Marco Rubio: "I always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business."


Tea Party Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is giving a speech today at the Brookings Institution about the need for "forceful" American policy. Some excerpts from that speech:

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.

On the one hand, I found liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans working together to advocate our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and staying out of Libya. On the other hand I found myself partnering with Democrats like Bob Menendez and Bob Casey on a more forceful foreign policy. In fact, resolutions that I co-authored with Senator Casey condemning Assad and with Senator Menendez condemning fraudulent elections in Nicaragua where held up by Republicans. 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.

And I found this sentiment not just in the Senate, but back at home as well.  For example, many loyal supporters back home were highly critical of my decision to call for a more active U.S. role in Libya.

The easiest thing for me to do here today is give a speech on my disagreement with this administration on foreign policy. I have many.

But I wanted to begin by addressing another trend in our body politic. One that increasingly says it is time to focus less on the world and more on ourselves.

I always begin by reminding people of how good a strong and engaged America has been for the world. In making that argument, I have recently begun to rely heavily on Brookings fellow, Bob Kagan's timely book, The World America Made.

Bob begins his book with a useful exercise: asking readers to imagine what kind of world order might have existed from the end of World War II until the present absent American leadership. 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?

Would it have occurred if, after the war, we had minded our own business, and left the world to sort out its affairs without our leadership?

So this is the world America made, but what is the role for America now? Is now finally the time for us to mind our own business? Is now the time for us to allow others to lead? Is now the time for us to play the role of equal partner?

I always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of 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.

The next question I am asked is why doesn't someone else lead for a change? Why do we always have to be taking care of all the problems in the world? Isn't it time for someone else to step up?

I always begin my answer to that question with a question of my own.  If we start doing less, who will start doing more? For example, would a world order where China, at least as we know it right now, was the leading power be as benignly disposed to the political and economic aspirations of other nations as we are?

So yes, global problems do require international coalitions. On that point this administration is correct. 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.

For example, we can't always rely on the UN Security Council to achieve consensus on major threats to international peace and security. As we've seen on North Korea, Syria and Iran, China and Russia simply will not join that consensus when they don't perceive the problem as a threat to their narrow national interests. Instead they exercise their veto or the threat of their veto to thwart effective and timely responses. The Security Council remains a valuable forum, but not an indispensable one. We can't walk away from a problem because some members of the Security Council refuse to act.

In those instances, where the veto power of either China or Russia impede the world's ability to deal with a significant threat, the U.S. will have to organize and lead coalitions with or without a Security Council resolution.

And this concept is neither novel nor partisan. President Clinton acted exactly in this way in Kosovo with the support of congressional leaders like Senator Lieberman.

Everywhere we look, we are presented with opportunities for American leadership to help shape a better world in this new century. We have to view these opportunities within the context of the fact that in every region of the world, other countries look apprehensively on the growing influence of newly emerging powers in their midst, and look to the U.S. to counterbalance them.

This has been your daily reminder that the differences between Democrats and Republicans are largely semantic.

NEXT: Bird Brains Target Bird Baths in New York City

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bah!

  2. Oh, goody, more Pax Americana. Be nice if we could even afford it.

    1. but can we NOT affort it?

      1. You’re right o3, the bomber streams that daily take off from Vietnam to attack American shipping does imply that we can’t.

        1. And don’t forget Grenada. If we had not invaded Grenada then they would have ruled the world and we would all be forced to speak Grenadian.

          1. We saved Christmas with that invasion, because Grenada is an important source of nutmeg.

          2. Grenadine, DLF.

              1. Sorry, you’re right: “Grenadine, DJF.”

          3. Little known tidbit about operation urgent fury: the US suffered significantly higher KIA than they reported. The additional dead were added to the death toll of the Beirut barracks bombing which had occurred less than 48 hours before the invasion.

        2. you dont fight the north koreans or iranians w weekend warriors. and you dont fight the chinese navy w 1%er yachts.

          1. You’re so right!

            Remember when the Chinese Navy tried to bomb California?

            We were so lucky that Tom Cruise was able to team up with Steven Seagal and stop them by seducing the Chinese Admiral’s hot but disaffected daughter!

