Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz Joins Rand Paul in Bashing Marco Rubio's Reckless Foreign Policy

|

Florida Senator-in-name Marco Rubio has received foreign policy fire from both of his fellow "Tea Party" Senate colleagues** also fighting it out for the GOP presidential nomination. Rand Paul has been and is still doing so, we'll see below, but more newsy is that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is also piling on.

Some political watchers in my social networking universes believe, for reasons I can neither gainsay nor endorse, that Ted Cruz is currently a most-likely-to-succeed in an imagined GOP field where Donald Trump and Ben Carson have been definitively winnowed out.

If that's so, it's encouraging that he's also going after Rubio on foreign policy, as Bloomberg reports, even taking up the Rand Paul technique of making Rubio's foreign policy look bad by saying it's the same as Hillary Clinton's:

"Senator Rubio emphatically supported Hillary Clinton in toppling [Muammar] Qaddafi in Libya. I think that made no sense," Cruz told Bloomberg Politics….He argued that the 2011 bombings that toppled the Libyan leader didn't help the fight against terrorists. "Qaddafi was a bad man, he had a horrible human rights record. And yet … he had become a significant ally in fighting radical Islamic terrorism."

"The terrorist attack that occurred in Benghazi was a direct result of that massive foreign policy blunder," Cruz said…

"If you look at President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and for that matter some of the more aggressive Washington neo-cons, they have consistently mis-perceived the threat of radical Islamic terrorism and have advocated military adventurism that has had the effect of benefiting radical Islamic terrorists," he said.

On Syria, Cruz inveighed against Rubio and Clinton, Obama's former secretary of state, for supporting a no-fly zone and arming "the so-called moderate rebels." "I think none of that makes any sense. In my view, we have no dog in the fight of the Syrian civil war," he said, arguing that Rubio and Clinton "are repeating the very same mistakes they made in Libya. They've demonstrated they've learned nothing."

Cruz said his decision-making test on military action would be about whether there's a "real threat" to American security….

Cruz also keeps saying he's not some withdraw-from-the-world-militarily loon and was winningly unwilling to lump all Muslims in as violent threats.

This shows some real growth or strategic change for Cruz, who back in June, as Matt Welch wrote about here, was trying to make sure he was to the interventionist right of Paul. Now he's at least not afraid to echo Paul in attacking Rubio for foreign policy recklessness.

Doubtless Cruz may see need to distinguish himself from Paul in foreign policy as well as the campaign goes on, and he did, Bloomberg paraphrased, portray "himself as a third way between the stalwart, non-interventionist views of Senator Rand Paul and pro-interventionist policies in pursuit of spreading democracy and human rights through the Middle East that Rubio espouses."

That Rand Paul is still bashing Rubio similarly isn't really news per se, but it's good that it keeps happening, as per an article by Sen. Paul that ran in Time magazine, which tried the intended-to-appeal-to-GOP-voters tack of first linking Rubio's foreign policy thought with Hillary Clinton's, and pointing out its relation to both ignoring the Constitution and endless debt (though the idea that a modal GOP voter still cares in an intelligent way about the Constitution seems weaker and weaker by the day):

The Clinton/Rubio foreign policy advocated for direct force to enact regime change in Libya and Syria. Their only difference of opinion was in the degree of direct force necessary. Clinton and Obama tend to intervene but primarily by armaments and air power. Rubio, on the other hand, beats his chest and insists we must also have American boots on the ground in LibyaSyriaIraqNigeria, and anywhere else terrorism arises.

Currently, 31 factions in 16 countries pledge allegiance to ISIS. Were we ever to have a substantive debate over foreign policy, one might want to ask Mr. Rubio which countries he will send troops to—or maybe it's a shorter list of which countries won't he send troops to.

The Clinton/Rubio foreign policy calls for a no-fly zone over Syria in airspace in which Russia already flies — a recipe for confrontation. We shouldn't be surprised since the Clinton/Rubio foreign policy also called for admitting Georgia to NATO at a time when Russia already had her tentacles in Georgia — an invitation to war with Russia.

