Marco Rubio

The Rubio/Cruz Foreign Policy Debate Keeps Getting Worse

When Cruz cracks that we'll find out "if sand can glow in the dark," Rubio responds with...this?

|

Remember when Ted Cruz issued a little over-the-top bluster about nuking the Islamic State? "I don't know if sand can glow in the dark," he said last month, "but we're going to find out." Yesterday Marco Rubio responded:

Two more Floridians with a casual attitude toward nuclear annihilation.

Words and political stunts cannot ensure our security. ISIS cannot be filibustered. While some claim they would destroy ISIS, that they would make the sands of the Middle East "glow in the dark," my question is: with what? Because they certainly can't do it with the oldest and smallest Air Force in the history of this country, or with the smallest Army we've had since World War II, or with the smallest and oldest Navy we've had since 1915. Yet these are what we will have thanks to the cuts these candidates have supported and even tried to deepen.

Marco Rubio, ladies and gentlemen. A man who reacts to loose talk about a nuclear war by complaining that the would-be bomber won't put his money where his mouth is.

NEXT: Congressional Republicans Take Obamacare Repeal on a Test Run

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. Li… libertarian… moment?

  2. the oldest and smallest Air Force in the history of this country

    We’re helpless.

    HELPLESS, I tells ya!

    1. I’m pretty sure that, prior to 1947, it was even smaller, especially during the 18th and 19th centuries.

  3. The US military is so puny and pathetic, no wonder everyone thinks ISIS is an existential threat.

    1. Cheer up– If the sand is glowing, it can’t be very dark.

    2. Maybe puny and pathetic by US standards, but still bigger than something like the next ten biggest militaries combined. But how can we fuck with the rest of the world whenever we want unless it’s at least bigger than the next 20 combined?

      1. 20? I don’t know, that still seems kind of weak. I don’t think we will be safe unless we have 51% of all the world’s military assets.

        1. We don’t? I figure that our nuclear arsenal alone would qualify.

      2. “how can we fuck with the rest of the world whenever we want unless it’s at least bigger than the next 20 combined?”

        Well, of course, we just need to wage a campaign along interior lines.

        You know who else waged a campaign along interior lines? First Poland, then turn on France, then back again to take on the USSR…..

      3. Is this true? I doubt it. The military has expensive toys, but not lots of toys compared to others.

        1. Shh, you’re ruining the narrative. And whatever you do don’t talk about all of the non-contractor related welfare that gets funneled through DoD.

    3. It’s amazing to me that we don’t have an army larger than what was used to fight a total, global war. Our doom will be of our own making.

  4. A little context on that Cruz quote? Was he advocating a first nuclear strike? Or was he basically applying our current “eye for an eye” nuclear response doctrine to Iran?

    As to Rubio’s “with what?”, right now today we have thousands of nuclear warheads we can deliver anywhere in the world, anytime we want.

      1. Great!

        So which is it?

        1. He’s advocating a nuclear first strike.

    1. “We’re going to find out” sure sounds like a voluntary first strike.

      1. Maybe. I’ll have to check the vid, later. Because that’s also consistent with believing that a nuclear Iran will use them, and we will retaliate per doctrine.

        1. It’s around the 14 minute mark. I would say it calls clearly for a first strike.

          1. Thanks. Yep, sounds pretty first-strikey.

  5. FYI, Marco- a single B2 would be quite sufficient. You may take your panties off your head, now.

    1. A single current destroyer could probably mission-kill several carriers and their escorts from WW II.

      1. You mean like that $360 million one (the Milwaukee) that had to be towed back home from it’s maiden voyage began?

  6. Whatever. See Goldwater and men’s rooms in the Kremlin. This is just conservative bullshittery, which is a big part of why Cruz is in ascendancy while other more mundane personalities rot.

    Whatever his beliefs may be, Teddy knows how to play up to his audience, and he can Trump at least as well as Donald can.

  7. Our Air Force is the oldest it’s ever been? What a coincidence! So am I!

    I’m older than I once was
    But younger than I’ll be
    That’s not unusual

    1. He’s referring to the years of service on the airframes but that isn’t anywhere near as profound of a claim as Rubio thinks it is either.

      First, in the 1980’s – 90’s we had a good 2 decade lead on fighter technology over the rest of the world so we haven’t had any great driving need to create new models where in the 70’s and prior fighter technology was rapidly evolving so that the service life of a given design was only on the order of 5 – 7 years.