            1. I thought that was Daniel Craig?

              1. I think Daniel Craig seduced the Admiral.

            2. well terran, thank god john belushi shot the chinese navy down

            3. What about Chuck Norris?

              1. Check Norris was busy beating back the Swiss menace.

    2. You must have missed class yesterday.

      We have a Global Force For Good(TM) we need to use as a Keynesian Economic Stimulator(batteries not included) or we won’t be able to afford to pay attention to the peril of children dying their hair red while drinking hand sanitizer.

      It’s for the children.

  3. If this place allowed you to post images, I would *totally* post that Farnsworth meme.

  4. the differences between Democrats and Republicans are largely semantic.

    I think you mean “symbolic”. Not to be too pedantic.

    1. I think the best adjective here is “rhetorical.”

      1. I think that “largely none” would be best.

        1. No, they say different stuff sometimes.

          1. I submit the best adjective is “superficial”. In every sense of the word.

          2. but do they DO diff stuff, or is it all statist?

            1. Now that has to be a rhetorical question!

            2. So, which flavor of vanilla do you like, 03? Vanilla, or Vanilla Bean? I’m told there IS a difference in taste, after all. Or is it all just vanilla?

              1. There is more difference between Vanilla and Vanilla Bean than there is between Team Red and Team Blue.

              2. dont puke ur gay on me darius

        2. “Illusory” is the word you’re looking for.

          1. I’m going with “immaterial”.

            1. “Insignificant”.

            2. “Floccinaucinihilipipification”

          2. I’m going with ‘phantasmagorical’.

            1. “Floccinaucinihilipipification”; I’ve been waiting to use that one.

              1. Osculum infame.

              2. Groovus, you spelled it wrong: it’s “floccinaucinihilipilification”, not “floccinaucinihilipipification”.

                1. It’s the pili that always get you.

                  I did spell that from memory, BTW.

                  1. Spell check didn’t catch that? Shame.

                  2. It’s the pili that always get you.

                    To be fair, it is easy to get pili and pipi confused when you are discussing the difference between D and R.

                    1. Damn squirrels!

                      My point was that pili and pipi are not too different/.

  5. So he is in favor of perpetual welfare for foreigners as long as it is provided throught the Defense Department.

  6. If America wants to run the world, then can the world also vote in the US elections ?

    1. America World!
      America World!
      It’s party time;
      It’s excellent!

      1. Is that WW intro the pre or post corporate sponsorship?

    2. ive heard many foreign nationals say exactly that Notsure.

    3. No; he stressed American leadership, not American partnership. Most people don’t get a say on who leads them (in regards to gov’t).

  7. His war boner is huge.

    1. Throbbing and sturdy.

    2. sustained turgidity is key

    3. Probably trying to compensate for his actual boner.

  8. Any positives on Rubio’s record?

    1. He believes in strict limits on government when controlled by Democrats.

      1. Except for foreign wars where he complains that the democrats are not doing enough in places like Libya and Iran.

        1. Don’t forget Syria.

    2. He’s supported big-time by the Tea Party, which as several commenters here will remind us, is in no way co-opted like the ucky, useless Occutard [bowel] movement.

      They’re for limited gov’t. They said so!

      1. One of the big blind spots of many ‘conservatives’ is that the hate welfare unless its funneled through the Defense Department.

        1. I think you’re onto something.

          Maybe we can label poor people as being a threat to society, and just fold their welfare into Defense. Boom, problem solved for both Teams.

          1. Maybe we can label poor people as being a threat to society, and just fold their welfare into Defense. Boom, problem solved for both Teams.

            You do realize this was the entire point of ObamaneyCare, Jim? Sans the defense folding, since increases are baselined anyway.

      2. I’m not sure who around here still thinks the Tea Party is anything but coopted.

        I know I have been sadly disappointed by the SoCon tribal-Repub takeover of the TP.

        1. John and Tulpa are the only ones, as far as I know.

          1. It wasn’t co-opted, just a victim of identity theft. Like classical liberalism.

            90% of the big govt conservatives calling themselves Tea Party have never been to a rally.

        2. John was apoplectic when I told him that co-opting was a done deal.

      3. Yesterday I watched Cavuto interview a ‘representative’ from the TP who talked about how great it was that Mexicans were going back to Mexico because it was leading to lower unemployment for Americans.