When I forced the Foreign Relations Committee to debate an authorization of military force against ISIS, Senator Rubio and McCain insisted that the new authorization be unlimited temporally or geographically. Basically, they want a war without end against an undefined enemy in an unspecified region of the world…

Senator Rubio wrote the President at the time that he saw "no legal reason preventing" him from using his "commander-in-chief" powers to attack ISIS. His letter makes no mention of the Constitutional requirement to seek Congressional authority.

….I hope voters will seek out a leader who will learn from history and not pursue a reckless policy that seeks to liberate the world but in reality traps us under a mountain of debt and beguiles us into perpetual war.

**Correction: Post originally referred to all three Senators as part of "Class of '10"; Cruz was elected in 2012.

NEXT: Do You Care About Non-Hysterical Reactions to Current Events? Then Support Reason!

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good thing you got tenure, Brian. The boss said it was bash Cruz day.

  2. When are we going to get some Tulsi Gabbard profile n’ coverage? She’s currently my favorite Democrat. Let Shikha do an interview with her. They could talk some Hindu Nationalism, maybe get in a catfight .

    1. When are we going to get some Tulsi Gabbard profile n’ coverage? She’s currently my favorite Democrat.

      Why?

      1. She is willing to speak against Obama on national security. I like her too, she seems to be an independent thinker
        http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro…..id/704159/

        1. Hold on….. Wingnut.com says Obama is a more feckless version of Neville Chamberlain but now others say he might provoke a nuclear confrontation with Russia?

          I can’t keep the crazy conspiracy theories straight anymore.

          1. If you want attention, just ask.

            1. I wasn’t sure what he was going on about until he replied to Hyperion too. Now I just see a toddler jumping up and down in the candy aisle.

              1. Oh, and BTW, it looks like you got a job offer.

                1. Cool, I didn’t expect that. It’s too bad I’m more of a designer

                2. Hmmm, that might be suitable for Mrs. Candy…

          2. Who are you talking to?

            Two can play at this game of having made up arguments: Give me back my jacket, Buttplug! I said you could borrow it, not have it, and you never gave it back!! Give me back my fucking jacket!

        2. Meh, I need to be convinced. I can tell you this, she’s not going to stray far off the Dem narrative or she’ll be off the plantation sooner than later.

          Sure, in the GOP, there’s infighting between the establishment and the small libertarian wing. But in the Dem party, there’s only lockstep groupthink or else. This Tulsi chick gets any big ideas that don’t conform and she’ll be joining the tea bagging rat fuckers soon enough.

          1. in the Dem party, there’s only lockstep groupthink or else

            Yes, the tree-hugging hippie pacifists in the Dem party are JUST LIKE the Obama drone-mongers! JUST ALIKE!

            1. No but they still march in lockstep.

            2. Given that the “pacifists” are only against Republican-led wars and haven’t been seen since early ’09, one expects they get along just fine with Democrat warmongers. 🙂

          2. This Tulsi chick gets any big ideas that don’t conform and she’ll be joining the tea bagging rat fuckers soon enough.

            From what I’ve read about her, they keep her around mainly because of the much-coveted “diversity” factor. In a party full of Harry Reids and Clintons, they’re desperate for it.

    2. I second this.

  3. If Cruz sees a better position to stake out nearer to Paul and leaving Rubio with McCain/Graham, that is good news isn’t it?

    1. It’s not unexpected. But yes, it’s good news.

    2. It is a VERY good sign for Paul and those who broadly share his views. It means there’s political real estate worth fighting for over there.

  4. Cruz is probably the best major party candidate after Rand Paul. Granted, that’s more of an indictment of the state of the major parties…

    1. At this point I’m hoping it ends up being Sanders vs. Cruz. I wouldn’t vote for either of them, but I don’t think I’d be disgusted if those were the choices given to me.

      But I expect it to be Hillary vs., ummmmm, somebody from the GOP worse than Cruz.

      1. I would probably vote for Cruz. He’s the only other GOP candidate I would vote for other than Rand.

      2. Well I assumed I would be voting for Johnson when whole shit show started anyways.

    2. Cruz has said a lot of dumb stuff to the point where I actually prefer Fiorina.

      1. That just makes you and idjit.

        1. No actually it makes me informed and capable of judgement. Feel free to emulate.

          1. You can have Fiorina. Draw up some citizenship papers and sign ’em in maple syrup and harp seal blood. Then you can coronate Carly, or whatever it is you do to select your leaders up there.