      Second, we could pull our vietnam war era fighters out of mothballs and they would be more than sufficient to deal with every country in the middle east except for those who are our allies

  8. I think the Pentagon should keep spending all their money poorly. We have more admirals than ships, and that is a trend that must continue.

    1. If you hit a ship with a champagne bottle when it’s commissioned, what do you hit an admiral with?

  9. ” or with the smallest Army we’ve had since World War II,…”

    We were fighting a total global war on multiple fronts in WWII, so that is not saying much.

    1. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was saying it is the smallest it has been since BEFORE WWII.

      The army had 174,000 soldiers in 1939. By 1945 it was up to 8.3 million.

  10. Yeah, that’s the problem…

    …it’s just not big enough.

    Asshole Republicans!

  11. Don’t care, Jesse. As long as right-wingers check off boxes about jobz creatorz, those surly safe space college kids, Obamacare, secret-squirrel Mooslim terrorists, and how Obama is coming for your guns I’m good. When it comes to a $700 billion dollar defense budget and ME wars in perpetuity, I say you can’t win them all. Geesch, libertarians, the enemy of the good is the perfect.

    1. At least the other corporatist party has anointed an anti-war candidate as their standard bearer.

      Wait, she voted for what? Eh, that’s surely a fake scandal drummed up by Faux News. Old news is more like it, amirite?

      1. I’m not voting for her and plan to vote Peace and Freedom Party if she is the Dem nominee.

        1. Good choice. The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don’t support.

        2. So you say, of course if the race looks close come November, I’m sure you’ll come back into the fold.

    2. What the fuck are you gabbling about? Do you even know?

      1. I’m saying that it’s time to stop nitpicking about– well, virtually everything the Republican Party represents– and get behind Cruz/{interchangeable Republican asshole} 2016

        1. So, no.

      2. No, he just strings a bunch of buzzwords together and acts like he said something meaningful.

        1. Like many a prepackaged variety, his word salad contains nontrivial amounts of human feces. In his case, though, it’s there intentionally.

    3. Don’t worry, buddy. Obama is going to increase funding for mental health screening. Just hang in there!

    4. Why would the Middle East scuffles have an end. I don’t understand why people believe that would ever happen. It’s like believing murder will end and we can send all the police back to working at McDonalds.

      By my reading of the Constitution, the military is a power unlike the majority of the government, which actually takes up a majority of the budget.

      1. The scuffles will likely never end. Whether we should be scuffling is a different decision. And while I agree that national defense is one of the actual legitimate functions of the Federal Government, that doesn’t mean I have to support giving them a blank check.

  12. What we need is, a new program with the scope, funding and secrecy of the Manhattan Project, to develop a weapon that identifies, tries, convicts, locates, targets and kills all terrorists simultaneously at standoff distances, preferably from the White House, without fear of collateral damage.

    Or, we could limit our interventions to actual national security threats.

    Which is more likely?

    1. Why waste money on having the weapon try and convict them first? Sentence first, verdict afterwards! Isn’t that in the Bill of Rights somewhere, next to the “general welfare” amendment?

    2. Iraq was a national security risk. Or so useful idiots told us so. They also told me that I was insufficiently grateful for their sacrifice for my freedom.

      1. Yes, useful idiots, like the idiot who said this:

        “It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed.”

        1. Is that Hillary Clinton. You have no idea how much time I spend with friends arguing that They shouldn’t vote for her. Are you going for Rubio or Cruz inNovember?

          1. You have no idea how much time I spend with friends arguing that They shouldn’t vote for her.

            Sorry, my fields of fucks lie fallow from famine. You’ll have to wait for the next five-year plan for me to give one.

            1. Fear not, comrade! Under President-Chairman Sanders, the next five year plan will be ready in just under seven years, and through the wise guidance of the Party cadre (and with many noble sacrifices by and of the proletariat), we expect its aims to be largely achieved no later than 2052!

    3. Don’t worry you got your Gen 5 fighter jetz so you can stop wetting your pants about S-300’s from nations that you think we don’t need to attack.

  13. Retardspeak for “Trust me.”

    We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that is part of the price of living in a civilized society.

    Clean and articulate.

  14. Are folks here really worried about Cruz authorizing a nuclear first strike, or just symbolically shitting their pants?