        1. How can one be a “representative” of an amorphous group? That’s like me claiming to be a representative of Con Air fans.

          1. I dunno. Ask Cavuto who presented her as one.

          2. “Con Air?! Con shit!”

    3. He’s pro immigration?

      1. The only reason Rubio is pro immigration has everything to do with a little island south of florida. If his surname was “Blond” he would likely support sharks with frickin laser beams patrolling the florida straits.

  9. “Everywhere we look, we are presented with opportunities for American soldiers to die.”


  10. *barf*

  11. I’m sure the citizens of Nanking were soooo grateful that the U.S. forced Japan to stop being isolationist.

    I’m sure the citizens living in Greece are sooooo grateful that the CIA pumped money into the socialist party in a bid to starve the communists from getting electoral support.

    Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Philipinos slaughtered in the aftermath of the Spanish American war, who should be soooo grateful that they died on American bayonets rather than having their children die on Japanese bayonets two generations later – oh wait! that happened anyway!

    It’s guys like Rubio who are ensuring that the TEA party will be nothing more than a loyal opposition to the alliance of big government Democrats and Republicans that run the show.

  12. I’m really tired of the “but what if we minded our own business in WWII?” meme. The Axis Powers were a genuine threat to America the way that Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Bosnia/Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and yes, even al Qaeda are not.

    1. How? Seriously.
      Before the nuclear ICBM this country enjoyed geographical security.
      They may have launched a successful invasion of Hawaii, but the mainland? No threat at all.

      1. If Hitler had gotten his hands on the Ark of the Covenant, no army in the world could have stood up to him.

        1. TOP. MEN.

        2. He did, he is hiding out in his secret bunker in Brazil with the rest of the Nazi refugees, while they hatch their new plan for world dominance. Don’t you realize that all of the UFOs are really Nazi flying machines? And bigfoot is a humman/ape mix with genetically altered DNA that the Nazis will use against us lesser beings when they begin their invasion. I learned all of this on those internets.

          1. Really, I thought they were all in stasis underneath Europe in a cave that is only accessible from the Atlantic Ocean waiting to be brought out of stasis by a band playing just the right song in just the right location.

            1. They’re on the Moon. Come, do try to keep up.

              1. They’re on the Moon.



              2. Well maybe they are now. But it’s only because Eris wrecked the plans to awaken them from beneath Bavaria. I suppose the the rest of the Nazis were transported to the moon after all concerned parties left Ingolstadt.

            2. I haven’t heard an Illuminatus! reference in awhile.

            3. 49o 56′, 41o 43’N.

              Play “Nearer My God to Thee”

          2. Humman? Is that some sort of human-hummus hybrid? So Bigfoot is really a human/HUMMUS/ape hybrid (which is sort of redundant; humans are apes)?

            1. It’s actually a Hummer/human hybrid. The army is rolling them out in the Fall ’12 military fashion line, along with Hello Kitty camo and bellbottom tanks.

            2. So STEVE SMITH reeks of chickpeas?

            3. So STEVE SMITH reeks of chickpeas?

              1. Yes, but not for the reason you are suggesting.


              1. Fuck all of you, and Reason for not giving me my edit feature, you bastards!!!

        3. I didn’t realize that was a documentary. Thanks for clearing that up.

    2. As douchey as he is, Fareed Zakaria once wrote a piece for Time (I believe) castigating people for the constant comparisons of Iraq (or maybe Iran) to Nazi Germany.

      Comparing GDP, resource pools, level of development, etc., the threats are nothing even remotely similiar, but people continue to act like every day we don’t invade Syria is one step closer to all of Europe being conquered.

      1. In any case, that would be Europe’s problem — also nothing for us to give a shit about.

        1. Well ya znaiyu eta, y ti zynaiesh eta, no Marco Rubio doesn’t know that.

          1. Da, ya vas harosho panimayu;-)

            1. Don’t tell me you speak Russian as well? If I recall correctly, Jim learned some at college — what’s your story?

              1. Yep. Long story, and somewhat heartbreaking. I’m working on UKR fluency.

      2. Don’t forget the uniforms…nobody has cooler uniforms than the Nazis had.

        1. That may have been true three years ago, when the pocket square was making a raging comeback among the “know” crowd. However, since the advent of Mad Men and the poseurs it’s produced, the pocket square, a staple of the Nazi uniform, has taken a bro-fueled dive.