  5. the Rand Paul technique of making Rubio’s foreign policy look bad by saying it’s the same as Hillary Clinton’s

    Well, that sounds pretty accurate to me. A neocon war monger is a neocon war monger after all.

    1. Exactly

  6. “How do we identify killer cops?”

    Ummm…they’re cops

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/…../76216998/

    1. The answer lies in better testing of police candidates

      Of course. The answer couldn’t be to castrate the police unions and then prosecute officers just like everyone else.

  7. My Syria plan: over the next few months slowly build-up special operations (and their support groups) in the country, and then start sending in more conventional infantry and mechanized units, eventually building an expensive, impromptu base to house everyone. Most importantly: my Syria plan will have a feckless, costly strategy that will have will be devoid of useful leadership and will have little, if any, effect on the situation.

    1. You sound like a prime candidate for Sec State.

    2. You had me at costly. /MIC

    3. Let’s dump a few more piles of weapons into the region first, then once they’re in the hands of ISIS we can say your plan is the only reasonable course of action.

      1. Surround the region with those South Korean robo-turrets and declare the area within 500 meters no-go.

    4. My plan involves building a new multi billion dollar embassy.

      1. I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. AND make you secretary of state.

      2. And we need to control costs by hiring ex-military contractors to guard the multi billion dollar embassy. That way, if the shit the fan, we can leave them twisting in the wind.

        1. Letting people die seems like a very effective way to bend the cost curve. I like it.

    5. Oooh, that sounds super and if you could develop some formula that specifies that we need to kill a specific number of enemy combatants to declare ourselves the winners, I might even consider you for Secretary of State *and* Secretary of Defense!

      1. The body count strategy is proven.

  8. OT: The Sixers defeated the Lakers to win their first game of the season. Kobe went 4-17 from 3. That is impressive.

  9. These kittens have a more coherent plan than Clinton/Rubio.

    1. I like cats better than Clinton/Rubio.

    2. They’re less likely to torture mice to death for the pleasure of it than Hillary.

    3. 1. Try to fit in ridiculously tiny box
      2. Be cute
      3. Profit?

      1. I’d vote for that.

  10. Lil’ Taco won the Sheldon Adelson ‘War with Iran’ PAC sweepstakes – no doubt he has the support of all the Iran-war-boner crowd.

    1. [Babble Intensifies]


      1. Adelson’s attraction to Rubio is in no small part centered on the Florida senator’s outspoken support for Israel, an issue near and dear to the billionaire’s heart. Rubio has reached out to Adelson more often than any other 2016 candidate, sources close to Adelson say, and has provided him with the most detailed plan for how he’d manage America’s foreign policy.

        Since entering the Senate in 2011, Rubio has met privately with the mogul on a half-dozen occasions. In recent months, he’s been calling Adelson about once every two weeks, providing him with meticulous updates on his nascent campaign. During a recent trip to New York City, Rubio took time out of his busy schedule to speak by phone with the megadonor.

        Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/…..z3t8C8Dftt

        War with Iran = $500 million in PAC money.

      2. Cytotoxic can predict the future.

        1. I predict…Gillespie will (strains with concentration)….write a foreign policy column that essentially boils down to “The Iraq War sucked so all intervention sucks”. And it will be cliff-dropping material for that and several other reasons.

          1. So you support a US ground war with Iran?

          2. Did you predict that round of Buttplug babble too?

            1. NO FAIR REMINDING US HOW MUCH THE GOP WANTS WAR WITH IRAN!

              NO FAIR!

            2. “Did you predict that round of Buttplug babble too?”

              Give turd a break; he’s trying to find someone to blame for Obo’s NEW wars.

          3. The Iraq War sucked so all intervention sucks”

            Just the Iraq war? Can you name an intervention that didn’t suck? Maybe we could make a list of “suck or no suck” and compare lengths…

            1. That last sentence is dripping with innuendo. Can somebody more clever than I please insert a dirty joke. Thanks in advance.

            2. The initial invasion of Afghanistan, driving Al-Shabbab out of power, driving AQIM out of power, driving AQAP out of the territories it held, creating Kurdistan

              Non-interventionism is a religious bleef with no connection to reality.