    1. No, I think we are worried that another Republican or Democrat is going to be elected rather than someone who gives a flying fuck about liberty.

      1. Alas, we will end up with either a Democrat or Republican.

        1. Yep. Chosen by Republican and Democrat voters who also don’t give a fuck about liberty.

    2. Nah, we’re just disgusted at somebody who glibly talks about murdering a few hundred million people.

      1. A few hundred million here, a few hundred million there, pretty soon you got an omelet.

      2. I don’t have any idea why anyone would not like a guy who casually talks like that, Jordan. I mean, it’s only talk! That’s no basis on which to judge a person!

        1. You would say that, Nikki. Being the worst and all. 😉

    3. C’mon, Homple. Cruz is going to get sworn in, and then they are going to plop the nuclear “football” briefcase right there on the podium, and he is going to push the button.

  15. Meh. Sounds like an “evil empire” moment, reminiscent of Reagan. Not entirely a bad thing, even for noninterventionists.

  16. It’s horrible. Why do they think people will go for this? Believe it or not, there are people in this country who want peace and don’t get off on talk of drone bomb runs or glassing the desert. This is Rand Paul’s opportunity to shine, yet he just piles on, in his own half-assed way.

    1. This.

      It’s also why I have absolutely given up on looking for any “libertarian-ish” signs in either major party. You might as well look for free speech supporters at a SJW campus rally.

      The two major parties are about as big-government-statist as it is possible to be without going all-out Stalinist. They only differ in which cronies will get the most debt-funded freebies.

      1. I’ve started having this conversation with people.

        Papa Dean is a pretty partisan Repub, and when I asked him “What exactly have the Republicans done with their majorities in Congress that you approve of?”, he had nothing, and it pretty well brought that conversation to a halt.

  17. Ugh, Rubio using that disgusting “you are gutting our military by increasing its already massive budget only slightly massively instead of insanely massively” deception.

    I like Rubio on the economy and on not being Hillary Clinton, but he’s sure obnoxious on foreign policy.

    1. To be fair, most of the candidates are decent on not being Hillary Clinton.

    2. Pretty terrible on civil rights, too, seeing as he is supporting the proggy bill to strip college men of due process:

      In the Senate, meanwhile, presidential candidate Marco Rubio of Florida, Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa, and rising star Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire have teamed with Democratic demagogues Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Claire McCaskill of Missouri in co-sponsoring a bill that would make matters even worse.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/…..-resisting

      The entire article is sickening, as it lays out exactly how supine and gormless the Senate Republicans are.

  18. I’m pretty sure a really high powered laser can make sand glow… for a while anyways. Why you guys all freaking out about nukes. We don’t kill fire ants with dynamite, although I’ll be the first to admit it might be fun. Nuking the ME is the State equivalent of killing fire ants with dynamite. We’ll continue to have never ending low grade guerrilla warfare as long as we keep sticking our thumb in the metaphoric fire ants home in the ME. Lase em, tase em, or nuke em. One way or another we have to either learn to get along, or kill everybody who can’t. Nobody seems to have figured out how to get along yet, so the new crop of candidates offer up some crazy ideas. Remain calm, I don’t think they’re actually making a serious proposal to nuke the ME, even presidential candidates talk shit from time to time. You may have noticed…

  19. Yeah, Marco, the size of our navy had better be good, because they are going to take on the mighty ISIS Navy, am I right? (If there is one, it probably consists of a single leaky fishing boat some Somali pirate traded in return for a rusty AK-47.)

    Sadly, Cruz and Rubio can talk tough all they want, but when it comes to actual experience starting off messy, no-clear-objective wars all over the place, the Hilbeast has them all beat. Ironically, she’s probably the best candidate for wielders of war-boners.

    So where’s the candidate who actually wants to stay the f–k away from foreign trouble spots and let the locals handle it for once? The one who questions the need to borrow yet more money for the utterly thankless task of being world cop? Where’s my libertarian moment?

    1. So where’s the candidate who actually wants to stay the f–k away from foreign trouble spots and let the locals handle it for once?

      He will be seen briefly at the kids’ table before getting hustled offstage for the rest of the campaign. There’s your libertarian moment. Enjoy.

  20. And yet Cato just released a graph showing that Cruz was near the bottom of the list of candidates interventionism.

    He’s not Paul, but he’s much less than almost everyone else running, and the only serious candidate.

  21. his money where his mouth is”??

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.