          You may still be correct that they have the coolest uniforms, but without that fresh pocket square flair, I think the Huns’ anti-establishment roots look has a chance of taking the lead.

      3. The really crazy one is people who say Iran is a bigger threat than the USSR ever was.

    3. If we had kept our schnozz out of WWI, which definitely did not concern us, then the Third Reich probably wouldn’t have appeared.

      1. our late entry wasnt the diff brah

      2. Or if we had fought on the Germans’ side. Which we did in that one Harry Turtledove novel.

    4. If we hadn’t fought WW2 it’s possible the Nazis and Soviets would still be at war today. And we wouldn’t have had the problems with the Cold War.

  13. “I am *always* cautious about generalizations”

    Nice one.

    1. Ha, I didn’t catch that. Nice.

  14. “We have met the terrorists and them is us.”

    (Apologies to Walt Kelly)

  15. For example, would a world order where China, at least as we know it right now, was the leading power be as benignly disposed to the political and economic aspirations of other nations as we are?

    In the immortal words of Groovus, “YELLOW PERIL!!!”

    1. Hey, I’ve experienced first-hand in my household the horror that results from a Chinese person running things. You don’t want every family in America to end up with a bunch of unused exercise equipment and like five dogs, do you?!

      1. You can always sell the exercise equipment and wok the dogs.

        1. wok the dogs

          Isn’t that what Obama does?

          1. Lacist!

        2. Every time I try to sell something, I’m given an impassioned speech about how she was just about to start using that, this very week.

          1. You in big trouble, Mister!

      2. You don’t want every family in America to end up with a bunch of unused exercise equipment and like five dogs, do you?!

        Yes. Why suffer alone. Although we only have 1 dog and 2 cats. I keed I keed.

    2. Other than bullying Taiwan and trying to stop countries from inviting the Dalai Lama, China has no foreign policy other than opening trade agreements. It does not want to tell other countries how they must be run, it is not on some crusade to impose their way of living on others, nor have I heard of Chinese drones and assassination squads killing people all over the world.

      Which of the 2 foreign policies do you think the rest of the world prefers ?

      1. China has 1.34 Billion people in it, about 1/5 of the world’s population.

        They have plenty of targets for their drones and assassination squads, without having to leave home.

      2. There are some good books out there on the history of Sino-international relations, and except for a few brief exceptions, throughout their history China has largely been content to let others be, as long as they provide commerce and don’t attack Chinese settlements.

        1. So as long as the US stays out of Irvine and San Marino, we’re good?

          1. I’ll assume those are references to places in California, which I have only a minimum geographical knowledge of.

        2. Explain what the history of the fucking Song Dynasty has to do with the PRC, which has invaded Korea, Vietnam, and Tibet in its relatively short history.

          1. 1) Tibet had been a part of China for several hundred years, and was trying to break off in the chaos of the civil war.

            I certainly sympathize with the Tibetans, and wish them well in all their anti-Han endeavors, but to pretend like there wasn’t a pre-existing Chinese claim on the territory for hundreds of years is absurd.

            2) I think you’re leaving out some very significant events that triggered their “invasion” of Korea. I seem to recall the US being involved long before ChiCom armies crossed any borders…

            3) Vietnam isn’t excusable. The official line is that the Vietnamese were pounding on the Chinese allies in Cambodia, which just makes it that much worse if you’re admitting that you’re friendly with Pol Pot.

            But if you’re using a single border-war that lasted all of a couple of months to somehow paint them as murderously expansionest, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

      3. They’ve always been more inward looking, perhaps because they don’t have some ideal like “democracy” that requires zealous evangelism amongst those who haven’t adopted The Way.

        1. The Way


          1. The Banana Boat religion?

            1. The Banana Boat religion?


              Not a religion, more a philisophy/ethical system.

              1. I just can’t hang with “Daoism” for what has been “Taoism” all my life.

                And yes, the Banana Boat Song.