    2. I’m willing to bet Buttplug regularly calls Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell niggers and imagines he’s not racist for doing so. The ‘progressive’ mind really is a fascinating specimen, a prism through which consistency actually becomes a vice.

  11. There are a few somewhat good rebels but they generally suck at fighting and the weapons they get from America or the Gulfies end up with the bad guys. The good news is that the ‘Democratic Forces of Syria’ (an umbrella group of Syrian Kurds and allied Arabs) are starting to succeed in the country’s north. I kind of get the impression the YPG is trying to train Arabs like the CIA was, but the Kurds are actually having some success.

    Lightbulb: Should the USG just outsource all of its ME stuffs to the Kurds and Israelis? Would cost some but I can’t believe it would be a worse deal than the present condition.

  12. OT: A senior fellow of the Cato Institute talks about ZEDEs. He is a member of one of the ZEDE governing boards and says the first one will be online within a couple months. Bonus: physical appearance is PERFECT for the public image of a privatized libertarian city-state.

    http://www.cato.org/publicatio…..g-honduras

    1. Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum
      Economics ain’t zero sum
      If you’re a socialist you’re off your rocker
      Go and walk the plank and sink down to Davy Jones’ locker

  13. This late, I just don’t see Trump + Carson with their combined majority in the polls slipping enough for #3 to win the nomination. Analysts are mistakenly putting Trump & Carson in another class, thinking they can’t act like other candidates & pick up votes as they drop out. You watch, they will. Trump kept breaking perceived ceilings on his support, & he’ll continue to do so.

    1. Trump and Carson have seen their popularity fall in the last week.

      1. Yeah I’d say they’ve hit their peak; as people drop out, the voters get more ‘serious’ for lack of a better term, and the second string candidates slowly gain ground. Trump definitely and likely Carson too are like the Scottish nationalist movement: the eccentric idea people like to toy with in polls, but when it comes to actually voting in the referendum, cooler heads prevail by a wide majority.

    2. “Trump kept breaking perceived ceilings on his support, & he’ll continue to do so.”

      His crip impersonation, I’m sure gained him many, many votes. Maybe next time, he can put on black face and sing “Mammy!”

    3. I don’t see Trump picking up much support from any candidates dropping out. The truth is Donald Trump isn’t anyone’s second choice. It’s not like anyone’s out there saying “I was going to vote for (Jeb or Walker or Jindal or…), but since I can’t have him, I’ll vote for Trump”.

      1. Thissy this.

  14. This shows some real growth or strategic change for Cruz,

    The latter. Cruz is the most intelligent presidential candidate we’ve had since Clinton, but he’d sacrifice a whole troop of Girl Scouts to the Dark One if it meant winning the GOP nomination and, opposed only by the withered carcass of Hillary!, the presidency.

    FDR ran to the right of Hoover’s interventionism, and we all remember what Obama said about the imperial presidency, the arrogance of foreign, the intrusive security state, the sanctity of American gun ownership, and everything else. There is no limit to the lies candidates will tell to secure more votes, and the electorate, media, and historians are always prepared to make excuses for presidents who break their word.

    1. I’m working on the analogy. Sacrificing the girl scouts is bad… Do I follow that right?

      1. Do you want Satan to get all the cookies?

        1. When those cookies finance ‘social justice’… yes.

    2. Rand Paul entered medical school without having an undergraduate degree. Why? Because he scored so high on the medical school entrance exams. I only know of one other physician that accomplished this Herculean task. Rand Paul is smarter than Ted Cruz. A good debater and memorizer does not equal intelligence

  15. Those who continue t dismiss Cru do so at their own risk.

    I have said several times here that Cruz is a libertarian with a small L and now you see it for the truth.

    Cruz will win the nomination and I can only hope that the American voter won’t elect Hilliary just because she has a veejayjay like they elected Obama just because he was half black.

    If Hilliary is elected will she be able to pardon herself ?

    1. “I have said several times here that Cruz is a libertarian with a small L”

      And you were foolish each time. Cruz supports legislation to allow the government to strip citizenship for terrorism. He is soft on domestic spying. If you want to make a case for this guy go ahead but don’t call him ‘libertarian’.

