probably the reason there were pogroms in Russia. There is no doubt in my mind that you would have been amongst the ranks of the traitorous Jews who championed the Bolshevik Revolution. I am not afraid to say what you are.You hide behind the star of David and most Americans and Western Europeans are afraid to confront you, but I am not. I speak the truth and I will expose your bullshit.
JmsA| 4.25.12 @ 4:56PM
Oh Yeah! They were co-0pted and kicked democrat tail. I'll take it any day over your sophomoric rants.
Occam's Tool| 4.25.12 @ 8:10PM
JmsA: I find that WeaselZippers is a much better website than AmSpec. Despite the fact that Ken, Stuart Koehl, Dr. Right, and some other worthies blog here, Zip actually runs his site much better.