          2. Good job Ex, you caught my meta-joke.

        2. I mean seriously? You would never claim US foreign policy is going to follow the pattern of medieval Europe or Ancient Rome because they happen to be part of the same civilization. Why do you assume that Chinese foreign policy from thousands of years ago is going to be followed by the PRC today?

          1. US is following the pattern of Rome: Spread influence throughout the known world by military force until the citizens find out they can elect themselves a dole, at which point the whole empire collapses from within.

      4. They are still pretty aggressive about their territorial claims (Spratly Islands, etc.) Whether that should be the US’ problem is the question.

        1. Oh sure, if they think something is “theirs”, then they’ll send armies to get it.

          But they don’t, in the words of some dude who was like hundreds of years old and thus is completely indecipherable, “go in search of monsters to destroy”.

          1. They haven’t been in a position to go very far on their monster hunts until recently. And it’s human nature to convince yourself that something that you would find useful is “yours”.

            1. Wake me up when Chinese drones (which I have no doubt they own) are blasting people on the other side of the earth from them.

              Until then, in foreign policy, they pale in comparison with what the US spews.

    3. Maybe you should consult the other nations about how “benignly disposed” to their “political and economic aspirations” the US looks from their side.

      1. Judging by the number of countries begging us to keep subs in their waters / install missile defense apparatus in their countries…. they certainly don’t think we’re the worst of the bunch.

        1. Maybe the US could cut down the deficit by requiring the affected countries to pay for the upkeep of these military forces in their territories.

          Call it “protection money”.

    4. That would be a hilarious name for an Asian punk band.

      1. It’s been done, several times I believe.

        Here’s one:

  16. Rubio send your son to drive around the fucking desert waiting to be blown up by a booby trap. Shape that future.

    1. And like the rest of the chicken hawks he was to busy to join the US military

      1. Rubio was born in 1971, just the right age to enlist and serve in the first Gulf War to drive the f…kers out of Kuwait. He was only 30 when 9/11 happened and you remember how critical and patriotic it was to enlist then.
        [heck, even Bush’s twin daughters signed up for Dad’s war.] I’m sure
        I heard something about Rubio being Special Forces or something?

        Seriously, even a pacifist might join up if the U.S. were attacked, but Rubio’s statements don’t seem to pick and choose between just and unjust wars. So, guys like him should have served when they were age-appropriate to keep their war-mongering mouths shut.

  17. as benignly disposed to the political and economic aspirations of other nations as we are?

    HA HA HA HA HA HA… Oh wait, he’s not joking. Shit.

    1. ive used ur screen name on other sites…secret LW conspiracy sites u cant know about.

  18. “I always start by reminding people that I have HUGE ears.”

    1. From now on, that’s going to be the first thing I notice about him. LOL

      1. See? You aren’t supposed to notice the *fnord*

  19. Fucking neocon piece of shit.

    1. But his hair is absolutely perfect.

      1. He even looks like a dick.

        1. To little old ladies in NWFL he’s a dreamboat. He is what they wish their disappointing off-spring had become.

          1. That’s how Ted Bundy did it too.

  20. benignly disposed to the political and economic aspirations of other nations as we are?


  21. I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask it again: Why should American governmental entities use American resources to send Americans to work and die for the sake of third- and second-world shitholes?

    Yeah — a free, prosperous, morally governed Afghanistan would be great, much like winged horses and magic powers, but retarded, unattainable fantasies are just that: retarded and unattainable.

    I don’t give a shit about Chieftain #153 and his merry band of sand-strewn followers. I sure as fuck wouldn’t be willing to put my children in any danger for them, let alone send them to die for them.

    If the population of Shithole ABC123 assemble and suddenly and request annexation, I’ll talk. Until that moment, they can eat shit and finance their own wars and pay to solve their own grievances with their own money.

    Interventionism sucks. It would do Rubio well to realize that.

    1. It’s a jobs program. I’m sure you live within a hundred miles of some facility that makes things that go *boom*.
      A vote against military action is a vote to put those people out of work. And that is political suicide.
      It’s about politics and nothing else.