      1. Well, relative to pretty much all of the major party candidates but Paul, he probably does lean more libertarian.

  16. I really wish everyone would stop saying “boots on the ground,” and even “troops on the ground,” when a simple “ground troops” will do.

  17. This is begging for trolling.

    There’s an opportunity to comment, and I’m sure Gavin Newsom would love to hear from some of us….

  18. I was sickened when Cruz called bona fide war hero (as in bled for bravery; not in today’s diluted usage) Chuck Hagel an anti-semite in exchange for a few dollops of Adelson cash.
    I was equally sickened by Rand’s betrayal of Ron’s principles, especially signing Tom Cotton letter.
    Cruz’ use of the loaded term NeoCon (as vengeance for AIPAC’s prefering more telegenic Rubio) cannot be written off by Wolf Blitzer et al as Buchananite raving or libertarian loonacy.
    Yes, Cruz is a shameless opportunist but so is Rand.
    The idea of Bibi’s minions in Congress and State Dept. steering us toward ever more intervention (in the spirit of their stooge “W”) has been suppressed from media discussion like a Gahan Wilson monster chained in the basement.
    Hooray for this Cruz stunt as it may allow once-taboo discussion to commence.
    Special interests prefer to operate in darkness. Now that Cruz flicked on the kitchen light switch watch the greasy cockroaches scurry for cover.

    1. Go home Sheldon you’re retarded.

  19. If Cruz wins the nomination, the media will go bonkers and is already starting with his poll numbers going up.

  20. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around Ted Cruz. He’s likely the second most libertarian-friendly person in the (major party) races. At the same time, he’s clearly 100% committed to the religious right. And hell, I’m religious and even anti-abortion, but Cruz still scares me sometimes with how far he goes.

    1. Think of it this way: When The Donald says, “I’ll will bomb ISIS sooo bad! And take ALL their oil. Grrr!” it doesn’t make him an interventionist. He’s just playing his cartoon role. If Cheney, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Libby, Feith — the whole contingent — were to bring a ratshit plan line the ’03 invasion to Trump he’d tell them all, “You’re fired” only because the interventionist plan was stoopid and The Donald is Schmaart.
      So I like Trump in spite of his gung-ho militaristic spouting off.
      By the same token preacher boy Cruz is (like Obama) too smart to believe in a space daddy. He just needs to say god things to be viable.
      The scary-stupid “W” believed in brimstone and WMDs and cumpassunit conservatism. Did you see that grin when he returned from vacation and told the reporter he read “3 Shakespeares and a Camoo” in his spare time.
      Cannot hate a “W” — he’s just a useful AIPAC stooge following orders.
      Trump and Cruz are knowing opportunists, the former wealthy enuf not to have to suck Adelson’s dik for cash.
      The latter opportunistic enuf to jump on fuck-the-NeoCon bandwagon, picking up the Ron Paul support that Ron’s own son squandered.
      Bottom line, don’t take the religious talk seriously.
      Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes moved from Boston to Wash. D.C when he was appointed to the Supreme Court. A reporter asked his wife how they came to their Episcopalean beliefs. She said, “Here in Washington everyone has to be something; and Episcopalean is the least you can be.”

      1. Please point out on the doll where AIPAC touched you.

  21. What I would like to see from a candidate is several things. First is term limits. Even the Presidency has term limits. Second a call to get out of the UN. It is a den of spies which now our current President uses to circumvent our Congress. Third a call to get out of NATO. Why should we be dragged into a World War by a bloodthirsty country like Turkey who supports terriost that we are supposedly fighting. Fourth from an alliance with China and Russia. I don’t believe in their form of government but since I do believe in Freedom it is not my business to tell them what to believe. Besides they are more honorable than most of our allies. Fifth sponser a bill that any Federal elected offical that except anything from a lobbyist including a job after leaving office will be stripped of their Citizenship and wealth and exiled permanently. Now that guy has my vote.

  22. Ted Cruz want to fight Putin! He parrots whatever Paul says. I do not trust Cruz.

    Ted Cruz: How U.S. must push back Putin in Syria @CNN

    http://cnn.it/1LDLskk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.