  22. Great, another neocon in the GOP. Well then, we now simply must get this guy as the VP for the Romulan RINO. The Romulan acts too passive. We need a real war monger to get us bogged down in another middle east clusterfuck.

    Only one question remains. Is Rubio a white Hispanic, or is he one of the good brown Hispanics?

    1. He’s a Republican and not very swarthy, so definitely a white Hispanic.

      1. so he hasnt shot someone then?

    2. Isn’t he ineligible to be VP since he was born in Cuba? Due to the line of succession and all?

      1. I thought he was born in Miami, making him a natural born citizen even though his parents were still Cuban citizens at the time.

        If I was Romney, I might name him VP just to get the Dems to do a complete about-face on their previous casual dismissal of questions about eligibility to be President.

        1. If I was Romney, I might name him VP just to get the Dems to do a complete about-face on their previous casual dismissal of questions about eligibility to be President.

          Remember their bitching about McStain? Pretty weaksauce.

        2. He’s just an uncle Juan! Shilling for whitey!

        3. You’re right – sorry. Memory was confused. What I saw was an article saying he couldn’t be VP because he was a naturalized citizen (he was born in Miami, but neither parent a US citizen). Sure this will be discussed more since he seems to be the main contender for VP.

        4. I saw a comment somewhere in which some anti-Romney idiot was trying to convince people that Romney is ineligible to be president, since his father was not born in the US.

  23. This is the sort of thing that makes me really miss the Cold War. When we don’t have an Enemy, we find far too many excuses to fight.

  24. …a robust and muscular foreign policy…

    USA: International Tuff Gai

    1. What does America want to be? An pack-leading ALPHA or some pussy-whipped beta?

      1. Isn’t the government more like the Zetas?

  25. OH Drat!! He’s just past the max age to enlist in the military!!

  26. A chicken in every pot. A defense contractor in every congressional district.

  27. And the baton is passed from the Neo-Con Republican old guard establishment to the next generation of young Neo-Con rent seeking hypocrites. This one happens to be brown, charismatic, and well spoken… it’s a dream come true!

    Rand Paul and Mike Lee who??? Fucking trouble makers.

  28. Unlike Charlie Korsmo, Rubio’s really grown up since Hook.

    1. Rubio RUBIO RU..BI..OOOO!!!

  29. “The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. ”

    I thought it was connected to making little girls cry at airports.

    1. He should take a trip to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia so he can point out where all the hamlets are. I’m not sure the locals would understand what he was talking about.

    2. Blowing up Afghani weddings, fingering incontinent grandmas at the airport, selling guns to Mexican murder squads, locking up millions of people for unauthorized self-medication, beating mentally handicapped homeless people to death in the street, cameras on every street corner and flying killer robots covering every inch of ground, emptying a full magazine into a Pomeranian…

      Keeping America safe requires vigilance on every front.

      1. Greatest comment EVER!!!! LOL

  30. We need to make a new rule that every member of congress who votes to engage in any foreign campaign of agression, gets their ass on the front lines. Let’s see how big of a brave chicken hawk they are then.

    1. or re-instate the draft w/o exemptions for teh white tribe

      1. The draft is slavery. I’ll pull a John Kerry, burn my uniform and throw my medals onto the White House lawn if they try the draft again.

        1. OK – I am being influenced by a kids tv movie (Mulan), but what about making every congressman who votes to engage in “military action” send at least one member of his family to serve as proof of the importance of the mission? Mulan fought to defend China – why not Rubio’s kids to support America? Maybe it would cut down on the number of “military” operations we engage in.

          1. You mean to support America’s interests abroad?

  31. (*barf*)

  32. Marco Rubio was assembled from standard parts by Kagan Bros. Inc. at their “Murder Creek NeoCon Fabrication Lair”.(Codename: Sink Hole)
    Model: NP-L-70 Type S(C)PB(W) w/ NSS091101 software upgrade.

  33. Here’ a small list of leaders who believed their countries should go around invading or meddling in other countries just because ‘they could’:

    Julius Caeser
    Ghenghis Khan
    Napoleon Bonoparte
    Benito Mussolini
    Adolph Hitler
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Chairman Mao
    Saddan Hussein

    Great role models for Mr. Rubio.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.